“If he fails to win [in Pennsylvania], despite outspending us massively, it will be another sign he is unable to win the large states a candidate needs to win,†Wolfson said, making sure the bar stays high for the Keystone state. He also said an Obama loss there would be evidence he is “unable to close the deal†and that it would be a “clear indication†that he has not passed the Commander-In-Chief and “steward of the economy†tests.
“If he fails to win in Pennsylvania, it would be a significant defeat for him,†Wolfson emphasized.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
Is that just for corn, or is it for higher-density fuel crops, like sugar and wheatgrass, too?
I believe it has a result of using petroleum based fertilizer and farmland that had otherwise been left fallow. The actual study was looking at . . . something they use in Europe more than North America. My memory is fuzzy.
*googles*
Yeah, it was based off a study of rapeseed production published in Chemistry and Industry.
They can make biodiesel from algae and that would be good for the environment, but since most biodiesel is made from agricultural products, as it stands it is almost always not so good.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
It's a stupid point. If Obama literally had no plans, someone would have noticed by now.
I mean, all you need to do is go to his website.
If anything, the fact that a person might think that he has no substance only points to that individual's unwillingness to investigate candidates he or she is opposed to before judging them as poor, which to me is one of the worst flaws for a voter to have.
“If he fails to win [in Pennsylvania], despite outspending us massively, it will be another sign he is unable to win the large states a candidate needs to win,†Wolfson said, making sure the bar stays high for the Keystone state. He also said an Obama loss there would be evidence he is “unable to close the deal†and that it would be a “clear indication†that he has not passed the Commander-In-Chief and “steward of the economy†tests.
“If he fails to win in Pennsylvania, it would be a significant defeat for him,†Wolfson emphasized.
Obama went "negative" on Hillary at the Philadelphia debate last November. His surrogates said BITTER, nasty, mean-spirited things about her and the press ate it up.
So, if her ad's in Pa. are negative, too bad.
Obama is the one running around telling us we're "bitter" if we don't vote for him, not Hillary.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
What exactly do you mean by "substance"?
Long, bulleted lists of policy proposals? He has them too; they're on his website. Chances are, you're not hearing about them because (1) the media likes to talk more about candidates' verbal faux pas than policy positions, and (2) Obama's policy positions are largely identical to Clinton's.
“If he fails to win [in Pennsylvania], despite outspending us massively, it will be another sign he is unable to win the large states a candidate needs to win,†Wolfson said, making sure the bar stays high for the Keystone state. He also said an Obama loss there would be evidence he is “unable to close the deal†and that it would be a “clear indication†that he has not passed the Commander-In-Chief and “steward of the economy†tests.
“If he fails to win in Pennsylvania, it would be a significant defeat for him,†Wolfson emphasized.
One day, I will learn not to read the comments.
One day.
My mental image of this campaign is a bunch of people with like 15 sets of goalposts running circles around each other.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
He gave two policy speeches immediately after the race-relations one that outlined specifics on foreign policy and economic policy. To google you go!
It seems Romney didn't get the memo about McCain not really caring about reducing the deficit afterall. Perhaps the signal from the robot control center didn't make it through his finely coiffed helmet.. err.. hair.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
He gave two policy speeches immediately after the race-relations one that outlined specifics on foreign policy and economic policy. To google you go!
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
It's a lot of typing for me Richy. I'm sure if you googled "Obama _____ policy speech" you could get the details on almost anything.
Off the top of my head:
He wants to leave Iraq in a measured way, negotiate with some foreign leaders face to face who other candidates would not meet face to face with, work towards reducing the arsenals of nuclear powers, send troops into Pakistan for targeted strikes against Al-Qaeda leadership even if it upsets the Pakistanis.
He wants to bring down the cost of health insurance, but not mandate coverage, through collective bargaining for medication, having the government pick up the tab for anyone whose medical bills accumulate beyond a certain point - and from there in the usual Democratic position about making medical records electronic etc.
He supports nuclear energy and the development of more nuclear plants.
He would end Don't Ask Don't Tell and favors civil unions.
I haven't followed his recent economic policy speeches but God knows he's been making them in Pennsylvania.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
It's a lot of typing for me Richy. I'm sure if you googled "Obama _____ policy speech" you could get the details on almost anything.
Off the top of my head:
He wants to leave Iraq in a measured way, negotiate with some foreign leaders face to face who other candidates would not meet face to face with, work towards reducing the arsenals of nuclear powers, send troops into Pakistan for targeted strikes against Al-Qaeda leadership even if it upsets the Pakistanis.
He wants to bring down the cost of health insurance, but not mandate coverage, through collective bargaining for medication, having the government pick up the tab for anyone whose medical bills accumulate beyond a certain point - and from there in the usual Democratic position about making medical records electronic etc.
He supports nuclear energy and the development of more nuclear plants.
He would end Don't Ask Don't Tell and favors civil unions.
I haven't followed his recent economic policy speeches but God knows he's been making them in Pennsylvania.
I was under the impression his health care plan was primarily subsidizing private health insurance plans on a scaling scale.
So here's a question my brother asked me. What does Obama stand for? I mean, so far his campaign seems to have great momentum thanks only to the strength of his speeches and charisma. What are his policies? Where does he stand on the war, the economy, healthcare and social security? What does he plan to do about them?
Are you asking as in you want information or is that rhetorical?
I'm asking because I'd like information. Since my brother asked, I've been curious about it myself.
My bro was asking rhetorically to make a point, that there's little substance to Obama once you look beyond the charismatic speeches.
It's a lot of typing for me Richy. I'm sure if you googled "Obama _____ policy speech" you could get the details on almost anything.
Off the top of my head:
He wants to leave Iraq in a measured way, negotiate with some foreign leaders face to face who other candidates would not meet face to face with, work towards reducing the arsenals of nuclear powers, send troops into Pakistan for targeted strikes against Al-Qaeda leadership even if it upsets the Pakistanis.
He wants to bring down the cost of health insurance, but not mandate coverage, through collective bargaining for medication, having the government pick up the tab for anyone whose medical bills accumulate beyond a certain point - and from there in the usual Democratic position about making medical records electronic etc.
He supports nuclear energy and the development of more nuclear plants.
He would end Don't Ask Don't Tell and favors civil unions.
I haven't followed his recent economic policy speeches but God knows he's been making them in Pennsylvania.
I was under the impression his health care plan was primarily subsidizing private health insurance plans on a scaling scale.
He also makes the federal plan open to anyone and eliminates pre-existing conditions as a factor.
Holy crap, have you guys seen that "Barack Obama: EXPOSED!" PDF that Human Events is putting out? What a freaking mess. An advertisement popped up in my gmail for it, and foolishly I was curious as to what these "conservative voices" would have to say. Oh dear me. Good for a laugh.
Though I would have liked a site a bit less biased. Is there maybe an objective site contrasting all three candidates issue by issue?
A little less biased? It's Obama's campaign site, that lists his platform on practically any issue you could want.
It's the EXACT information you asked for.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Basically a varible payment level based on income. Meaning people with money pay more and people without pay less to nothing.
The reason I ask is because you used a fairly redundant term. Are you sure you didn't mean to use a different word?
sliding scale?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Seriously, the whole "he speaks well but I don't know what he stands for" spiel needs to die in a fire. There's a big ol' internet out there that can answer your questions in seconds. Ignorance of his positions, in this case, are a result of you being a lazy bastard, not because Obama is lacking in substance.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
Hey, you know what would solve most of the problems people bitch about without completely marginalizing small and empty states? Keeping the electoral college and killing the winner-take-all part.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Biodiesel is not cleaner.
If you look at some of the Benz's, it's not that much different.
It seems Romney didn't get the memo about McCain not really caring about reducing the deficit afterall. Perhaps the signal from the robot control center didn't make it through his finely coiffed helmet.. err.. hair.
I wonder if McCain's proponents know his positions any better than they know Obama's.
I can't imagine anyone supporting this sort of thing otherwise.
So if cities were pandered to instead of farm country, what would political pandering look like then?
benefiting a higher percentage of the population?
The number one example of disproportionate rural policy - sugar lobby. The amount of absolutely indefensible power that they hold is totally ridiculous. They fuck over the entire country, and benefit nobody but themselves. It is so fucked.
Are you actually blaming that on the electoral college?
Hey, you know what would solve most of the problems people bitch about without completely marginalizing small and empty states? Keeping the electoral college and killing the winner-take-all part.
In that it would give small and empty states far more power, thus exacerbating the problems, instead of solving them? Yes, yes it would.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
The issue with converting to diesel as a primary fuel source (forgetting bio-) is in the costs of refining it. Right now most of our plants kick out almost pure gas and retooling them to upend the equation and have it be diesel with a little gas would not be cheap or easy. Europe does roughly half and half with their refineries, and the extra gas for all the diesel they produce gets shipped over here. If we start wanting more diesel and less gas that's going to create a glut of gasoline or require them to retool their plants as well. Which really sucks, because diesel is like 2-3x more efficient than gas in an ICE. Plus we should be moving towards electric motors and diesel generators powering up the batteries when necessary for hybrids rather than what Prius' are doing.
As far as biodiesel, it sucks on many levels. Even if you ignore the stupidity of our inevitable use of corn for it and stuck with sugar cane...well there's only so many acres of land that stuff can grow on. Not ignoring our corn based stupidity, you get agflation. Which is already starting to happen.
Also, wouldnt removing the state lines and electoral college and doing a pure popular vote do far more to enfranchise voters who dont live in swing states?
You would have Senate to give power to small states
Congress to give power to large states
President to give power to the popular vote / majority
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
You still need tremendous amounts of energy to produce viable, fuel-grade ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere (and in the Midwest its predominantly coal-burning plants) and thus you can end up spending more energy to create the finished product than you would save by going with oil/natural gas.
I work in an ethanol "maximization" lab. We see a lot of corn. 5 million individually processed seeds a year. Living in the mid-west (especially central Illinois) sort of makes you love the stuff, even if you don't entirely agree with how ethanol is produced.
It's all bio-fuel really. I was studying it to see if I wanted to recommend that our town vehicles move to B-20 and it really is not the way to go - unless they start making it from algae or something.
I mean, the latest articles have the farmland used to cultivate the fuel crops emitting levels of nitrous oxide that totally cancel out any reduction in carbon dioxide in terms of global warming.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
You still need tremendous amounts of energy to produce viable, fuel-grade ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere (and in the Midwest its predominantly coal-burning plants) and thus you can end up spending more energy to create the finished product than you would save by going with oil/natural gas.
I work in an ethanol "maximization" lab. We see a lot of corn. 5 million individually processed seeds a year. Living in the mid-west (especially central Illinois) sort of makes you love the stuff, even if you don't entirely agree with how ethanol is produced.
There was something incredibly beautiful about the seemingly endless miles of corn fields on the ride down to college. Especially when I took the train and could enjoy the view.
5. I should vote for the candidate most likely to win in November, in my opinion.
First, let me say I think they are both excellent candidates. However, as a result of the California Debate, I came to the conclusion that Sen. Clinton was the stronger candidate. That debate and the California Primary were crucial factors in my eventual decision. I simply felt she was just a little better, and the results of the California Primary only solidified that conclusion.
Do note however, that if Sen. Obama enters the Convention with a lead in pledged delegates, that I will re-think my position. This would be based upon the idea that:
8. I should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates, unless for some bizarre reason, I can honestly say that such a candidate is an anathema to the Democratic Party principles as I understand them.
I believe the number of pledged delegates a candidate has should be a factor in my decision making. That doesn't mean I automatically change candidates if Sen. Obama has more pledged delegates in Denver, but it does mean I will study the situation more carefully. The greater the lead, the more intense the study.
But, even if that does occur, I also have to take into consideration the fact that California voted for Sen. Clinton, which I believe should be a very strong consideration.
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
It's cool. The whole environment isn't about global warming.
Biodiesel combustion also releases toxic particulates at higher levels than gasoline, is less energy dense and releases more nitrous oxide on combustion - which contributes to smog.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I don't believe biodiesel gets as good a gas mileage. That the money paid for it stays in America instead of funding Hugo Chavez and less directly the Russians, Iranians, Libyans and Saudis is something that would recommend it. However, the demand for agricultural space to grow the crops necessary is already spiking world food prices and causing hunger riots in places like Egypt. I guess it depends on whether you think that is a long term trend that helps or hurts our long term security interests.
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
I'd be extremely happy to jump on board with it if it were collected from algae instead of agriculture. That would negate a lot of the problems from my point of view.
Superdelegates weighing in with their state is an okay idea, but in some cases impeded by the fact the primaries were a proportional race and, for example, if every Texan superdelegate said, "Well, Clinton 'won' Texas, so we're going to go with her," it's patently disingenuous.
Posts
One day.
I believe it has a result of using petroleum based fertilizer and farmland that had otherwise been left fallow. The actual study was looking at . . . something they use in Europe more than North America. My memory is fuzzy.
*googles*
Yeah, it was based off a study of rapeseed production published in Chemistry and Industry.
News Story
They can make biodiesel from algae and that would be good for the environment, but since most biodiesel is made from agricultural products, as it stands it is almost always not so good.
It's a stupid point. If Obama literally had no plans, someone would have noticed by now.
I mean, all you need to do is go to his website.
If anything, the fact that a person might think that he has no substance only points to that individual's unwillingness to investigate candidates he or she is opposed to before judging them as poor, which to me is one of the worst flaws for a voter to have.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Ah, America.
Long, bulleted lists of policy proposals? He has them too; they're on his website. Chances are, you're not hearing about them because (1) the media likes to talk more about candidates' verbal faux pas than policy positions, and (2) Obama's policy positions are largely identical to Clinton's.
My mental image of this campaign is a bunch of people with like 15 sets of goalposts running circles around each other.
He gave two policy speeches immediately after the race-relations one that outlined specifics on foreign policy and economic policy. To google you go!
PS: Or just go this website and, you know, read.
It seems Romney didn't get the memo about McCain not really caring about reducing the deficit afterall. Perhaps the signal from the robot control center didn't make it through his finely coiffed helmet.. err.. hair.
With your eyes.
It's a lot of typing for me Richy. I'm sure if you googled "Obama _____ policy speech" you could get the details on almost anything.
Off the top of my head:
He wants to leave Iraq in a measured way, negotiate with some foreign leaders face to face who other candidates would not meet face to face with, work towards reducing the arsenals of nuclear powers, send troops into Pakistan for targeted strikes against Al-Qaeda leadership even if it upsets the Pakistanis.
He wants to bring down the cost of health insurance, but not mandate coverage, through collective bargaining for medication, having the government pick up the tab for anyone whose medical bills accumulate beyond a certain point - and from there in the usual Democratic position about making medical records electronic etc.
He supports nuclear energy and the development of more nuclear plants.
He would end Don't Ask Don't Tell and favors civil unions.
I haven't followed his recent economic policy speeches but God knows he's been making them in Pennsylvania.
He stands for this.
Though I would have liked a site a bit less biased. Is there maybe an objective site contrasting all three candidates issue by issue?
I was under the impression his health care plan was primarily subsidizing private health insurance plans on a scaling scale.
Not in any real depth. Popular Mechanic did a shitty comparison of the more geeky policy aspects back when we were fielding baseball teams.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
fairly basic but it's a start
On a what now?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
http://www.politicalbase.com/issues/
He also makes the federal plan open to anyone and eliminates pre-existing conditions as a factor.
Basically a varible payment level based on income. Meaning people with money pay more and people without pay less to nothing.
Sorry I didn't include the PDF last night. I just uploaded it. http://www.mediafire.com/?3njninbac2m
edit: Human Events
The reason I ask is because you used a fairly redundant term. Are you sure you didn't mean to use a different word?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
A little less biased? It's Obama's campaign site, that lists his platform on practically any issue you could want.
It's the EXACT information you asked for.
sliding scale?
opps stupid typo
First, I was under the impression that biodiesel was, in general, a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline or standard diesel. Am I wrong? Nothing against you, but I get annoyed every time someone dismisses something that's environmentally friendlier just because it's not battling global warming.
Second, even if it's environmentally neutral, isn't it a good idea to move towards a fuel source that's less reliant on oil and more fuel efficient besides? Diesel engines >> gasoline engines when it comes to gas mileage, right?
I can see how if we'd need to completely restructure our economy around biodiesel how it might be a poor idea, but diesel is already a well-established technology, is the standard for many industries, and could be expanded in automobiles, too. I'm not seeing a huge reason to not go with it.
Hey, you know what would solve most of the problems people bitch about without completely marginalizing small and empty states? Keeping the electoral college and killing the winner-take-all part.
If you look at some of the Benz's, it's not that much different.
And hybrids are the bees knees.
I wonder if McCain's proponents know his positions any better than they know Obama's.
I can't imagine anyone supporting this sort of thing otherwise.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The small and empty states have the Senate.
The issue with converting to diesel as a primary fuel source (forgetting bio-) is in the costs of refining it. Right now most of our plants kick out almost pure gas and retooling them to upend the equation and have it be diesel with a little gas would not be cheap or easy. Europe does roughly half and half with their refineries, and the extra gas for all the diesel they produce gets shipped over here. If we start wanting more diesel and less gas that's going to create a glut of gasoline or require them to retool their plants as well. Which really sucks, because diesel is like 2-3x more efficient than gas in an ICE. Plus we should be moving towards electric motors and diesel generators powering up the batteries when necessary for hybrids rather than what Prius' are doing.
As far as biodiesel, it sucks on many levels. Even if you ignore the stupidity of our inevitable use of corn for it and stuck with sugar cane...well there's only so many acres of land that stuff can grow on. Not ignoring our corn based stupidity, you get agflation. Which is already starting to happen.
You would have Senate to give power to small states
Congress to give power to large states
President to give power to the popular vote / majority
MWO: Adamski
You still need tremendous amounts of energy to produce viable, fuel-grade ethanol. That energy has to come from somewhere (and in the Midwest its predominantly coal-burning plants) and thus you can end up spending more energy to create the finished product than you would save by going with oil/natural gas.
I work in an ethanol "maximization" lab. We see a lot of corn. 5 million individually processed seeds a year. Living in the mid-west (especially central Illinois) sort of makes you love the stuff, even if you don't entirely agree with how ethanol is produced.
There was something incredibly beautiful about the seemingly endless miles of corn fields on the ride down to college. Especially when I took the train and could enjoy the view.
It's cool. The whole environment isn't about global warming.
Biodiesel combustion also releases toxic particulates at higher levels than gasoline, is less energy dense and releases more nitrous oxide on combustion - which contributes to smog.
I don't believe biodiesel gets as good a gas mileage. That the money paid for it stays in America instead of funding Hugo Chavez and less directly the Russians, Iranians, Libyans and Saudis is something that would recommend it. However, the demand for agricultural space to grow the crops necessary is already spiking world food prices and causing hunger riots in places like Egypt. I guess it depends on whether you think that is a long term trend that helps or hurts our long term security interests.
I'd be extremely happy to jump on board with it if it were collected from algae instead of agriculture. That would negate a lot of the problems from my point of view.