On The Campaign Trail: Green Energy Beginning To Evoke The Feelings Of Americans
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: greentech, election
Opinion - The discussion and debate over the state of our nation’s energy independence is in full swing. The Republicans are taking an offensive approach and attacking the concepts that are involved in Obama’s energy plan. Unfortunately, John McCain isn’t doing such a great job at pronouncing his own energy plan’s name. With the concept of offshore drilling becoming more popular and more acceptable among the general public, it still has the candidates divided.
On Sunday, following our Independence Day, the Republican National Committee decided that it was appropriate to launch an ad regarding our energy independence. The ad is being run in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and is more than likely the start of many others to follow since the concept of energy conservation and consumption is a major issue that separates these two candidates.
Cleverly enough, McCain and the Republican Party have named their energy plan the "Lexington Project". Witty marketing techniques aim to mentally persuade citizens that America has to assert its energy independence in the same way in which we fought to gain our national independence. The only issue with this strategy is that McCain has trouble getting out the words "Lexington Project". He has repeatedly had trouble saying the name of his energy plan. You can watch this video from the New York Times. His inability to say the name of his own energy plan causes one to doubt whether or not he will be able to hold a candle to Obama’s speech regarding energy.
More and more Americans are beginning to feel that energy exploration is important and should be a top priority says a recent poll from the Pew Research Center. Apparently, 47% of respondents to this poll believe that energy exploration, drilling, and building new power plants should be at the top of the list of our country’s priorities. This is up from 35% only five months ago when the cost of energy was lower. McCain is in favor of lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling whereas Obama feels that this tactic is a "gimmick", and that it will not provide the United States with any sort of long term relief.
Though these ad campaigns are generally negative and attacking they are serving a great purpose as far as most environmentalists are concerned and that is education. Americans need to be aware that the environment should be on a top priority regardless your political affiliation. If there is one thing these ads are doing it’s getting the attention of the people and making them aware.
What is your opinion regarding the energy plans? How important do you think they will be this election?
-
Previous News Article
Flash Lite Now On The iPhone,... -
Next News Article
Google's YouTube Ad Revenue...
I do not know what this has to do with computers? Anyways I say drill and explore.
We are preventing offshore drilling in the US but other countries such as China are starting to look at drilling off of our costs. Since we can not stop them if the drill in international waters. We need to decide if we would rather see US oil drilling rigs off our coasts following environmental laws to reduce spillage and contamination plus help our economy or would you rather see another countries oil rigs out their that may not follow any environmental regulation and hinder our economy?
I'm curious about what some people are saying about the unused leases. The conotation is that there is no sense is allowing more offshore leases since the oil companies can allready drill there and they aren't doing it. I don't understand this, the Dems keep using it as a reason to disallow exploration but there doesn't seem to be any information to confirm or deny what they're saying.
I find it amazing that the same people who opposed offshore drilling 10 years ago because "we won't see any results for 10 years" are saying the same thing now. It's sad that some people are so short sighted and don't look at short term, medium, and long term solutions that include all options.
Oil has worn itself out as a travel agent but it benefits too many old people..we will suffer them till they pass on. Its time to move on from hot combustion.
@velocityg4: Not really too sure why these articles keep popping on Tom's Hardware either. One can usually though surmise that it has to with Tom's Hardware journalists wanting to tackle "Harder, more meaningful issues" and just happen to use this website as a podium for their beliefs. Note the "Opinion" notation at the top of the article.
@DMNTD: Hey, if you want the whole USA to buy new cars immediately and have all the companies go into bankruptcy putting in Electricity and Hydrogen fueling stations, that's your perogitive. There's one word that describes the problem of instantly jumping to a new energy source fror the whole country: "Infrastructure". To have all these new energy vehicles be viable, you need to have places to recharge or refuel them. That requires willing companies to setup fueling stations and willing customers to buy cars for technologies that may, or may not, be adopted by the masses. Probably a good example to refer back to is VHS vs. BetaMAX. BetaMAX was the better video medium, yet it wasn't adopted as much as VHS, so it failed, and a lot of people were left with BetaMAX players with no new movies.
Three things are the solution to the energy crisis: Biofuels (Not the craptastic ones like Ethanol, but the ones that are actually efficient, and trust me, there's tons of better ones out there), More drilling, and most importantly, that is probably the largest source of all the oil prices, is removing the publics ability to buy any more Futures on Crude Oil.
For those not in the know, Futures are where you buy a commodity at a -set- price, and will recieve it in the future at that same price. It was sometime back in the 90s iirc, that futures for oil, which were previously limited to the oil companies and a few other companies, were opened to the public. After that, you had financial institutions buying large ammounts of futures on crude oil. Those institutions are still getting that oil off those futures contracts at the same price they purchased it for back then.
But really... Tom's Hardware, can we keep political articles to a minimum?
What does energy and pollution have to do with computers? Are you kidding me?
First, you need power to run a computer. Sure, your single home desktop and one laptop might not be much - but if even only 1/3 the US population runs it your already at 100 million computers and 100 million laptops. Many of those browse the internet, which requires server farms that run 24/7. Add to that the data centers and university computer labs, and you begin to realize just how much energy computers use.
Furthermore, when you have data centers and server farms running systems running 24/7, the environment must be strictly controlled. As any home system builder knows, heat is always a factor - and where do we typically vent heat from computer systems? Yup, we vent it into a room, which then in production environments must then be air conditioned.
How many times have you upgraded a component or monitor, and what do you do with those unwanted component and computers? Do you dump it in the trash (which in many areas of the US is illegal) or properly recycle it? Read up on the e-waste that the US exports - there are many toxic components within electronic components when discarded. When this waste is buried in landfills, it leads to the toxic compounds leeching into soils and ground water supplies. This isn't even touching on the impacts of manufacturing (which the article on flat panels was trying to point out).
If you do a bit of digging, you will see that the electronics and computer industry is notorious for its energy consumption and pollution. It is also known as an industry that doesn't seem to be concerned about its ecological footprint. The general reaction of Tom's readers each time an article about energy or pollution comes up is an excellent example of how unconcerned and detached those in the field really are.
What does energy and pollution have to do with computers? Are you kidding me? It has everything to do with computers.
Please Tom's Hardware, keep bringing up these issues (and maybe explain why they are appropriate to bring up in a computer forum - the average reader seems to need to have the justification explained to them).
---------------------------------------------------------
I will not go into length here discussion potential solutions, but make a few quick points. First, there is no such thing as clean or non-polluting energy. No matter what you do, there will be an environmental impact. Second, when you look at energy solutions, be sure to look at all the impacts and costs over the entire period of production (called LCA - life cycle analysis). I think wind and solar are key solutions as they use a one-time disruption of the environment for mining and manufacturing, have limited impact over their production lifespan, require no further mining or feedstock transportation for production, and have minimal water impact (basically needed for cleaning, not production). There are impacts, but they are significantly less than the fossil fuel alternatives. I, for one, would like to have a life time of power for my computer systems - and preferably one with minimal impacts and long term sustainability (measured in thousands of years, not hundreds).