posted
The problem is that Bush canceled the Clinton/Gore plan with his. He could've kept the Clinton/Gore plan, then introduced fuel cells down the road ... instead, by completeing doing away with Clinton/Gore, he's effectively shown what he thinks of the enviornment: nothing.
OK, let's do this again.
Clinton plan: lower emission cars are introduced ~2012, probably leading to somewhat lower polution rates; fuel cells aren't introduced until at least 2020, quite possibly later, depending on how long it takes to develop them.
Bush plan: fuel cells are introduced as soon as feasable, leading to major reduction in polution
Bush cut out an unnecessary, costly, time-consuming, minimaly effective middle step. If given the choice between getting fuel cells in, say, ten years, and slightly less polluting cars in twelve, I'll take the fuel cells. It's called logic.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Bush plan: fuel cells are introduced as soon as feasable, leading to major reduction in polution
Nice try, Omega. Under Bush plans, fuel cells won't be introduced (at the earliest) for a period of time between one and a half and two decades. In other words, the same space of time. And in the meantime, Big Oil still gets to stuff its wallet.
posted
And that is different from the Clinton plan... how?
OK, so we've got two plans. The only differences appear to be what technology is implemented, and who implements the plans themselves. Who should be irrelevant, so we'll assume that it is. All other things being equal, the superior technology should be implemented. Thus, the more recent plan is superior.
Yet again I will ask, what is your problem with the change?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And that is different from the Clinton plan... how?
The Clinton plan would've increased gas mileage on vehicles in the meantime. That means we'd be buying LESS oil. This has already been gone over in clear detail.
quote:Yet again I will ask, what is your problem with the change?
That Bush jr. doesn't seem to want the Clinton/Gore plan to carry us over from where we are now to the fuel cells. So, basically, he bought Big Oil a lot of breathing room. Joy.
posted
Pardon, but didn't you say that they would have gone into effect at the same time?
Of course, this is all irrelevant, because technological developments don't operate according to a timeclock...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Pardon, but didn't you say that they would have gone into effect at the same time?
You know, I sometimes think beating my head against a brick wall would be easier then having a conversation where Omega actually reads.
The fuel cells, YES.
But the Clinton/Gore plan called for cars which got better gas mileage WITHOUT those cells ... so what you would have had were automobiles requiring less gas until fuel cells came into useage.
posted
The only LEV I've seen so far is a Rolls Canardly.
Rolls down one hill, Can 'ardly get up the next.
Of course, more efficient car engines won't affect the price of gas in the slightest, it'll just mean that the Oil Companies have longer before their supply becomes a problem... longer to lobby for increased protection, just what the Dems don't want.
If the cut of the "efficient" program by eight years and the redirection of funds leads to the fuel cell coming even a year earlier, It will be better in the long term for the environment than eight years of slowly 'phased in' higher efficiency.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Of course, more efficient car engines won't affect the price of gas in the slightest, it'll just mean that the Oil Companies have longer before their supply becomes a problem... longer to lobby for increased protection, just what the Dems don't want.
Well, since our Republican president had no problem tossing the Clinton/Gore plan out, what do they need to lobby against?
quote:If the cut of the "efficient" program by eight years and the redirection of funds leads to the fuel cell coming even a year earlier, It will be better in the long term for the environment than eight years of slowly 'phased in' higher efficiency.
Apparently Clinton and Gore wanted to give Big Oil and its employees enough time to realize a big change was coming so they could all secure new jobs ...
quote:Well, since our Republican president had no problem tossing the Clinton/Gore plan out, what do they need to lobby against?
The Republican one, of course. They don't want change AT ALL. If they can get up to keep going back and forth from plan to plan, nothing will get done.
quote:Apparently Clinton and Gore wanted to give Big Oil and its employees enough time to realize a big change was coming so they could all secure new jobs ...
And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them more time to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them more time to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
Yeah, Rob, so, like has been said before, Bush bought Big Oil more time. You apparently don't disagree with that, yet we've just spent two full pages of Flare text argueing about it.
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
It was proposed that we would have viable fusion power by 1998. but i think we're still a ways off. but we'll get it eventually. i'd like to be able to use tap water to power a small fusion generator in my house someday. instead of having to pay a water and power bill, it'd only be a water, all the power companies would have died out... heh heh heh
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Except, of course, the companies that built the fusion generators...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not up on American gasoline, but did you change over to unleaded petrol like Europe did?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
And as you've said before, the time frame hasn't changed. The elimination of the 'efficient' engine plan just gives them greater profits, an opportunity to stock up more funds before the hard times hit.
So while he did not buy them 'more time,' he did buy them 'greater profits.'
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
