It is really amazing how these women are so exclusively focused on developing cleaner and better sources of energy and so opposed to conservation (with the notable exception of lori here)
She talked about ethanol as though it was a matter of civil rights, an injustice, that there wasn’t more of it for our gas tanks. Even when the subject was getting auto manufacturers to help combat global warming, she didn’t say we need to make cars more efficient so they use less gas, she said they should do it so we could get MORE miles per gallon out of them. That’s the problem right there. More more more. More of the same. But we already know that as MPG goes up, more people just drive more miles. We need to drive LESS.
Until we change the way we think about this, we are still on the same road we’ve been on, the road that has us using more power every year. No one seems to be willing to even consider looking into ways to reduce our power consumption. Wasn’t stomv going to have a “parallel conversation” about conservation? Or was that a bluff?
for goodness sake. Didn’t you see the King Corn episode of West Wing?
<
p>
That said, I agree with you that we need to talk about conservation and no one seems willing to.
<
p>
How fast do you drive?
See my piece on Chelsea right above yours. No, I’m not talking about Chelsea Clinton, but the humorous and topical coincidence with your piece is notable. Threading that please everyone campaign needle is quite a challenge–especially if you’re the assumed front runner.
<
p>
California and Chicago seem to be the hot spots as far as dealing with our demand for electricity. I am in the process of looking at a few bills before the legislature, including one by Senator O’Leary, that do this and a proposal by DOER (Dept. of Energy Resources) but my day job keeps interfering with my fun. đŸ™‚ If anyone out there has any concrete insights as to HOW we should deal with demand in this state, please be concrete. You neva know where they may end up. I can’t wait until stomv shows up!