Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obama is not as green on policy has me a little concerned


osusev

Recommended Posts

I did not know Obama was pro ethanol... I suppose he is from a corn producing state illinois.

 

He was anti drilling but shifted recently.

 

Clean coal positions are only for states like Ohio.

 

Mccain is anti ethanol and has no financial dog in the fight .

 

I feel like I am vacillating a bit. I cant stand Palin or Mccains foreign policy stance but Obama does seem to shift to what is popular rhetoric and opinion.

 

Maybe I am thinking about my green stance too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks shep, I guess maybe I just needed some sort of reinforcement, kind of been an odd business day for me.

 

Come on Sev, you must rethink your decision before it is to late. Vote for McCain. Obama is a farce, and I mean it from my soul. This guy is up to no good and once you vote, it will be to late. Look at him carefully before you jump on his bandwagon. The guy is a fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius

Obama's stance on ethanol is pretty bad. His opposition to lifting the tariffs on Brazilian sugar ethanol deprives us of a cheaper, more efficient alternative energy resource. Though the future seems to be in cellulosic ethanol, it'd be nice if we could use sugar ethanol now.

 

Not only that, but soda made with sugar (not corn syrup) is about a 100 times better. Obama stands in the way of me having that, which is an unforgivable offense.

 

Still voted for Obama (& I think you should too, Sev), but I can't think of a strong defense of his position on ethanol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
Isn't the smart money saying that corn ethanol isn't smart money? Isn't efficient at all?
Yeah, corn ethanol's pretty inefficient, but sugar ethanol's a little better. Unfortunately, Obama's supports the former and is against the latter.

 

In addition to inefficiency, our devoting so much corn to ethanol production ends up raising its price as a foodstuff, which hurts poor consumers in the developing world. I don't know for sure, but I assume there'd be a similar effect if we moved to sugar ethanol.

 

Eventually, we should transition to cellulosic ethanol, which is even more efficient & can be made out of stuff that we don't use as food (woodchips, inedible plants, etc.). But for now, we'd probably be better off if we could use Brazilian sugar ethanol, and Obama's opposed to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius

The corn industry is very strong in the US, particularly in states like Iowa & Illinois. That's why most of our soft drinks are made with corn syrup, not sugar. And if you've ever had Coke made with real sugar, you know that there's a big difference.

 

Still, it's important to recognize that cellulosic ethanol is where we want to be heading, and Obama will make sure public investment is directed towards that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously some of you know I do lean pretty left when it comes green initiatives... I hate ethanol in general (cellulosic will not ever relieve enough our usage to really make a difference) Obama like any other politician has to answer to someone. In his state its the corn industry lobbyists.

 

I am still leaning heavily his way but I have to admit if it not for Palin and mccains age this could be a pretty big topic for me. I dont know its kind of like shopping for something expensive, I vacillate right before I buy it just to make sure its really what is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sev, like all these issues, just consider for a second the alternative to Obama.

 

McCain WAS a great nominee -- in 2000. His own party hijacked him and opened the door to this odious breed of so-called "conservatives" we've been subjected to for the last 8 years.

 

And before you go saying crazy stuff, DieHard, I'm not a raving "lib". I actually am a libertarian at heart and have great respect for REAL conservative principals.

 

But those principals have proven a failure in the hands of the Bush administration and this is not the time to put someone in office who could continue the debacle.

 

It's time to see what an intelligent, passionate person can do as president. McCain was that guy at one time; he's not any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of Mccains foreign policy do you think will be shaped by Neocons I wonder? Palin is intellectually challenged which scares me the worst.

 

Mccain is for green incentives and believes in global warming. His economic policies are going to be tempered by a democratic congress.

 

I am a little afraid of giving the dems complete control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
How much of Mccains foreign policy do you think will be shaped by Neocons I wonder?
A lot.

 

The Powell endorsement seems to suggest that the old guard of Republican foreign policy realists has either ditched or been kicked off the McCain campaign (probably a little of both).

 

And McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a really sketchy fellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my fear is that neither of these guys are up to snuff for fixing all this stuff...

 

We're pretty broken...I don't think anyone's really up to fixing all the stuff that needs fixing. I guess I just choose the things that are most important to me and start there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok Aloy thanks that pretty much sums that question up for me. NO WAY do I want any of that type involved with our foreign policy. Pretty Scary considering Mccain really would be the same as Bush on Foreign policy with those kind of advisors.

 

I was vacillating at the last minute but feel fairly confident. Thanks Aloysius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius

No problem, Sev.

 

If the Republicans were a little saner on foreign policy, I could see myself becoming one.

 

Unfortunately, the Bush 41 wing of the party is pretty much dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the smart money saying that corn ethanol isn't smart money? Isn't efficient at all?
Yeah, corn ethanol's pretty inefficient, but sugar ethanol's a little better. Unfortunately, Obama's supports the former and is against the latter.

 

In addition to inefficiency, our devoting so much corn to ethanol production ends up raising its price as a foodstuff, which hurts poor consumers in the developing world. I don't know for sure, but I assume there'd be a similar effect if we moved to sugar ethanol.

 

Eventually, we should transition to cellulosic ethanol, which is even more efficient & can be made out of stuff that we don't use as food (woodchips, inedible plants, etc.). But for now, we'd probably be better off if we could use Brazilian sugar ethanol, and Obama's opposed to that.

 

 

I dont know about that. I heard he supportrs non-corn based ethanol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius

I think I linked to this NY Times article on the old board. It makes clear that Obama's been a big supporter of corn ethanol, though his advisers hint that he's open to alternatives:

Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.

 

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

 

[...]

 

Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.

 

[...]

 

[Obama economic adviser Jason] Furman said the campaign continued to examine the issue. “We want to evaluate all our energy subsidies to make sure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth,” he said.

 

He added that Mr. Obama favored “a range of initiatives” that were aimed at “diversification across countries and sources of energy,” including cellulosic ethanol, and which, unlike Mr. McCain’s proposals, were specifically meant to “reduce overall demand through conservation, new technology and improved efficiency.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting. MSNC has Obama's position as this:

 

Expand federal requirements for ethanol from 36 million gallons to 60 million gallons a year with increase coming from non-corn sources, and require utilities to produce 25 percent of power from renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass by 2025.

 

Which one is correct, and why can't the media keep it straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...