« Obama Camp Hopes To Organize Thousands Of "Unity" Events Nationwide | Home | McCain Camp Responds To Poll: No, We're Only Trailing Obama By Seven Points! »

McCain: We Can Achieve "Strategic Independence" From Foreign Oil By 2025

Wow, John McCain is really upping the ante in the energy wars today. We think he is, anyway.

In a speech he's set to deliver today in Nevada on energy, he'll guarantee "strategic independence" from foreign oil by 2025:

In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan.

And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025...

Some will say this goal is unattainable within that relatively short span of years -- it's too hard and we need more time. Let me remind them that in the space of half that time -- about eight years -- this nation conceived and carried out a plan to take three Americans to the Moon and bring them safely home.

We've asked the McCain campaign for clarification of the term "strategic independence," and we'll let you know if we get an answer. For now, assuming "strategic independence" means "independence" McCain is promising us stability in the Mideast in five years (2013); and independence from foreign oil in less than two decades.

More excerpts from McCain's speech after the jump.

Excerpts From John McCain's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery

Las Vegas, Nevada

June 25, 2008

...

Political campaigns have a way of settling on a few great questions, with little regard for the expectations of pundits, and even less concern for the carefully crafted strategies of the candidates themselves. These questions are rarely easy. Politicians usually avoid them for just that reason. And so it is good when events intrude on the familiar routine of stale soundbites, staged rallies, and over-managed messages, and turn to the concerns of the people themselves. In this election, the price and security of energy in America is one of those great questions.

It is an urgent question because the rising price of oil has brought hardship to our country, and threatens to bring much more.

...

Energy security requires unity because it is not just one issue among many - another box on the candidate questionnaire. Our country's need for a safe, clean, and affordable supply of energy is not just one more competitor for attention in Washington, one more special interest in an overcrowded field. The great issue of energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. And it demands of us that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards, and make hard choices long deferred.

This is a matter that has confounded nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. Yet even now our energy debates carry the echoes of ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. We hear the same calls for new energy taxes, instead of new energy production. We are offered the same agenda of inaction - that long recitation of things we cannot do, energy we cannot produce, refineries we cannot build, plants we cannot approve, coal we cannot use, technologies we cannot master. The timid litany of limitations goes on and on. And it says more about the culture of Washington than it does about the character of America.

In the same way, energy bills are debated, passed, and signed into law with little serious thought to energy reform - but never without the familiar corporate handouts and fighting over scraps of pork. Even now, some in Washington still seem to think the best plan is a direct, heartfelt appeal for Saudi sympathy, as if that conveyed anything other than weakness. In the way of new ideas, a majority of the House of Representatives actually voted in favor of suing OPEC, as if we can litigate our way to energy security.

...

Three decades of partisan paralysis on energy security is enough. Since I am not president, I cannot say the buck stops here - but I will say that it must stop now.

Should I be entrusted with the honor of that office, I will break the stalemate in Washington, and I will put this country on a course to energy security.

I will authorize and support new exploration and production of America's own oil and gas reserves - because we cannot outsource the solution to America's energy problem.

...

Every year, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country for oil imports, much of it from OPEC, while trillions of dollars' worth of oil reserves in America go unused. As a matter of fairness, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by producing more of it ourselves.

...

The need for more production extends as well to another long-neglected source of energy, and that is nuclear power. Here, too, opposition to this clean and proven technology has more to do politics than with the merits. The experience of nations across Europe and Asia has shown that nuclear energy is efficient. It is safe, it is proven, and it is essential to America's energy future.

...

Perhaps no achievement would do more to secure our energy future than the mastery of clean-coal technology. From Wyoming to West Virginia, America's coal resources are greater than the oil riches of any kingdom of the Middle East. Burning coal cleanly is a challenge of practical problem-solving and human ingenuity - and we have no shortage of those in America either. So, as president, I will commit two billion dollars each year, until 2024, to clean-coal research, development, and deployment.

...

The strategy here is to produce more, use less, and invent new ways of doing both. And inventing new ways is what we Americans do. What we need most right now is better and faster innovation in the cars and trucks we drive. And government policy is supposed to serve this purpose.

...

In place of the current patchwork of incentives and credits for hybrids and other carbon-cutting vehicles, we will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit to buyers based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a 5,000 dollar tax credit to each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.

Instead of playing favorites among the lobbyists, our government must also level the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline, to lower both gasoline prices and carbon emissions. This can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology - allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars. Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil.

At the same time, we must not overlook the possibility that one day our cars can run without burning liquid fuels at all. Instead, cars can run on battery power alone, or as plug-in hybrids using both liquids and electricity. Some talented engineers are on the case, but this is a national priority and we must give it national focus. To add urgency to the mission, we will offer a prize of 300 million dollars - a dollar for every citizen - to the creator of a battery package of a size, capacity, cost, and power far surpassing existing technology. In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.

At this moment, some of the best minds in our country are also at work discovering or perfecting alternative technologies. They are not tilting at windmills - they're building them. They are capturing the boundless powers of the sun, the tides, the mighty rivers, and the warmth of the earth itself. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy.

Even with oil running at about 140 dollars per barrel, these new alternatives have yet to take the place of oil in our economy for two basic reasons: our infrastructure is outdated and our production capacity has been constrained. And this has to change as we can make the great turn away from fossil fuels. To lead in this effort, our government must strike at the source of the problem - with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign.

We must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president - a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

...

My friends, America's dependence on foreign oil was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation twenty years ago. It is a dangerous situation today. And starting in the term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy future, and become once again the master of our fate.

In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan ...

And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.

This pledge is addressed to all concerned - to those abroad whose power flows from an accident of geology, and to you, my fellow Americans, whose strength proceeds from unity of purpose. Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States. And never again will we leave our vital interests at the mercy of any foreign power.

Some will say this goal is unattainable within that relatively short span of years - it's too hard and we need more time. Let me remind them that in the space of half that time - about eight years - this nation conceived and carried out a plan to take three Americans to the Moon and bring them safely home. In less than a third of that time, the gathered energies of my father's generation built the industrial might that overcame Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. That is the scale of our achievement when we set our minds to a task. That is what this country can do when we see a danger, and declare a purpose, and find the will to act.

As president, I will turn all the apparatus of government in the direction of energy independence for our country - authorizing new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us. Much will be asked of industry as well, as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power. And a great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good.


61 Comments

| Leave a comment

Victory in Iraq by 2013. Oil independence by 2025.

I'd sure like to get my hands on this crystal ball McCain has.

Really, who died and made him Houdini? The Dementia Candidate is really in his own world element these days.

Of course, McCain can promise us energy independence by 2025.

I mean, if you bankrupt the nation, it can't *possibly* afford foriegn oil. It will, in fact, have all the foriegn oil it can possibly afford, under the circumstances.

Ergo, it achieves strategic independence... assuming that the strategy is to make the rich richer, while bankrupting the government and the middle class.

strategic independence

That seems like a carefully constructed phrase.

I am no spokesman for McCain, but I take it to mean "independence from unreliable suppliers like Russia or Iran or Venezuela, but continued dependence on more reliable suppliers like Mexico or Canada." I guess we will see if that is what he clarifies it to mean, but if that is the distinction implicit in the phrase "strategic independence," it seems a fairly sensible goal. Petro-trade within the NAFTA zone is (I am given to understand) good for all of us - Canadians, Americans and Mexicans alike. Total independence is a worthy goal, to be sure, but failing that if we could manage to get ourselves to the point where our needs could be supplied entirely by production within the NAFTA zone, that would make us more secure than we are now. In other words, it is not a bad goal for 2025, even if it is a less worthy (but more realistic) goal than total independence by 202.

Bother, I failed to close italics after "strategic." Well, I am sure that you know what I meant to say.

user-pic

Sorry but the world oil markets do not work like that.

Not on a daily basis, no. On the other hand, it seems to me that there are many disadvantages to our present dependence on foreign energy sources. One of them is that if war broke out in the middle east, we would suddenly be stranded without petroleum. Admittedly, this is as much as to say that the whole world would be stranded without petroleum, but for our purposes it is enough to say that we would be stranded. If our demand were less, you might imagine that it would be possible in such a scenario for us (based on an arrangement worked out with Mexico and Canada) to suddenly close off exports out of North America. This would ensure that, while the petroleum available to us would be more expensive, there would at least be enough available. At present we would not have even that guarantee. As such, there is a meaningful sense in which we could be said to be "strategically" independent if we in the NAFTA zone reduced our consumption to a level which could be met by NAFTA zone production. In other words, that "strategic" is not just a weasel word. It seems to me that there is a meaningful advantage to achieving such a "strategic independence."

I have to get up off the floor. I completely agree with you on both the meaning and value of "strategic independence". I suspect he's including increased drilling off the coast and ANWAR in his equation.

user-pic

But McCain is trying to alleviate American concerns about gas prices. The fact (as Avvocato alludes to above) is that American "energy independence" doesn't do this - unless all the oil wells in the US are nationalized. Oil prices are set internationally. If Russia or Iranian reserves are out of commission, or if there's a war in the middle east, the international price of oil will surge. Sure, maybe there would technically be enough oil in the US to satisfy US demands. But oil companies don't have to sell it to Americans, and they won't if they can get a higher price overseas.

Oil independence is a pointless goal. Replacing our dependence on oil with a reliance on renewable energy is the only thing that will make a long-term difference in the price of energy.

Sure, I agree that considered as a remedy to high gas prices, such an approach is a non-starter. My point, however, is that there are many different problems engendered by our dependence on foreign energy sources and high prices is just one of them. Another problem engendered by our dependence on Russia, Venezuela, Iran (etc) is that it leaves us strategically vulnerable in a time of war. In a time of war, domestic production really could be restricted to domestic consumption only. If we could get our demand down to a point where it could be satisfied by domestic consumption, we would be less vulnerable in such emergency situations. As such, there would be a real benefit to such "strategic" independence, even if it would do nothing to help folks suffering from high energy bills right now.

Unfortunately there is no remedy to high gas prices - it's not a cold, it's cold macroeconomics.

I'd love to see McCain try to make this argument to the American people. He won't. My guess is that he'll duck and weave and never actually explain what he's getting at. It's just a pretty word he's throwing out there.

Can you imagine if the government nationalized all US oil production? If what is called "our oil" wasn't sold off to whoever around the world, but went directly into US tanks, as dictated by emergency decree?

I'm just throwing this out there. Not saying it should happen. It is amusing the assumption that oil sucked out of US territories is "our oil." It's not. It is the oil companies' oil.

Reply to Allsburg.
I heard today on a letter/correction on NPR that oil drilled in the US by law has to be sold in the US. That is by law now. But that does not mean it will be sold cheaper. My question is why do we have to keep focussing on using up all the oil in the world as fast as we can?

Next stop: Mars!

user-pic

Exactly! That's precisely what I thought after reading this...

Strategic Independence is a carefully constructed phrase. If it wasn't, they would have gone with the straight "independence." More BS from Republican lawyers.

Too bad his idol, the Republican savior, rolled back every last one of Carter's acts that would have already given us independence from foreign oil.

Amen.

If only we'd listened to the cardiganed Carter, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Exactly. Carter was lampooned for being a scold, but his was a sensible and achievable approach. If we will insist on looking at those proposing conservation-based strategies as nags and pin-heads, we will never achieve the goal proposed here. Any attempt at independence will necessarily involve a lot of waste-trimming (that is, lowering of thermostats, lowering of speed limits, choosing carpooling over one-person-per-vehicle commutes, etc).

The comparison of a McCain effort toward energy independence and the Apollo project is a blatant theft of Obama's comparison of yesterday.

First, they plagiarize "change", now this.

I sincerely hope that, despite the evidence from certain Pennsylvania focus groups, Americans are smart enough to see McCain for what he is --- totally void of any original thought or idea about any subject whatsoever.

user-pic

You're right. As Obama said offering a "bounty" of $300 million on an electric car is not the way to energy independence or strategic independence (whatever that is).

I don't hear anything about hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell cars, or a mass funding of public transit.

I don't hear anything about... hydrogen fuel cell cars...

Good thing, that. Hydrogen fuel cells will not help us achieve any sort of energy independence (note even of the "strategic" variety) nor to reduce pollution. There are no hydrogen mines out there to tap. Hydrogen must be manufactured by electrolyzing water, and that requires electricity, which in turn requires either more nuclear energy or more combustion of fossil fuels. What more, this means that you take the energy through another layer of conversion (instead of burning the fuel to propel the car, you burn the fuel to generate the electricity, which in turn you use to generate the hydrogen, which in turn you burn to propel the car), so that you lose a great deal of the total energy in the process to inefficiencies of conversion. Hydrogen fuel cells are just a boondoggle.

... or a mass funding of public transit.

That is a good point. Obama has been on record for years advocating improvements to the passenger rail system in the midwest (he wants high speed lines connecting St Louis, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Minneapolis/St Paul). McCain, by contrast, has long been one of Amtrak's most ardent enemies. Any attempt at energy independence which does not make recourse to mass transit is going to be a non-starter, so McCain must be planning a major flip-flop if he hopes to make a realistic proposal on this score.

user-pic

I've heard of the possibility of technology that could be powered with solar and/or wind power, could extract water vapor from the air, and electrolyze it to convert it into hydrogen. You could scatter thousands of these self-refueling hydrogen stations around the country. The electrolyzing conversion is still inefficient, but it becomes an inefficient use of renewable power instead of an inefficient use of fossil fuels. I don't know why such a system would be impossible.

What the heck, I am a molecular biologist, not an electrical engineer, so I will not attempt to argue that what you describe is impossible. It does sound rather more far fetched, however, than would be necessary for it to be part of an attempt at independence by 2025. Who knows, maybe a century hence we will be fueling up from hydrogen generation stations based on the sort of technology that you are describing here, but given the inefficiencies you describe, I am hard pressed to imagine that this sort of thing could make for much of a slice in our energy pie by 2025.

user-pic

I agree that this technology is not something that would come along in time for energy independence in McCain's time frame. I'm just defending the concept of hydrogen as a fuel source. It is inefficient, but that is only a problem if the feeder fuel source is a scarce commodity. If we can tap into solar, wind, and other renewable sources in a major way, then inefficiency isn't such a big deal anymore.

Let's say we have to drive 100 miles. Which car (gas powered vs. hydrogen fuel powered) a) produces the least amount of harmful emissions; b) takes more input energy to produce the requisite amount of fuel for the trip; 3) has a lower total environmental impact? I would be truly grateful for some links if you have any.

Thanks.

user-pic

Sorry, no links, just opinion and a little knowledge. I believe that oil wins (b) by a large margin, but hydrogen may win (a) and (c), depending on the source of the energy required to "distill" it. Electrolizing hydrogen from water has only oxygen as its "emission." (Conversely, running a car on hydrogen has only oxygen as its emission.) But if you are using coal, oil, or a wood-burning stove to electrolize your hydrogen, you are burning dirty fuel to get your clean fuel.

If we have a more efficient method for generating hydrogen, or used truly clean energy to do the work, then hydrogen wins on (a) and (b). Also, it's a lot easier to keep the emissions from a power plant out of the atmosphere, than it is to keep the emissions from our oil-burning cars out of the atmosphere, so even if you have to use dirty fuel to get hydrogen, it may be better for the environment because the emissions come from the dirty fuels at the power plant, which can be scrubbed.

Conversely, running a car on hydrogen has only oxygen as its emission.

I am sure that you meant to say "water" would be such a car's only emission. The oxygen would react with the hydrogen fuel to make water.

I have no more links than Allsburg, but it seems to me that the hydrogen car would win a) hands down. The gasoline powered car emits all sorts of undesirable things, while the hydrogen fuel cell car (the car itself) emits only water. In terms of the total emissions necessary to get the hydrogen to power it, that would depend on the fuel source used. Nuclear has no "emissions" as such, although it does produce undesirable by-products. Coal-fired power plants have a variety of unpleasant emissions. Photo-voltaic cells (assuming that you could find an area large enough to hold them all) would have no emissions.

As goes b) and c), however, it seems to me that the answer to your question is unknown and unknowable. The idea that we could generate hydrogen in amounts large enough to be workable is still totally hypothetical, so there are no actual data as yet to use in calculating such costs. For all I know, it could end up being better than the answers to b) and c) for gasoline, but it is hard to say as yet.

I am trying to decide if McCain is just this inept or if he is really a crafty fox and there is some master plan to all of this.

I think I need to go with inept since I can see no conceivable way this can be advantagous. Nuclear energy - to Nevada, but no plan to get rid of the waste?? Fantasy accomplishments??

Well, not much from '04 seems to be working so lets hope the 'appeal to the idiots who elected GW' strategy also fails.

It is hard to be impressed with this. McCain could not be in office -- and probably will not be alive, when this promise comes due -- so it has no real meaning. I doubt this will impress many voters. He has a declarative, almost authoritarian style. A bit like Bush Junior, actually. It conveys resolve, and is meant to convey strength, but Americans have had eight years of this kind of bluster, and I bet they will not fall for it this time.

And the same could be said about Kennedy's statement regarding sending a man to the moon.

Your argument is without merit.

We need to invest in high-speed commuter rail, boost urban infrastructure for public transportation, and support mixed-development plans around mass transit hubs in order to change the way we live, and bring our communities closer together.

McCain needs to watch it when he throws out dates so far into the future. He might as well be saying, "by the time I'm almost 100 years old..."

He left out the most important part:

"... if we elect Barack Obama."

McCain, we need independence from ALL oil, not just foreign oil or oil from our enemies.

Next, please!

The "joy" of McSame-speak!

Did he promise a pony in every garage too?

Our goal should be independence from oil and other non-renewable sources of energy ... otherwise we are passing the buck to our children and grandchildren. Now is the time!

People have heard this stuff so many times they're not going to put one ounce of trust in it. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush - they've all promised we would wean ourselves off of foreign oil through one bs program or another (remember the great promise of shale oil?). This gets McCain nothing, and makes him just seen another in a long line of Washington bsers.

McCain: "But, this time, we really, REALLY mean it. Please? Just one more chance?"

John McCain's Wholly Unfeasible Yet Mavericky Campaign Promises:

independence from foreign oil in 15 years!

the Iraq War won in 5 years!

a Model T in every barn!

an oil lantern on every table!

salted pork in every gullet!


vote Republican and your problems will be solved!

user-pic
Even now, some in Washington still seem to think the best plan is a direct, heartfelt appeal for Saudi sympathy, as if that conveyed anything other than weakness.

"Some," like Bush and Cheney? Guess he's realized that the old "jawbone the Saudis" line isn't going to be a winner this time around.

In the way of new ideas, a majority of the House of Representatives actually voted in favor of suing OPEC, as if we can litigate our way to energy security.

God, even just reading the text, I can hear that sneering tone he always takes as he lectures us...

Well, alrighty then Senator Janus McCain; that would explain why you think that we should occupy Iraq for the next seventeen years, but why do you still want to do so for another eight three years, after you no longer need any oil from that region?

You've got a whole lot of 'splainin' to do Senator Lucy Goosy With The Facts McCain!!!

Crap! Publicola beat me to the pony comment. I want a pony. Please, Mr. McCain, my 'friend'. You said you were my friend.

Like how McCain referenced the moon program? A day after Obama made a similar reference - in a speech criticising McCain's energy policy in Las Vegas.

Was this a case of coincidental metaphores or just another case of McCain's speech writers trying to use Obama's words for their own purposes (to bad effect, I might add)?

I wonder if McCain's version of "strategic independance" also includes Canada's oil. Given the way that the incumbent regime has crapped all over Canada ever chance it gets, I would hope that he hasn't included our oil in his projections.

He is making a promise he can't keep, at least not with his energy policies. But it sounds good to people, it sounds like a "plan" because somehow some of them still believe Republican "promises", but give me a break, there is no way in hell.

He's also going to fix climate change by putting a huge air conditioned dome over the US.

And, everyone gets a puppy on inauguration day!

A lot of this may be empty bull, but the fact is that McCain is framing the debate on energy, coming up with substantive plans (flawed as they are) every day and forcing Obama to respond. Meanwhile, Obama seems strangely passive and almost whiny in his responses on the subject.

This is a huge issue this year, and the Dems has to come up with a bold, substantive plan that can be clearly explained. Just saying no to everything the Repubs propose (or simply responding with lite versions of their proposals) is the same trap that defeated Democrats for years.

Nope. He's reacting to Obama's lead here. Obama's leading on this issue and he's making McCain look weak.

Obama has said nothing on the subject save criticism of McCain's proposals and a pledge to control speculators (which in a world based commodities market is nearly impossible).

Obama has offered zero, nothing of substance that can even be considered for debate.

Once again he is on the defensive. Always reactive, never proactive. Never a leader.

user-pic

Mcbush also thinks the moon is made of green cheese. I wish he would use that green background again. It would emphasize his message about the moon.

Oil is a fungible commodity with the price determined by global demand, is it not? Then what's the difference between getting our oil from Canada vs. from Saudi Arabia? We'd still suffer if OPEC decides to limit production; it'd be Canadian oil producers charging us more instead of the scary Mooslems, but we'd still be fucked just as hard.

user-pic

Yep, that point also applies to the off shore drilling. We'd just be getting fucked by republican campaign contributors. We need to get off oil in a big way and it can be done. Better sooner than later.

That is true assuming that the oil is available to the world. Countries could certainly establish cartels that would limit the availability of it to only those that they wanted to sell it to. And like the sale of sensitive computer and military products, some would slip through but the availability could be limited.

Independence seems more sensible, not only in the long term, but there are short term possibilities as well. For all the talk about the cost of gas, transportation is only 28 percent of our energy consumption. It doesn't take any magic technological solutions to insulate buildings or other energy saving means. More efficient heating and cooling, household appliances, more efficiency in manufacturing, local food production, using public transit, carpooling, driving 5 or 10 mph slower, cutting down on unnecessary trips -these are all things that can be done immediately or in the very near future.
Higher fuel mileage in the entire US automobile fleet will take longer, but already sales of trucks and high consumption vehicles is down.
Solar, wind, geothermal, cattle methane recapture, landfill methane electrical generation, those are longer term, but now is the time to start.
If we were to become one of the most energy efficient countries in the world, the price of fossil fuels will probably still be very high, but it won't have as much impact on our economic well being, not to mention foreign adventures. Our products would be more competitive with the developing industrial countries unless they also become more energy efficient. oh how horrible that would be, a race to be less dependent on fossil fuels.
this is my first post on TPM, been reading it for months, but nows the time to participate in the discussion.
One last thought, I know Obama supports corn ethanol, but sugar is much better. And there is a nice little island 90 miles from Florida that used to grow a lot of it. Might be a nice carrot for discussion with our neighbors, si?

Well,
Between this and his 300 million for a better car battery, i can't tell if he is trying to seem a bold leader on Energy and Climate Change and if this is working, or is he is just sounding more out of touch , shouting off random maverick soundbites...

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address