Quotes of the Morning: Fight the Power

“Congressional Democrats, under the leadership of newly installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, swiftly gutted a major portion of the energy policy created in large part by New Mexico's senior senator, Republican Pete Domenici.
Democrats in the House, including U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., rolled back $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and announced plans to spend that money on renewable energy programs.”
-The New Mexican, January 21, 2007

“Dang Democrats! They will get in the way of Fearless Leader’s master plan for energy independence. They must be stopped.”
-Skippy

“A year after warning America of its addiction to oil, President Bush is expected to renew concerns about energy security in his State of the Union address. But will the rhetoric be followed by action? Up to now, the record has been mixed.
[…]
The Bush administration has opened new federal lands for oil and gas drilling. Last month, Congress approved opening a large new area in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling. This month, Bush lifted a longtime ban on oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay.
But when it comes to weaning the country away from oil, the president's critics say his rhetoric has not been matched by action.
‘President Bush actually cut funding for the key energy-saving technologies,’ says Joseph Romm, a former head of the renewable fuels and efficiency programs at the Energy Department during the Clinton administration.
The department's requests for renewable fuel and conservation programs have stayed flat at about $1.18 billion annually over the past six years — really a decline if inflation is considered, energy efficiency advocates say.
‘Since 2002, the energy efficiency programs at the Energy Department have dropped by a third in real dollars,’ says Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Safe Energy, a private advocacy group.
When one program is increased, others have suffered, these critics maintain.
[…]
Samuel Bodman says the administration over the years has spent nearly $12 billion in developing new energy technologies. He cited the president's $2.1 billion ‘advanced energy initiative’ in the State of the Union a year ago.
But most of that program goes for nuclear research and clean coal technology that generally has little impact on the country's dependence on oil, 70 percent of which is used in transportation.”
-Associated Press, January 22, 2007

“Ha! Little do they know that coal plays a very important part in Fearless Leader’s scheme for energy independence. You see, our cars currently run on gasoline, which comes from oil. If we can just find a way to make cars that run on coal, then we will have the vast resources of the Appalachian region to draw from and we will be able to support ourselves forever!
If that doesn’t work.. well, there is always nucular.”
-Skippy

“To kick-start the U.S. nuclear power industry, the federal government is preparing to spend billions of dollars to prove a point to Wall Street.
Proponents of nuclear power are banking on federal support to show investors that revamped licensing procedures and new technology won't result in mammoth cost overruns that defined the last era of nuclear plant construction.
Whether that support materializes may make the difference between a future of growth or stagnation for nuclear power, which now provides 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply.
Energy companies have announced their interest in building as many as 30 new reactors, including at least six in Texas.
[…]
Once promoted as a limitless source of low-cost electricity, nuclear plants would later be derided as boondoggles on the backs of taxpayers and consumers.
Numerous plants went far off schedule and way over budget. TXU's Comanche Peak power plant took two decades to build. Its original cost estimate: less than $1 billion. The final tab: $11 billion.
Dozens of nuclear construction projects were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s. No new reactors have been ordered since before the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island that raised government scrutiny and scared off much of the public.”
-Dallas Morning News, January 22, 2007

“Clean, efficient nuclear power! Who can complain? The trick is to just figure out what to do with the waste. At least as long as we are at war we shouldn’t have any problems. We’ll just keep using the depleted uranium in our weapons systems.”
-Skippy

“From the Sunni center we traveled to the Shiite south. Hussein was despised there for brutally crushing a Shiite uprising after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. But the Shiites didn't care much for the U.S. government either, as we soon discovered, and as coalition forces would learn in 2003 to their surprise and dismay.
Like the Sunnis, the Shiites blamed the United States - not their own regime - for the tough sanctions that had paralyzed Iraq's economy. They angrily led us through schools that didn't have a single textbook, and hospitals that lacked spare parts for broken incubators and X-ray machines.
A Shiite doctor wept as she showed us photos of hideously deformed babies, whose birth defects she attributed to the depleted uranium used by U.S. troops in 1991. “
-St. Petersburg Times, December 30, 2006

“Ah yes.. Now we just need to create bombs that we can load up with barrels of radioactive waste and fire at our enemies. It is a win win. We can get rid of our nuclear waste and we’ll be able to keep a war going at practically no cost for at least 10,000 years. All we are saying is give war a chance.”
-Skippy