Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
Converting all vehicles (save some commercial/industrial/military) to fuel as efficient or more than E85 does a few things:
(1) Allows the US to leave the Mid-East, you will never rid hate from this world no matter where it is, its engrained in ever person. And allows to the US to no longer give a rats-azz about that region. It also shift the problem to that of China and the EU.
(2) It does more than any other country to assist in saving the Environment - I am no pinko but I would love to see a joint US-Canada pledge to E85 or better standards that would kick Kyoto and the EU right smack in the nads.
(3) It creates a powerful and wealthy grain industry, something that the US has a whole lot of.
(4) Would promote a far more advanced bio-genetics industry in creating a more competetive agricultural industry
The reason they dont do it is simple, money and balls. Oil companies keep senators and congressman rich by giving them money, and we havent had a politician with balls in the US since Truman. I believe it would be an easy sell to the electorate- sell it as a national security and a goody too-shoes enviro legeslation, the problem would be the special interest corporations.
It would also allow the US to become less of a world problem solver, dung-heap countries need to learn to solve their own problems, not cry to big brother when something goes bad.
The most likely party to have a candidate that would survive a primary is (ohh I hate to say this) is the Dems. Because of their funding base (grass roots, pinkos, hollywood, lawyers, etc) they are the only party likely to allow a candidate to run on such a platform. The Reps because of industry money, that candidate likely wouldnt make it past Missouri (ala McCain v GWB)
MYK
|
Interesting points. What this effectively means is that two factors are currently the root causes of middle east instability--Republican beholdenness to corporate interests, and Democrats' total inability to find political traction.
I actually kind of agree with that. But I'm not sure I think it's morally OK for the U.S. to implement a renewable energy policy and then wipe its hands of the problem that the middle east has become. For one thing, there are humanitarian concerns--for another, U.S. involvement has so far been a net negative in terms of its consequences for the region--but that doesn't mean that it will always be a net negative. If the U.S. can really help to stabilize and democratize the region, then that can't help but be a good thing.
Of course the last time the U.S. did something because it was the "right thing to do," false teeth were made out of wood.