2324Re: An analysis of the future of hydrogen fuel, NOT
- Jan 1, 2004Hi Jim,You are correct in your analysis. But that is the rub isn't it? These (usually) conservative think tanks seem to be wallowing in funding and exist for the purpose of promoting a "political" agenda not for making well thought out policy recommendations which will benefit everyone equally. And yet they get unfettered access to the media and to the minds of the "man in the street" populace.I saw a point/counterpoint set of editorials in our local newspaper a while back which dealt with alternative energy. On the one side was an environmental type who calmly outlined the choices of wind, solar and hydrogen and the benefits of each. On the other was a think tank "expert" who pooh poohed all of the alternative energy sources and said the only possible source of hydrogen was hydrocarbons and so we are eternally bound to hydrocarbon fuels no matter what we do.And so the population at large remains uneducated and from a misinformed standpoint makes decisions. I am so proud.As to question authority; I do. Of course I also like the one that says "Question Reality" . That one just might get you a bit further.MJMessage: 3
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:27:50 -0600
From: "Jim & Janet" <jhd1@...>
Subject: Re: An analysis of the future of hydrogen fuel, NOTMJ wrote:
Here is a public education page on the hydrogen economy as seen through the eyes of a "think tank" Depressing.Sure it's depressing. And what's sad, most people who read article this are going to believe it ! You read the paragraphs in the article and not much more. The whole piece is on the website of the Reason Public Policy Institute. If you poke around the site, it doesn't take long to find the link to their home page and a list of Reason Foundations Business Advisory Board. If you take a few minutes to read the names and associations of those board members, you find they represent everything that we don't represent.
I did a quick cut n paste of about 1/3 of the names there and a little more www searching several of the names I wasn't familiar with. It took about 15 minutes to find who influences Reasons policies. It so happens that I had rebuked one of the Reason Foundations editorials in the FWST a year or two back. I have known about their basic philosophy ever since.
Here are a few of their associations or companies or organizations that board members represent:
Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Western States Petroleum Association
investment bank and institutional securities firm
Procter & Gamble
Tennenbaum & Co., LLC, a Los Angeles-based investment firm, (big Bush supporter)
Eli Lilly & Company
Gilder Foundation...Beware of anti-public education initiatives (not my words)
I read a rant/posting that Wyldon sent to NTREG a few weeks ago titled "gov't pull back". Chuckles replied saying how acquaintances of his were outraged with govt. corruption or something along those lines; rather a strong statement for Chuck, I thought. He implied that too many people are sheep. Simply follow the one in front.
My reply was SPEAK UP. People won't hear us if we don't shout louder than those supporters of the status-quo. All we can do is tell the truth. Respond to crap like the Reason Foundations support of... well, what did they support?
NOT renewable sources of electric power to create hydrogen. Their quote was "Reformation of hydrogen still means using hydrocarbons such as natural gas as a source of hydrogen...". By not endorsing the more cost-effective option, renewable energy, they are supporting big oil. If you just sit back and moan that the nation is going to hell in a handbasket, it will. I have always liked the bumper sticker that says: Question Authority. Make it a New Years resolution to publically promote Renewables, or whatever else you believe in. The sheep will be listening.
Peace, Jim Duncan
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>