DU this poll (alternative energy) - Democratic Underground

JohnLocke

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:29 PM
Original message

DU this poll (alternative energy)

Edited on Sat May-15-04 01:32 PM by JohnLocke

Bottom of page: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/
Keep this kicked, folks.
-------
BTW, how could 1000+ people believe that "private industry should invest in alternative energy when it makes economic sense"? When is that, in the middle of a gigantic oil crisis?
:wtf::wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NMDemDist2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

1. done

26.2%
It's time for government to invest in developing alternative fuels. I'm willing to pay for it with tax dollars. (836 responses)

32.1%
Let private industry do it; the marketplace will respond when it makes economic sense. (1025 responses)

30.6%
Instead of alternative fuels, the US should focus on using less energy, with fuel-efficient cars and public transit. (977 responses)

11.1%
None of the above. (354

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

skooooo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

2. replied to invest tax money...

....leaving it to the corporations??? You've got to be kidding me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LittleApple81

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

3. I did vote. But I think there are two of the choices that we must be able

to choose simultaneously (it is not an either/or choice, IMHO)
With gas prices inching over $2 a gallon, what's your view on alternative fuel sources?

1)It's time for government to invest in developing alternative fuels. 2)I'm willing to pay for it with tax dollars.
Let private industry do it; the marketplace will respond when it makes economic sense.
3)Instead of alternative fuels, the US should focus on using less energy, with fuel-efficient cars and public transit.
4)None of the above.

For me, I would choose 1 and 3 (not instead, but besides alternative fuels).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

markdd

(304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3

8. poll is rigged

No, I don't know if it's being run to prove a point. But since answers 1 & 3 are similar approaches, they will split votes and leave the private industry selection with a disproportionate share of the votes. While alternate fuels & government action are clearly the preferred choices ~65 - 33, it will appear that the private solution is slightly more "popular" than government action.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Momgonepostal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. To add to this, I'd also favor...

..giving tax incentives to private companies to work on alternative energy development. I definitely wouldn't trust private sector to do this all on their own, but anything that would encourage R&D in this area is great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

noahmijo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:33 PM
Response to Original message

4. Anything that says "Fuck You Saudia Arabia and your oil"

I fully support. Anything that makes us independent or any initiative that leads us to being independent of middle eastern oil I'm all for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JohnLocke

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Yes!

:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

immoderate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message

6. The government must lead the way

Alternative fuels (and I'm talking hydrogen here) bring up the chicken/egg problem. The infrastructure must be primed to supply the means for fueling, and private industry is less likely to take the risk without widespread support.

This may upset some anti-corporatists. It will be a windfall for the establishment. But the long run will lead to individual control of energy sources.

--IMM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

noahmijo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Well I agree

The problem is when you let the government do everything for you quality and effiency drops because you're not caring about profits.

Let private corporations handle everything then you got scandals, bribes, anything it takes to maximize profits.

There needs to be a marriage between the two when it comes to this kind of research and development.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

immoderate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #7

11. Yes this will take planning.

And it means that the Bush class is disqualified. No vision, y'know.

Government and industry, science and policy must be integrated. It is another stage of revolution, and we can hardly afford the missteps of other stages in the industrial revolution. Gosh, I'm waxing Utopian!

--IMM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

opihimoimoi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message

10. In the mean time, its should be considered wise to conserve our

energy usage by making things more efficent. We all hate to give up our recreation so we plan for approaches to avoid that aspect instead by focusing on efficiency. More milage for cars. Designing cities and communites to use less energy but the same or more output. We can do it. it just takes engineering and planning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

immoderate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. Yep!

--IMM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mitchtv

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message

13. bad poll

none of the above-? WTF? I want ALL of the above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kittykitty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. Me too, it was badly designed

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 03:44 PM
Response to Original message

15. The number of idiots is up to 1238

26.0%
It's time for government to invest in developing alternative fuels. I'm willing to pay for it with tax dollars. (921 responses)

34.9%
Let private industry do it; the marketplace will respond when it makes economic sense. (1238 responses)

28.9%
Instead of alternative fuels, the US should focus on using less energy, with fuel-efficient cars and public transit. (1024 responses)

10.2%
None of the above. (362 responses)

I voted #3. I loved #1, but the government would pass it on to big corporations who would then strangle us with it. Nothing is ever fair.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Darranar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-15-04 04:08 PM
Response to Original message

16. How about both 1 and 3?

Edited on Sat May-15-04 04:12 PM by Darranar

Both conservation and alternative energy are important. Alternative energy will, at least at first and probably for a very long time, if not forever, be insufficient for the amount of energy used right now. However, some energy has to be used somewhere, and the way we're using oil there won't be enough for even that sooner or later. So, concentrating on either solution is foolish; both should be well-funded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.