Obama's new energy & environment cabinet members

[DaveD]

Are those Chu's actual responses or just what Heritage Foundation is suggesting that they would like him to say in response to their suggested questions?

Therefore, when considering Chu for this post, the Senate should consider asking him the following questions.

"Yes" is the answer to your question. The HF's "Q&A" section, where your quotes came from, struck me immediately as the same tactic that Donald Rumsfeld used, asking himself questions and answering them in press briefings and interviews. So much tidier than answering other people's (more interesting and important) questions...

 

[vfx]

So the answer are not Chu's.

They are fabricated by the Heritage Foundation.

 

[TEG]

That seems despicable.

Other press then picks it up as if it were actual quotes, not fabrications.

----

http://www.heritage.org/about/

About Heritage
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 393,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 244 and an expense budget of $61 million.​

Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.​

So, like isn't trying to keep gas prices low encouraging excessive foreign oil consumption resulting in more national security issues? Are they really promoting their own goals? Oh wait, maybe they mean they want to promote more defense spending, and a bigger military...



​

 

[vfx]

Apparently they are a credible enough and funded enough to get interviews with many experts on both sides of an issue. Then with subtle omissions of credit in the prose they essentially misquote the experts wholly.

They also mix expert disciplines in writing like asking an economist to speak on global warming.

They also give credit at the end of articles that implies that everyone agreed with it's premise.

 

[doug]

Confirmation Hearings Begin for Steven Chu, Obama’s Choice for Energy Secretary - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

Chu Confirmation Update: Answering for Past Statements - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[dpeilow]

In full: Barack Obama's inaugural speech - Times Online

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

That, at least, is promising :smile:

 

[doug]

I've been watching live all day. I cheered internally when he said, "We will restore science to its rightful place." Thank you!

 

[TEG]

I came here to post exactly what dpeilow already posted.

Obama:

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

Hopefully he put them in priority order.

• Sun - check!
• Wind - OK...
• Soil - what exactly do we plan to grow to turn into fuel? Is it really the right approach?

There are a lot of farmers pressuring for "crops for fuel", but so far it seems to me that other alternatives are far preferable.

 

[Joseph]

"We will restore science to its rightful place."

As far as I can tell, society already pretty much worships science/reason/etc. over emotion, intuition, blah blah blah. (not that there's anything wrong with that; reasoning pretty much always leads to the right course of action)

So if we already value reason over emotion/intuition, what is science's "rightful place"? Does he mean that we just don't pay enough attention to science? Or does he think science should be further elevated?

 

[doug]

Does he mean that we just don't pay enough attention to science? Or does he think science should be further elevated?

No, he was responding to the fact that the last administration was very anti-science. From cutting NASA's science budget, to restricting stem cell research, to editing environmental reports... I'm sure the list goes on. Plus the Bush administration generally promoted a culture that was anti-intellectual. Intellectualism was something to be suspicious of... who knows what those eggheads are thinking about. You don't base your actions on reason (or evidence)... you act with your gut!

Anyhow, hopefully in this respect, Obama will be better.

 

[TEG]

Scientists Say Bush Stifles Science and Lets Global Leadership Slip | LiveScience
Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

 

[TEG]

“The search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us” | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,”

"today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology."

 

[Joseph]

Oh, ok. My political ignorance is showing. :redface:

Without knowing that the Bush administration is infamous for being anti-science, it seemed odd for someone to say people don't value science/reason enough. It's not like we're in the middle ages...

 

[Kevin Harney]

TEG,

Soil can also be Geothermal ...

 

[TEG]

Oh yeah, right... But I still think he was probably talking about fuel crops.

I would say "from the earth" or "from the ground" if talking about geotherm, and save "soil" for things that grow. Geothermal steam comes from "beneath the soil", right?

 

[Kevin Harney]

Actually I think he was referring to the bigger picture including ALL renewables and that was an easy way to include crops and geo and others for the simple common person. Also it gave the tone of very green saying soil. But I see your point and it is well taken.

 

[vfx]

TEG,

Soil can also be Geothermal ...

I read it this way too. Possibly beacuse of context. Sun, Wind, Soil as Space, Air, Earth.

I hope TEG is wrong about thinking biofuels but that said, any pragmatist will concede that a leader who wants to get a green initiative done will have to compromise and allow some new drilling, a coupl'a nukes, some phony clean coal and allow farmers to produce biofuels.

The worst part is, long after all these methods are proven useless we will be paying huge yearly subsidies to keep them alive.

Sigh,

It's politics after all.

 

[TEG]

Obama Under Pressure Over Role of Ethanol in Energy Policy - US News and World Report

Environmentalists agree with President-elect Barack Obama on many points, but his policy on ethanol isn't one of them.

Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol

Times slams Obama on ethanol - War Room - Salon.com

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

Like I said, I hope they pursue solar (and wind) first and foremost.

 

[Kevin Harney]

Actually I hope that they presue ALL avenues with equal ferver. Diversify !!!!

 

[TEG]

Just remember Martin's old slides... Like from "Focus Green".

For yearly energy output, PV takes a fraction of the space compared to Ethanol production:

Also, you have a lot more environmental impact producing ethanol... Fuel burned to run the tractors... Fertilizers runoff, etc.