I would love to see the original context of this quote. I don't know what it is, but I am guessing the President was saying that he did not care if he got credit for the accomplishment or not, as long as it got done. You Obamaniacs say it does not matter what the accomplishment is, as long as Obama gets credit for something good.
Actually coming up with methods to improve efficiency will save you money in the long term. For example -- the government passed a law mandating more efficient lightbulbs. Now, suddenly, there's research into lightbulbs and there's a new incandescent which is 30% more efficient. That's money in your pocket.
That's exactly right. I'm not sure why you care what Obama gets credit for. This is a worldwide effort.
I have yet to hear anyone argue against efficiency. Increased efficiency is what we call 'progress' and it is rewarded in the marketplace-- you don't need a government mandate for it. As far as the lightbulbs are concerned, I really love how the greenies are pushing for lightbulbs that contain mercury. It is simply unbelievable that greenies are actually pushing to have people bring more mercury into their homes.
I expect the President to get credit for what he did well and to get slammed for the things he screwed up. Maybe I just don't buy the BS feed to the public on a platter. Obama is nothing special. His policies thus far have been failures, he is not as smart as they say he is, and he is a slightly above average speaker, thats all. He is a media creation and nothing more.
You're conflating two topics: CFL bulbs and new, high efficiency incandescents. Without getting into CFL discussions, the mercury in a CFL bulb is miniscule. But that's not what I was describing -- there has been new research and development into incadescents (old-style lightbulbs) since the government mandated that high efficiency bulbs were required. This research puts money into your pocket (and no, the private sector did not do this on its own, only when motivation was supplied.) In the same vein, CO2 reductions mean higher efficiency and higher efficiency means you save money.
1. The motivation in the free market is called making money. The current motivation is that if you don't do it, the Obama will fire the CEO of the company. 2. If you want to increase efficiency then do it for the sake of increasing efficiency. Don't fabricate some global warming lie and beat the drums of hysteria to achieve the goal of wealth redistribution and destruction of the US economy.
No, the shareholders will fire the CEO. Why shouldn't the shareholders have that power? I'm not sure why you feel the need to pretend there's a lie. You can see the graphs of temperature rising, you can see the graphs of CO2 rising, and you can easily look up the CO2 absorption of energy. Can you think of a time where increasing efficiency hurt the economy in the long term?
Maybe you haven't been watching whats going on in Obama's America, where CEOs get fired by the President. It has happened. As far as GW is concerned you were offered a chance to put forth the proof and failed to do so. Do you think increased efficiency is how this Congress and Obama are planning on trying to tackling GW? Not a chance. Their plan is to tax energy to decrease consumption. Make no mistake about it. Obama admitted this.
And...? If they want your money, they should have to answer for their performance. Well, so far the objections have been, that dentists and non-experts signed a bulk mail petition, that there's a geologist/astrophysicist who disagrees, repetition that NASA, the CRU, the IPCC, climatology journals are wrong, that there's an aged, non-modern paper from (1970-1994) which disagrees, that the satellite data disagrees (which has since been corrected and now agrees), that a paper which has since been revised with additional data once disagreed, that a mechanical engineer disagrees, that a 96 year old man with dementia disagrees, that an 80 year old retiree using 50 year old theories disagrees, and that some guy who wrote a letter to the government disagreed and it was attached along with a bunch of other letters as an appendix to a report. Frankly, if there was more of a mess in an argument I'd like to see it. Iceland consumes less oil and yet each citizen has far, far more power than citizens in North America. Consuming less does not mean having less. But you didn't address the question, which was if you can think of a time when increasing efficiency has hurt the economy in the long term.