Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Let's go to the moon right here on Earth." A New Manhattan Project

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:18 AM
Original message
"Let's go to the moon right here on Earth." A New Manhattan Project
On September 11th, 2001 - one block away from that site - the World Trade Center was brought down in another sudden, sneak attack, the most brutal and deadly attack America has ever known. The federal office building at 90 Church Street was damaged but still stands.

To this generation, September 11th was our December, 7th - and it calls for a response equally profound - not just in armed force, although that is essential - but in the imagination, the daring and the sense of exploration that define America at its best.

Terrorism is the new Fascism, the new Communism, the new totalitarianism - a grave and global threat to our values and our way of life. We can defeat it; we must defeat it; and we will defeat it; but we need more than hard words and powerful weaponry. In a different direction, in a different way, we need to reach as high as Roosevelt reached - with a new national initiative on the scale of the Manhattan Project to harness our thinking and our technology - this time, not to create a new kind of bomb, but to develop new forms of energy that will at long last make America more energy independent.

So I have come here today to set out a strategy for greater energy independence - so that within a decade, this nation will no longer have to rely on Mideast oil. And in achieving that new form of freedom for America, we can at the same time clean the environment and create new jobs for half a million Americans.

With sixty-five percent of the world's oil reserves in Middle East, our over-reliance on oil presents a real threat to national security. We can unleash the spirit of American ingenuity to meet this challenge. My strategy calls for new investments in research, new incentives for companies and consumers, new partnership across the old dividing lines, and higher standards of energy efficiency for both business and government to meet. We can create Americans jobs and confront the dangers to our environment at the same time as we make this nation safer, stronger, and more secure.

The challenge will not be easy but neither was the Manhattan Project. It will require real resources and strong leadership and an unwavering will to make tough choices and take on entrenched interests. But America has shown again and again that when we come together to address the challenges of the day, we will succeed. The message that I bring with me is one that I will carry to every part of our country in this campaign - and it will be central to my Presidency: If we care about the national security of America, we can settle for nothing less than energy security for America. The cause is urgent, and the time is now.

We need boldness to match the challenges before us. Toughness to meet the threats we face. But with George Bush in the White House, all we've had is politics as usual. And after September 11th, that is just not acceptable.

Time and again he has postponed, equivocated, done nothing or done the wrong thing. I believe that in the war on terror, we have to find Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein - and I wish we already had. But in seeking energy independence, we have to do more than find a little more oil by drilling in and despoiling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - it does far more harm than good, and it is wrong for our future.

Today we have an energy policy of big oil, by big oil and for big oil. It may work for their profits, but it will never work for America. And yet George Bush persists in pursuing a course that can only be described as energy dependence - an approach, that despite all his boasts about a stronger America, will actually risk our hopes, make us weaker, and make both our economy and our country more vulnerable to blackmail by hostile powers.

This President Bush opposes raising fuel economy standards - which are at a 20 year low. He proposes budgets that shortchange investments in clean, renewable, domestic sources of energy like wind, solar, and biomass. He disdains energy conservation. He crafts his energy plan in secret meetings where the doors are open to industry lobbyists, but firmly shut to the public and the public interests. He has kept the official government documents of what happened there secret, but it is plain to see that his Vice President and his Administration put their friends in the oil and energy business first. George Bush and Dick Cheney have put the big oil's interests before the national interest - that's wrong for our environment, wrong for American jobs, wrong for national security.

I stand here today, as I will stand in the months and years ahead, and I say to you and the American people: I believe it is time to put our national security first. I believe it is time for this Administration to stop invoking the false choice of drilling in Alaska or the more distant prospect of hydrogen cars as a standard operating procedure for changing the subject, evading responsibility, and avoiding the imperative of moving toward greater energy independence now. Our national security is at stake and we have to act today, not wait for decades while new crises threaten or strike.

Every day and every year we delay, America will continue to pay a high price for our over-reliance on foreign oil. We spend $20 billion annually on oil imports from the Persian Gulf. Instead of indefinitely sending that money to the Mideast, we should launch an energy strategy to invest in the Midwest and in the rest of America, generating new jobs and new technologies here at home.

But this is not just a question of dollars and cents. It is a question that measures the depth and strength of our commitment to national security. The money we pay today for foreign oil too often pours into the pockets of some of the planet's most uncooperative and repressive regimes. The dollars we spend at the pump can too easily be diverted to finance the very terrorists that would seek to destroy us. And our endless reliance on the Middle East for oil means that others half a world away hold life insurance policies on America's economy. September 11th doesn't just demand that we confront the danger of terrorism; it demands that we drain the swamps that can sustain and even increase it.

There is a better way. We have the opportunity and potential to create an oil-free future. Once the idea of creating clean, renewable sources of energy right here in America was dismissed as science fiction. Today, it is potentially right around the corner - and, more often than not, the technology is already here.

With common-sense investments in advancing and speeding breakthroughs, we can literally, on large scale, for the first time in human history, harness the natural world around us to light and power the world we live in; the sun, the wind, water, and a rich array of crops can provide us with secure forms of energy at reasonable costs for a modern 21st century economy.

We can use new technologies and innovations to recast existing sources of energy - like oil, coal, and natural gas - and use them more cleanly and efficiently.

And by seizing the amazing opportunities presented to us by American agriculture, it will ensure that the renewable fuel content of gasoline will grow to five billion gallons in the next decade. That's good for America and American farmers.

We can do all this while creating jobs - not losing them. And while preserving and not subverting the environment for this and future generations. The threat from greenhouse gases and global warming is real and we have to confront it head on.

In sum, setting a national goal of ending our reliance on Middle East oil within this next decade is critical to the long-term national security of the United States. No foreign government can embargo clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy -- and no terrorist can seize control of them.

So I am running for President to declare America energy independent - with deeds and not just words. And there is a path to that more secure future if we just summon the will to lead the way.

First, as President, I will channel the funds the government is already owed to invest in rapid growth in technologies that save energy and create alternative fuels. Through a new energy security and conservation trust fund, Americans will have a guaranteed commitment to reducing our dependence on oil. America only has three percent of the world's oil reserves. There is no metaphysical or miraculous way for us to drill our way out of a 60% foreign oil dependency. We have to invent our way out of it; American ingenuity has to drive the process - and new American jobs will be the dividend.

Unfortunately, the funding today is sporadic, uncertain, and always insufficient. We may not have the greatest oil reserves on Earth; but we do have the great resources to find and foster new fuels and to conserve and optimize traditional ones. So the trust fund I propose will take existing royalties that corporations now pay for the right to drill on public lands and dedicate that money to R&D into cleaner and more abundant energy sources. We will do justice to conservation and we will, for the first time, have a guaranteed national commitment to reduce our dependence on foreign oil - to fund renewable energy, accelerate the development of fuel cell vehicles, and support biomass projects like those here in Iowa which can convert our agricultural plenty into energy security.

Second, the road to more energy independence depends on making our cars and trucks more energy efficient. One out of every seven barrels of oil in the world is consumed on America's highways. Instead, I propose both economic incentives to build the cars, the trucks, the SUVs, and the buses of the future - and higher standards for gas mileage for every new vehicle produced or sold in this country. The threats that America faces today don't just come from gun barrels, they come from oil barrels - and we need to disarm that danger.

But the fact of the matter is that for too long, our national security has been ignored while politicians engage in a false fight between the environment and jobs. The result is that we have been standing by while we are both losing jobs and endangering the endangering.

Let's be honest: Energy-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles are one of the most promising, profitable, and job creating innovations we will see in this century - from today's hybrids to tomorrow's hydrogen cars. America cannot afford or accept a fuel economy gap. Yet, already foreign automakers have beat us to the punch with cars that get all the acceleration and go all the distance, but require half the gas.

We must seize this important opportunity and make sure that America leads the way. If we continue to lag behind, we multiply the risks that the cars of the future will be built in Japan or Korea or Europe at the expense of American jobs. President Bush says that he wants children born today to have the option of driving a fuel cell vehicle when they turn 18. But he doesn't say who will build that car. I know who I want to build that car - I want it built in America by American auto workers.

But this is a race - and America has to enter it now with all the resources at our command. The President wants to wait and hope for a bright and clean future. I want to work to create that future. My plan calls for a hydrogen-based energy economy by 2020. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe - and if we can tap it in the right way we can achieve a revolution for our time as far reaching as any we have ever known - from the invention of the wheel to the coming of steam power and electricity. Tapping into the power of the lightest element, hydrogen-powered cars can go long distances while emitting water vapors instead of exhaust fumes.

But we cannot convert to hydrogen overnight. Today, a car fueled by hydrogen costs as much as $500,000 and efforts to create the infrastructure for full hydrogen use are scattered, disorganized, and underfunded. To enlist America's scientists and researchers in both the public and private sectors, as President I will create a new Hydrogen Institute to fund research and design the codes and standards that will ensure the safety of a new hydrogen economy. For decades, Americans best researchers and top scientists have come together to solve important national challenges. We must call on them again. I know they are up to the task.

I will charge the Hydrogen Institute with developing a road map for putting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and two and half million hydrogen cars by 2020.

But that alone is not soon enough, fast enough, or ambitious enough. We dare not delay, as President Bush has suggested, depending solely on hydrogen power someday and leaving our security, our jobs, and our environment vulnerable today. We can reduce our dependence on dangerous foreign oil if we have leaders ready to make the right choices. The Bush Administration has misused the potential of a hydrogen economy as a cover for scare tactics today in an excuse to put off the pressing challenge of fuel economy until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. He has kicked the issue down the road - when we should be working toward an energy independent America today.

Any energy strategy that lacks a specific commitment to make today's transportation more efficient only locks in our nation's dependence on foreign oil; it undermines our national security and the economic security of every family in America.

We have the technology to manufacture cars with far better gas mileage - and we can and must do it now. Not a single American will have to give up driving an SUV, or a pick-up truck. President Bush is stopping this progress - not because American ingenuity isn't up to the task, but because they're playing politics. When I'm President, that will come to an end.

The research shows that the best way to reduce oil dependence in the near term is to increase fuel efficiency in the near term. A recent study found that raising fuel standards accounts for 80 percent of the savings in oil we can achieve by 2012. We can build the right kind of cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks. We can do it affordably and efficiently. We can give Americans a wide range of choice without leaving America with no choice but endless energy dependence.

No one should kid themselves: making America more energy independent while creating jobs and preserving the environment at the same time, won't be easy. But it is a challenge we can and must meet. With a clear vision, effective leadership, and innovative policies, I know it can be done. We elect Presidents to show leadership when our safety and prosperity is at risk. Those are the stakes today. America's security and American jobs are on the line - and we need leadership to bring our country together to meet the challenges before us.

And as we require higher fuel efficiency, we have to help companies and consumers alike make the transition -- and my plan does exactly that. It offers tax incentives to buy efficient vehicles, and new incentives for manufacturers to convert factories to build them. My plan invests $1 billion a year to help the auto industry convert to new plants to build more energy-efficient vehicles - to make sure the jobs of the future stay right here in America.

This plan is balanced and fair. It sets serious goals, but makes sure we have the tools to meet them. It will strengthen the American auto industry, protect and create jobs, and even as we safeguard our environment, we will be able to say within a decade, that we will also safeguard our nation from reliance on Mideast oil.

Third, the energy security strategy I propose will focus on renewable sources where the reserves are, in effect, endlessly greater than all the oil fields on Earth. We can generate more and more of our electricity from wind, the sun, and forest and farm products. I believe we can and should produce twenty percent of all our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Twenty by 2020 - now that's a clear vision for America.

We will fund research in this area - including research to realize the vast promise of new forms of ethanol from biomass which can become an entirely new cash crop for America's farms and commercial forestries.

This also requires spurring more private sector investment in clean energy projects. Too many of today's projects don't get built because sponsors can't raise capital even when there are attractive financial returns. By extending tax credits for renewable energy projects and making the small ethanol producer credit more workable for farmers, we can increase jobs while we make this nation more energy independent.

Right here in Iowa, Iowa State has already begun a graduate program in biorenewables. And a recent state bioeconomy symposium set a goal for Iowa to increase its production of biobased materials twenty fold - by 2020. You can do it. We can do it. But we need national leadership committed to doing it.

And government itself, in its own operations, has to lead the way, not lag behind. For example, with five hundred thousand buildings and a huge fleet of cars, the US government is the largest single consumer of energy in the world. If Washington leads by example, we can demonstrate that we can save energy and save billions of dollars at the same time. As President, I will put the government on course to cut its energy bill twenty percent by 2020 - and I will challenge local governments, corporations, universities, small businesses and hospitals to do the same.

As President I will also propose tax credits for builders and homeowners to make their homes meet the highest energy-efficient standards. And I will offer more Americans more choices of public transportation to go to work and get home - quicker, with less pollution, and at lower cost.

Fourth, the energy strategy I will pursue envisions a comprehensive effort to expand the supply of natural gas. It is the cleanest form of fossil fuel - and ninety percent of it is found here at home. Today, high prices and supply shortages are hurting the families that depend on natural gas to heat their homes, as well as the businesses and farms that rely on it to do their work. The first step is to crack down on the profiteers who manipulate the natural gas market. My plan calls for a North American Compact, bringing together our allies in Canada and Mexico to develop and transport clean natural gas resources from across all over North America - especially in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

Fifth, my energy strategy treats coal as a valuable resource - not just a ploy to carry a state in an election, but as an essential fuel which can contribute realistically and responsibly to the energy policy of the next generation. Some - like George Bush - hope to create fear in coal producing regions that any environmental changes will doom their economy and their livelihood. Others say coal that has no future. Both views are wrong - wrong for jobs, wrong for energy independence, and in the end, even wrong for the environment. Instead we can and must develop and deploy clean electric power from coal. We have the breakthroughs - and others are in reach - to lower pollution from power plants without abandoning the coal industry, the families and the communities that depend on it. Any other course would be unfair to them, unsustainable economically and unacceptable economically if we were serious about greater energy independence. Instead of continued decline in coal, we have to promote the new prosperity that can come from new and cleaner coal technology.

Finally, this energy security plan is not about spending more, but spending smarter. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have been lavishing billions of dollars in subsidies and corporate welfare on big energy companies while starving the researchers and consumers who could power our way to energy independence. The Bush policy is to subsidize off-shore drilling and strip-mining while refusing to fund the energy revolution that will create jobs and make our country and economy more secure. This has to change - and if I am President, we will change it.

And at the same time, we will repeal the outrageous one hundred thousand dollar tax break for the purchase of luxury gas-guzzlers like Hummers. This was intended to help farmers and others who need light trucks - and that's right - not to subsidize lavish and inefficient machines. Americans have the right to drive whatever car they want - but at a time of international threats, and in a generation of long term danger, they don't have the right to have the government finance more dependence on foreign oil.

One hundred-fifty years ago, folks in my home state of Massachusetts couldn't imagine a time when they didn't get their power from whale oil. A hundred years ago, oil drilling was rare; in the late 1800s, it only accounted for three percent of the nation's energy consumption. Part of the genius of America is that change is a constant; the demands of a different time have always brought out the best in our nation's spirit. We have faced hard times economically, overcome them and become stronger and more prosperous than ever. We have confronted great dangers and met them. We have dreamed of far horizons, of unimaginable leaps of science and invention, and made them real. We are the greatest free society and the greatest technological society on Earth.

Now we must simultaneously call on all these elements of our national character as we seldom have before. At stake is our national security as well as our prosperity, a new era of job creation and our leadership in the energy breakthroughs that will open vast new markets for our products and an unparalleled summons to safeguard the earth God made and we guard.

One hundred years ago this week, a young man named Henry Ford and eleven investors joined together to form the Ford Motor Company. They started with $28,000 in cash and waited more than a month before they got their first order. But the American auto industry they and other great companies built became the backbone of our economy and an inspiration to the world. During World War II, Detroit became the arsenal of our democracy - marshaling its know-how and can-do spirit to defeat fascism and make America secure.

A little less than half a century later, when an American President challenged America to go to the moon, there were doubters who said it was impossible. When we seek to eliminate dependence on middle east oil, the doubters will be heard again, some of them cynical and some of them self-interested. But I have faith in the capacity of the American people to rise to a decisive test. And I believe in this time of danger in the world, of dependence on Mideast oil, it is time to challenge Americans to go to the moon here on Earth.

There is urgency in this endeavor and pride in what we can accomplish. The scale, the ambition, the consequences may equal the Manhattan Project; but the roots of what I propose go deeper into American history, back to the beginning. It was Thomas Jefferson who said that the American Revolution would have to be renewed every twenty years. In less than a month, we will mark the 227th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence which he wrote. Now we face a new and very different threat to our freedom that our founders never foresaw - and we in this day and decade must write for America a new declaration of energy independence.

I want to know within the next ten years that the light which shines from the Statue of Liberty - and the light which gleam across the parks where Iowans celebrate the Fourth of July - will not have to be powered by Mideast oil but can symbolize an America free from dependence, stronger and more secure than ever before.

I ask for your help - not just in this campaign - but in the cause of that more truly independent America. Americans have long proven they know how to meet the challenges of our day. We can embrace the challenge of greater energy independence - and we can meet it. But we need a President who can lead us there. And that's why I'm running for President.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_06...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onebigbadwulf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think this post is a little too long
how about giving me the gist of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV1962 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. In three words: "vote for me"
Sums it up nicely, methinks. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Did you read it?
Edited on Thu Feb-12-04 02:48 AM by Feanorcurufinwe
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well
I hope you'll take the time to read it.

But the gist is Kerry's energy policy, the centerpiece of which is a focus on developing alternative energy and other technologies to make America more energy independant. Of course that's probably a goal all the candidates would agree with but it is a real focus of Kerry's policy, and also Kerry actually has a plan for jumpstarting the effort with an Energy Security and Conservation Trust funded by existing oil and gas royalty payments.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/plan.html
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/long_enviro.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. "Let's go to the moon right here on Earth."
Anyone who has seen Eddie Izzard's stand-up routine can't read that without laughing. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. To the moon...
Bang! Zoom!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. Thank you
It's the effort that counts! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. The first sensible post I've seen from a Kerry supporter in a long time
and an actual REASON to vote for John Kerry.

I addressed this issue a few months ago, though, and came to the conclusion that what he has planned isn't enough. Although he's right to akin this challenge to the Manhattan Project or going to the Moon, it's much more important than either of them and 100 times more complicated and costly. This issue is THE issue of our time, and we have to do something about it.

Good post. Maybe I'll vote for Kerry in the GE after all. But, if he wins, he'd better do something about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. What is your suggestion for improving Kerry's plan?
Edited on Thu Feb-12-04 03:38 AM by Feanorcurufinwe
I ask in the spirit of wanting to hear your ideas, not in the spirit of contention.

But I think you underestimate the importance that Kerry places on this issue. This really underlies many of his policies, in the way that energy independence helps our security, developing new technologies will drive our economy and create new jobs. Look at the way he won support of the auto workers in Michigan in spite of his support for higher CAFE standards. The world will buy more of our cars if we make them more efficient - Kerry has pledged to be the President who ends the false choice between jobs and the environment, and he is already winning people over.

As Kerry says in his stump speech, this is something we need to do, and the sooner we start, the better.

And do you know of another candidate who has a better energy plan, and if so why is it better?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I don't know of a better plan. I just think that the scaling
of the project is off. If done properly, this would be bigger than the New Deal. This should cost trillions of dollars, and the numbers I saw from Kerry supporters were talking about 10 B's here and 5 there. This sounds like more of a way of creating jobs than actually solving the problem.

Think about how huge this would be- all new cars/engines, factory retoolings. It'd be an enormous undertaking.

Anyway, I'd love to see him do it. The size and cost of a project like it scares most folks off, so the president that actually does it will probably go down in history as the most important president we've ever had. I'm just not sure that anyone will ever have the gall to take it on, on it's proper scale.

Hell, go for it, Kerry. I'd love to see him do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Bigger budget to subsidize existing Solar solutions/implementations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foo_bar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. one word: warm superconductors
If we spent half our defense budget on high energy physics, we'd be overrun by maneating cyborgs in no time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV1962 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
33. That's two words! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
11. Ironic
My discovery of Kerry's energy policy drove me to him originally.

My discovery of his war vote drove me away.

I'll give JK all the way until election day to win my vote, but he will have to win it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
12. I didn't know...
you could post something that long.

But, he's got a point.

Energy independance and alternative fuels research is extremely important economically and environmentally.

Economically, our trade deficit and jobs problems could be partially solved by hugely expanded, or new, industries of alternative energy production and new methods of extracting and using coal.

Since the rest of the world seems to be much further along than we are in all of this, it would also increase our competitive standing in the new technologies from about zero to pretty good.

Curiously, there is much talk of the "costs" of alternative energy programs. What is missing there is that all energy "costs" something to extract, and the "costs" of building a new industry are really investments, which will have huge returns. The money spent does go to employ people and build things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. This is one of the most important issues of our time
and I'm glad Kerry's on it.

Now he needs to take all these words and boil them down to a few pithy slogans that he can repeat at every opportunity so that the public understands that energy consumption as usual will not see us through the coming decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Sounds a lot like Kucinich
I like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. This sounds strikingly familiar
Of course, last March when energy researchers and activists formed a group and Rep. Jay Inslee presented it to the Democratic caucus, the called it the "New Apollo Project."

So Kerry changes the name from Apollo to Manhattan and all of a sudden it's his idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Jay Inslee is great
He was on C-Span talking about how the war was wrong and occupation is wrong.

I respect him. Nice to hear he had a hand in developing this idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. It would have been even nicer to have seen some credit given
After all, all the top candidates have endorsed the New Apollo Alliance, but Kerry doesn't even mention them in his speech. To read it, you'd think he'd thought the whole thing up himself.

How about a little credit for those who actually built this idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. This may actually get me excited for Kerry...I still have wounds to heal..
though
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. www.apolloalliance.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. I just donated $1,000 dollars to Kerry's campaign because of this...
anyone want to match me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. You just had $1,000 lying around?
Why didn't you donate it to the Apollo Alliance directly instead? All the candidates support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. We need to beat Bush before we can move forward on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I already have...
and yes, I have the money.

This thread needs a kick anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. Thanks for This
Sounds like a good energy policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I thought it was important to remind everyone
that there are real issues out there, that matter not only to us, but to our children.

And you are very welcome - thank you for the gracious comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
29. Energy independence is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue
Every non-oilman candidate should be embracing the quest for alternative energy as an economic, environmental and national security priority.

However, rather than framing the issue negatively as "another Manhattan Project", which developed the atomic bomb (oops!), how 'bout we frame it as another uplifting, moral mission for mankind -- akin to Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon.

See: The Apollo Alliance

and the Democratic candidates' statements in support of alternative energy... http://www.apolloalliance.org/support_statements.cfm


p.s. Seriously, *link* to articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShimokitaJer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:22 PM
Original message
That's Dean's position
"Dean has told audiences that he would not reduce military spending but rather "redirect" it toward the development and implementation of renewable energy technology (an issue he ties to defense), homeland security measures to fund local first responders, inspect container ships and protect nuclear sites (a move that Alexander Cockburn himself recently called on Bush to make), and the purchase of old nuclear materials in Russia."

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=1001

And, like the other candidates, he supports the New Apollo Project.

Unlike Kerry, he has not attempted to rename it and give speeches in which he fails to give credit to the Apollo Alliance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
32. Who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-04 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##
RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE

This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.

- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot


Click here to donate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-04 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
31. Kick a good post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC