Carbon Free Electricity in 10 Years?

"Redistribution is the mechanism to accomplish this grand goal, making sure that much of the "green stuff" ends up in their own space suit pockets."

Spot on, just take a guess where all the "carbon credit" money goes? To a company owned by Al Gore himself.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Good Answer Delmar. And interesting articles.

Dragon

Engineers have been working on solar for thirty years!

The main problem has been storage of the power. That is why there has been a clarion call for better batteries. There have been few advances in the area and too much emphasis on utility size grid oriented solutions - wrong.

The solution is local production of electricity once better storage has been developed.

Milo--Free lunch? That's cute, so name a source of "substantial power" readily available.---I wasn't advocating damming anything, simply getting fools off of what we have already. No more DRAWDOWNS(look it up). Get the native Americans to stop gill netting your(and mine) precious fish if they are so important that makes disabling that power source reasonable. The Pacific Northwest is self sufficient power-wise with the hydro-electrics we have had for half a century. We need to refine the process and attack it Six Sigma style. Our dams were engineered to create a huge surplus of power(the aluminum smelters are now gone and California is consuming all that excess power). Viable solutions--Fish? give me a break--what about birds and windmills?

Kilgore, You rightly point out the need for substantial sources of power.

That is why I asked about acceptability of nuclear for baseload in my first post.

I agree that hydro is a positive potential source, but wanted to point out that it too has impacts. And it is limited to obviously localities which have such a resource.

You can bet that the salmon will be held in even higher esteem than the spotted owl, which put a damper on cattle and logging operations out west.

Half a century ago, the feds built what they wanted and there was no impact or public resistance. It was called public works and if the TVA decided to "fill up yer holler" Too bad. That power has changed. I do not believe that major hydro can be built here based on the protestations of the folks who prefer beaver dams over people dams.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

milo

Al Gore is a huckster. He makes money off of the global warming scare and selling carbon credits. Can someone tell me how a reduction in CO2 is accomplished in selling carbon credits?

Additional facts regarding the human caused global warming myth:

1. Mars' atmosphere is warming due to the sun's activity. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the Earth's atmosphere would warm due to the same cause? After all, the Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars is.

2. The Earth has been warming up repeatedly every 1500 years or so. This fact was conveniently left out of Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". We are about due for another warming period. 1500 years ago, those that inhabited Greenland were able to farm there since there was not much of an ice cover as there is today.

3. President Bushe's ranch house is more 'green' than Gore's house. When Gore decided to 'green' up his house, the following year showed that he used more energy than before the greening. Many attribute that to the fact that he used more energy because he figured he was more efficent and could get away with it.

4. Research was done on the 1200 or so sites in this country that measure atmospheric temperatures. It was found that approximately 70% of them were improperly installed. For example: temperature sensors mounted too close to the exhausts of Air Conditioners or sensors mounted over tarmac at airports. It turns out that the proper installation of these temperature sensors were supposed to be over grassy areas with a specified distance from heat producing machinery.

5. If human caused global warming advocates were really serious in what they preach, they would not go to global warming events in private jets, SUVs and limos. But you don't see that do you.

There are probably more facts I could quote if some research was done, these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

Is the Earth warming? Probably, if the warming trend is on schedule. We should be learning how to deal with it instead of trying to prevent it since we will not be able to prevent it.

I am not saying that we should not find an alternative to an oil based economy, but thinking that we can just switch from oil to 'renewable energy' in a few years is wishfull thinking. We should develope what oil we have WHILE making a 'Manhatten' type project to get our future energy needs in place.

By the way, with regard to nuclear (fission) energy, The big fear beside the waste is the melt down if something happens to the cooling water. The Germans have already demonstrated a reactor that can operate at a reduced efficiency with no cooling water. It has to do with how the reactor rods are built.

Remember that oil is not just used for transportation and heating, it is used in just about every product we buy. So if everyone was driving an electric car today, we would still be using a lot of oil. Also, does anyone have an idea about how to replace the oil based engines in an airplane?

Don't rely on Congress to help bring the cost of transportation down. They are too much in bed with environmentalist.

The global warming thing is not about the environment, it is about control over your lives.

It really angers me to know that Gore was given a Nobel 'Peace' prize for his work. What has his work on global warming got to do with peace? To give him this prize cheapens the whole Nobel Prize system. I have no more respect for anyone that has received a Nobel Prize after Gore's award.

Here is the story of a women which better deserved the Nobel Prize for peace. You can read it on http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp. It is true.

What can be done now to reduce our dependance on oil?

The single most important one has to due with our vehicles. Drive more efficiently. This would include planning your trips, driving at the most economic speed for your vehicle, keep it in top shape. I live near a freeway that has a posted speed limit of 75 mph. Yet many times when I drive on it, I drive 55mph. It does not seem to bother other drivers, they just go around me. Just because a road is posted with a speed limit does not mean you can't driver slower (unless it is posted). Use some other form of transportation. Today, I just rode my bicycle from where I live to where I work, a round trip of 26 miles. I am going to start bike commuting. I am 58 years old (almost 59). If I can do it so can many others. I will call each ride a $4 ride since that is approximately how much I save each time.

Guest--I am not an astronomer, but I believe Mars is on an elliptical orbit.

Milo--I don't have a whole bunch of time right now, but I Wiki-ed Bonneville dam for some info and the image they have to represent the facility on that page shows the dam dumping water over the spillway. HA! So I pulled up Google Earth and checked all the dams on the Columbia. Grand Coulee, Wells, Priest Rapids and John Day are the only dams that aren't hemorrhaging water when the image was taken. Bonneville, The Dalles, Mc Nary, Wanupum, Rock Island, Rocky Reach and Chief Joseph are all spilling water--What a waste!

It's worth a look and hope to hear from you.

Hey.

Milo here.

Not sure that i understand the point about water going over the spill ways.

I'm trying to understand the availability of "new" hydro to most of the continent, theres three plants on the drawing board for the ohio river being retro fit in existing dams and locks. Combined capacity-191 MW. its a start, and frankly, i was surprised to learn that we had such projects planned.

Resistance losses prevents transmission outside of region produced. that power will stay in west virginia and southern ohio.

I'm not personally condemning hydro, just point out that in the current millieu where every-dam-body seems to be a NIMBY over something, New Grand scale hydroprojects are unlikely.

And of course the Chinese have pretty well mucked up the three gorges project.

We're trying to put together a wind energy manufacturers consortium here in Ohio, but we lack some of the big machining capacity. We do make the carbon fiber rotors up near mentor, i see them on special carriers going down I-71 every trip i make to columbus.

Thats all.

milo

If it (water)doesn't go through the power house it won't become electricity. Dumping the lakes over the spillways is just a terrible waste of energy that we OWN(supposedly).

I don't want any new dams! BUT--- I don't want 1000's of windmills either. Wind has been a sore subject for a long time--There is no wind power without the huge subsidies, it's unreliable and--- YOU people think that it is okay to put them where I live--I will show you where to put them, if you ask. Want a nuclear reactor in your neiborhood? I wouldn't do it to you! Wind power(Because Europe is doing it)is bafoonery. We need new ideas and not large scale production on old ones.

Did you google earth on the dams?--I found it interesting and have even managed to spot a gill net near one of the dams. There goes the fish!

Three gorges project?--Sorry short on time, any links? I will try to read up on it.

The Three gorges dam is a giant monstrosity of a dam found in China. As you probably already know, the Chinese don't really worry about pollution, disrupting rivers, smog, lead paint, etc. So you can guess about the environmental impact of the dam.

Here's the link you asked for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

Not only environmental impact, but culture loses

Thanks for the link RP.

Not sure what to think of Chinese ambitions after reading it-- Unsettling.

Ironic: he talks of survival of US as we know it; then challenges us to change the US as we know it. Still waiting for someone in high places to speak other than weasel talk.

So basically to summarize this thread:

I believe Al Gore to be an intelligent, earnest politician who has devoted his political career to raising the public's awareness of environmental issues, issues usually met with contempt and derision.

Most of the rest of you basically believe him to be a hypocrite who scares the public with exaggerated environmental issues for profit and political gain.

I suspect there is also a small silent group of people who feel they are above engaging in such a debate. That somehow engaging in the defense of the character of someone who has worked for the good of society is an ignoble action.

Well, it is what it is I guess. I can't say I'm surprised about how this thread played out. Anyway, I'll see you around CR4.

Roger

yaa...the attitude of some of these posters was beyond belief. Arent most people supposed to be engineers or engineer minded which would imply a certain amount of professionalism and a certain 'show me the facts before i make up my mind' attitude? All it seemed to me was a Sh*t flinging contest on someone who was lecturing about global warming way before I was even born. I wonder how many of these people, even knew about it back then...or believe its true now . Sticking to something you believe for 20 years or more is a pretty big deal, especially when most of the world doesnt believe you or call you a hypocrite. I hope this doesnt sour you too much roger, your posts were worth reading...

no, believing in something and practicing it are (2) very different issues.

I believe Al Gore is committed as a Global Warming spokeman and author.

But does him actually practice it?

And I believe thats whats being discussed.

How the thread has panned out from another perspective.

The first thing that comes to mind is that we are talking about a polititian, a career that today for most "simple" folk is held up to the same esteemed position of lawyer. If we were discussing leading polititians historically, without the "Global Warming" twist, I daresay Al Gore would scarcely be mentioned, if at all. As to the "facts" many posters are already privy to certain facts without gleaning them from a CR4 thread and then comes the job of "simple" folks interpreting the "facts".

As touching Al Gore's sincerity, well that is tricky, not because I could prove he is self-consciously lying during presentations, but because he operates in an end justifies the means ideology. To him, the "environmental" and "spiritual" stakes are very high so the "secondary" costs are negligable. In the end though, sincerity doesn't cut the mustard because many have come and gone who were sincerely wrong.

Obviously this can be a topic that is passionate to many, but I think it nieve to suppose that those who oppose the "Global Warming" rhetoric are just backbiters who don't believe that the stakes are indeed very high.

You Wrote:"I hope this doesn't sour you too much roger, your posts were worth reading..."

I appreciate that and no it doesn't change my opinion or sour me. These attacks on Al Gore don't really bother me either. Given any group of people, such reactions are going to occur. What bothers me is the silence of individuals that share my opinion. I think a lot of the problems in this country can be traced back to two beliefs:

1. Silence on issues is dignified, debate is debase
2. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Protect your opponents feelings before you protect the truth.

Where I believe:

1. Silence on issues creates a vacuum that is filled by misinformation and hearsay
2. An educated opinion is worth more than a colloquial or superstitious opinion and fools should be told they are being foolish.

I think the following quote from the Archbishop of Naples sums up the danger of silence: "Indifference is not an emotion for human beings," Seppe wrote in his parish blog. "To turn the other way or to mind your own business can sometimes be more devastating than the events that occur."

What bothers me is the silence of individuals that share my opinion.

That is correct Roger, a good debate there has to be involvement.

I don't believe in you first #2 belief. A debate you need two sides but cutting into a person personally because he does'nt take your side, takes away ones own point.

That's the problem Pheonix911......you believe Global Warming is a debate.

The severity of gw. yes.

But I feel the most would probably come from the hypocrisy from the spokesman,

Basically the second definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrite

hyp·o·crite Audio Help /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

Here's my problem with calling Al Gore a hypocrite. You go back on every election from 1992 on that he was involved in and you'll see that his green policies HURT him politically with the mainstream. Check out this clip from the 1992 Vice Presidential Debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1NFWXLf5k4&feature=related

You watch this clip and you tell me how it helped him here. He's no more a hypocrite than the rest of us.

I recall that debate, it was an embarrassment even to politics. two politicians trying to look like statesman, but was no more than fluff.

But, some of the problems is when AG and his staunch followers declares there is no debate on GW. People stop listening, and they do more to hurt their own cause more than anything.

When you are crossing the street and a person comes up to you and starts talking incoherently about aliens and pyrimids and UFOs, do you listen? I doubt it. The problem is that you don't realize that thats what you sound like when you say Global Warming isn't real. You might as well be arguing that the world is flat or the Sun orbits the Earth, no one is going to say "good point, lets debate that", their gonna tell you that you need to go back to school and get caught up, or their gonna just ignore you.

see that you are responding to quite a few people, I do not believe I ever said global warming is real or not real, What I did and have said is when I became involved in discussion or debates like this, the stand I heard is there is no discussion or issues about it, it is. From pro GW as well as con GW that it can sound like "talking incoherently about aliens and pyrimids and UFOs," from both sides.

Also Roger, I have been watching who's online to see what kind of interest is on this thread people are keeping an eye on it.

With approx. 50,000 experts on this subject plus the pro GW, even though your doing a good job of it, being pretty much an army of one, with some exceptions. Why aren't there more pro GW responses on this subject.

You Wrote:"With approx. 50,000 experts on this subject plus the pro GW, even though your doing a good job of it, being pretty much an army of one, with some exceptions. Why aren't there more pro GW responses on this subject."

Excellent question Phoenix911. I can only speak for myslef.

As for my attributing things to you that you didn't said, I apologize if I did. I am in a bunch of debates here and its easy for me to lose track of what each persons position is.

For what it's worth. I'm pro GW (still open to the contribution percentage by humans), but seldom bother arguing. I consider the warming/not warming question to be settled science. If anti GW posters want to read the science, I'll provide links; otherwise I don't see the point. I mean, if the Pilkey brothers believe(d) in GW, what more can regular people have to say?

Pilkey brothers?

Walt and Orrin. Though, for fairness, you should include Orrin's daughter, Linda. If you wanted to do world-class work involving CFD to study sand dune formation and movement, this was (only Walt is deceased) the family that could walk the walk.

I'm against Climate change [Gw].

The climate is changing, weather [ pun intended] we like it or not.

We can argue about the cause(S)

We can argue about possible mitigating solutions.

Just doubling the population every few years, is going to increase the co2 load [breathing & farting]. Factor in the extra resources & pollution. We're gonna have to get better @ producing & using energy.

We can complain about government regulations

If I have to choose between inept government bureaucrats & the stellar example of the "free market" when it comes to financal markets [banks], environmental, worker safety..... I'll stick with the the Bureacrats. While their track record could certainly be better, using only monetary indicators as a yardstick ignores a big part of the picture.

Roger & Senatorferrell got it right, If you don't like the way you are being represented, do something about it.

Vote [I always vote, usually for a 3rd party]

Join groups that advocate for the issues you feel strongly about [lobbyists].

Run for office.

Finally, $100/bbl oil makes ideas that were possible but foolish seem real cleaver.

Post #68 is the most ridiculous post on this thread!

Roger, my facts are right and my interpretation of the facts is right. You are simply wrong... wait, you're right, there is no debate.

Good grief!

You are correct and I apologize. I tend too often to be silent about issues about this, not because I think debate is debasing but rather that the game seems to be played by a different set of rules than I use. When I see data and when I read the consensus of climate scientists, both of which strongly support global warming, I am frankly flustered by the opponents who then attack science. This anti-science propaganda machine in the US is astonishing.

I will suffer fools less gladly.

You may not think much of Al Gore.

You may think global warming is some Progressive [liberal] conspiracy.

You may not even think much of the goal of carbon free energy.

what will be the results of such a campaign be?

1) increased efficiency

2) reduced emissions

3) increased research into improved generation methods & use of electricity.

4) the reduced use of oil.

5) various political shenanigans [probably no more than usual].

is the use of methane to generate electricity & heat carbon free?

how bout nuclear?

it would probably be more productive to argue these sorts of questions

You forgot a giant reduction in our trade deficit. Maybe then we could begin to fix this:

Oh yeah, Seaplane Guy, I wonder what happened to him. Now theres a guy who could post anti-Global Warming sentiment.

I agree Garthh, we need an Apollo type plan to tackle this problem, and I'm telling all of you, the solution is Fusion and solar power. The problem is politicians have no imagination and don't listen to scientists anymore, so their solution is ethanol.

I'm willing to settle for wind power and solar. As much disgust as I have for T. Boone Picken's contemptuous political attacks in the past, at least he's got a plan.

your are right,

but until the price of oil reaches a critical stage which it is approaching, only then would alternitive energy be viaible.

And depending where the money is coming from, that would hinder or help it.

Another part of the problem is that most of the US is counting on the government to do something to just magically make it all better. People have to start making changes themselves.

I am not an environmentalist. But I didn't like paying $2.34 a gallon three years ago and bought a 150cc scooter. I get 80-85mpg and ride it nearly every day unless there's snow/ice.Right now I'm looking into building my own solar water heater to cut down on my electric bill. I'm still wondering and waiting, how am I gonna get taxed for this, because there are a lot more people out there doing these type of things and it'll eventually start drawing large chunks of money away.

A person has a better chance of getting away with murder than keeping their money away from the government

I don't think there is anything magical about funding science. Here's how it works, if you pay scientists to work on a particular problem, generally, that problem gets solved. The problem is not that we expect the government to "save us", its that we are asking the government to stop hurting us.

Really, Government, if your listening, please stop subsidizing oil companies and ethanol plants. Please set a minimum mpg rating for all automakers. Please offer those oil and ethanol subsidies for wind, hydro, solar, etc instead.

I never said there was anything magical about funding science. But most people don't care how the problem gets fixed, just that it does. Here's how it works, something is wrong, somebody doesn't like it, somebody else fixes it with silly putty and duct tape, but the guy who didn't like it is just happy it's fixed and doesn't have to do anything about it. What I'm saying is we cannot expect our politician to do the right things for us. We need to take personal responsibility on fixing some things for ourselves whether it be through independent businesses helping homes get off the grid or just being really miserly with the thermostat at home.

Yes, but we can ask the politician to remove some of the hurdles in our way.

You forgot to add that it was going to help FATTEN UP st gore's pocket book. He is in this for the money... Where was all of his compassion before? Oh, that is right he was busy inventing the internet, huh? Face it, gore is a hack just like his wife tipper...

If we want to argue the effect of off-shore drilling, ANWR, etc, we ought to use some actual data (We are STEMs). Here's a pretty good source

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_SWY_a.htm

Likewise, we ought to use the correct numbers about reserves. If a driller went to a capital source, he would be asked, for example, the P10 value, not the Fox News number. Here's a rather long link (but, again, we are STEMs)

http://books.google.com/books?id=XgL7oXjAkdcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=p10+p95+oil&source=web&ots=rsULVmjpjz&sig=NDiqxlUZuu1RmucyYkgUzaB-m6o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1

STEM's?

Make no mistake we are going to drill.

The question is when?

& under what constraints?

Oops. 5 yard penalty for improper use of acronym.

It's goobledy-gook speak for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. It's being used a lot in some milieus, such as NSF.

I quite agree with you that we will drill. We will drill off-shore of CA, we will drill off-shore of FL, and we will drill in ANWR. We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place where we must make difficult decisions. My point of view is that we should recognize now that those decisions need to be made either today, or very soon, in order to avoid a wasteful, environmentally-disastrous rush as the lights begin going out.

I was one of the people who argued, and voted, against Jimmy Carter's conservation message (Remember "Moral Equivalent of War"?), on the grounds that we had plenty of time to gradually wean ourselves off foreign oil. I was dead wrong. I continue to learn from that mistake.

Al Gore's speech included what was, in my opinion, a grave error - his call for America to be running on zero-carbon electricity within ten years. I understand the challenge as a motivational goal, not an objective, but he should have known some would seize on that phrase and turn it into "a carbon free America". On the other hand, had he called for a carbon-constrained generation system (which might be achievable), most Americans would neither understand nor even remember such a challenge. Gore normally uses that (constrained) language, but not in this instance.

All that said, it's therefore up to those of us who are capable of understanding science and technology to do so and make rational choices that benefit the country and world. So, we should use facts when we can and only use opinion as a last resort.

If I were installing a large bearing and ten tribologists told me to use high pressure oil, I wouldn't say "Well, what do tribologists know? A guy on the bus told me a water sump would work just fine." In the case of climate change (the better name for global warming), the majority of climate scientists state clearly that it is happening, yet many Americans go with the Senator Inhof style denial.

So, yes, let's drill. But let's do so thoughtfully, and with full recognition of what the likely outcomes will be.

Al Gore's speech included what was, in my opinion, a grave error - his call for America to be running on zero-carbon electricity within ten years. I understand the challenge as a motivational goal, not an objective, but he should have known some would seize on that phrase and turn it into "a carbon free America"

As we see from this thread, Inflamatory language will stir the pot everytime.

He should have stressed the economic benefits & positioned the enviromental stuff as gravy [see T Boone Pickens].

Not long ago I attended a talk by John Carberry, Director of Environmental Technology at DuPont. DuPont came to the realization some years back that they had to change their environmental practices in order to survive as a chemical manufacturer. They framed it in terms of sustainability and long-term economics. To use an old phrase, they worked at turning their lemon (regulation and litigation) into lemonade. Here's a link that shows some of their thinking.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/DuPoint%20case%20study.pdf

There is gold in green.

Peak oil has been a topic since the 70"s, Dupont has stayed in biz for what 100+yrs? by paying attention to the big picture.

When you figure out how to reduce the production of non-saleable toxics, funny how many times you reduce the overall cost of production.

With the crutch of cheap oil getting pretty wobbly, everyone is going to have to do more with less.

Hi Roger - Not sure if you or the folks here have seen it, but National Geographic cable channel aired a documentary, "Earth: The Biography" within the past 1-2 months here in the US that connects to the consequences of climate change: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/earth-the-biography/

The part where Dr. Iain Stewart details how the undersea flows of the global oceans keep the temperature balance of the planet steady, allowing for life, connects directly to the accelerating melting of the polar ice cap, going on right now.

I didn't vote for "plastic Al" in 2000, but give him credit for getting the message out on climate change. Easier to do when you're not in office. It's the message, not the messenger and his personal flaws, when all need to focus on.

-april05

So, what I heard the other day on the radio about (can not remember where... somewhere like greenland or iceland) one of the seas of off their coast,which normally DOES NOT have ice in it at this time of year, has ice in it... And that they had to send out an icebreaker from their coast guard to help get 2 boats out of the ice flow...That the ice shelf in the Antarctica is the thickest/deepest in history (at least since they started taking core samples) etc, etc, etc. Shows that global warming is alive and well and that WE AS A WHOLE ENTIRE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED BY IT?!?!? I think not. I am not a scientist; although, I do know that there is ample opportunity for people like st gore to make ample money off of the claims and the scare tactics about what is going on. Sure doesn't seem to slow him down from flying all over the place does it? How about the energy that it takes to run his household (in that nice big house of his... where are his photovoltaic arrays? the windmills on his land? ) Granted I have read that st al and tripper gore pay a lil' extra to have some of their power brought in from somewhere other than a gas turbine set up. You know those DIRTY, UGLY things that run off of natural gas and coal that provide your electricity...

Come on the earth goes through cycles, just like the solar system does, the sun goes through cycles; as well as, you and I. Stop listening to the hype of the people and corporations that stand to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off of the hysteria that they promote.

Cheers

Ferris

Good Answer.

Dragon

Ferris,

your comment;

Come on the earth goes through cycles, just like the solar system does, the sun goes through cycles; as well as, you and I.

I had mention in another post about these cycles,

I also mention that we as humans may not be apart of it. (survival of the fittest, natural extinction) There was no response..... is it happening already?

What takes alot way from GW is the money being made off of it and the hypocrisy in doing so.

phoenix911

Yes, well I was going to say that everone in office stands to make a killing off of this whole deal... but I just can't bring myself to think that EVERYONE on capital hill is a dirty, scheming, coniving stinking scoundrel looking to use these scare tactics in order to get rich. Of course jr bush is making a killing off of the hike in gasoline, oil or whatever, he is into big oil isn't he? The global warming thing? I really do not pay attention to his stance on the subject, it is not really imperative for me... I know that he helped sell us out (I think it was last month, or the one before...) while in Japan agreeing that we need to cut our carbon blah, blah, blah. I am just praying that the "people" in our capital DO NOT SELL US OUT by signing us up with the un's law of the sea treaty, just like I am praying that this whole north american union stays only in the evil minds of those who want to sell out our sovereignity and put us in league with Canada and Mexico...

"What takes alot way from GW is the money being made off of it and the hypocrisy in doing so" .....? What is being taken away from GW?

Cheers and GOD Bless America!!!!