Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Apollo Alliance, one of the best progressive ideas of the millennium, gained some important new supporters last week. Six new Democratic governors--Rod Blagojevich (IL), Jim Doyle (WI), Christine Gregoire (WA), Ted Kulongoski (OR), Janet Napolitano (AZ), and Brian Schweitzer (MT)--joined an earlier three--Jennifer Granholm (MI), Ed Rendel (PA), and Bill Richardson (NM)--in embracing the Alliance's goal of achieving sustainable American energy independence within a decade.
In an open letter to President Bush the six newcomers, joined by Richardson, applauded Apollo's efforts and invited Bush to "lead a bold national project" to achieve its aims. The nine governors are all leaders in state-based efforts at energy efficiency and increased use of renewables, the core twin planks of the Apollo program.
That program calls for a national investment of $300 billion over the course of ten years to build the basic production and distribution infrastructure needed for a cleaner energy economy. Less than the estimated costs of the Iraq war (after just two years), the investment would pay for itself many times over. Direct economic benefits would include annual energy savings and improvements in our trade balance of about $200 billion; the creation of some 3 million permanent new jobs; and an added $1 trillion in GDP over ten years.
Given the enormous opportunities for energy savings in cities and renewable energy production in rural areas, Apollo would distribute savings and jobs to two distressed parts of our population. It would also give a kick to US manufacturing, giving companies a good reason to invest in the surging world market for clean energy products and technology. It makes both environmental and economic sense.
The Apollo program is being taken seriously by investors, as it begins to attract significant venture capital. A leading example is the Green Wave initiative, led by CA-Treasurer and Apollo national advisory board member Phil Angelides. Funded by CALPERS and CALSTERS, the leading public employee pension funds in California, Green Wave is investing close to a billion dollars to upgrade energy efficiency in those funds' real estate holdings as well as in other promising clean technology firms. On the real estate side, the internal rate of annual return is upwards of 15 percent annually, making it an extremely attractive investment for institutional investors with comparable holdings.
Apollo is trying to replicate such investments in other states, seeking money from state or municipal bonds, pension funds, or private individual investors. This latest round of gubernatorial endorsements should help, as well as with the rest of Apollo's ambitious state legislative program. Already, state politicians from both parties are beginning to realize that "good jobs through energy independence," the Apollo mantra, sells well with the public. A recent poll by Yale University's Center for Environmental Law & Policy found that an overwhelming 92 percent of American think our dependence on foreign oil is a problem, with 68 percent rating it a "very serious problem"--by far the highest levels of public concern for any of the environmental issues polled.
Apollo has already gained the endorsement of virtually the entire labor movement (including both warring factions at the AFL-CIO), most major environmental groups, a slew of civil rights and community organizations (both urban and rural), and a growing number of business leaders. Now, with more governors coming on board, it may be reaching a critical mass in tipping state legislation, if not yet federal, toward a clean energy future.
The governors' announcement last week was timed to coincide with the naming of members of the Congressional conference committee charged with reconciling the competing House and Senate energy bills. What's important about the announcement is not just the momentum it shows for Apollo, but who it came from.
As we've often argued in this space (and in the Nation's pages), the states may well decide the future of American progressive politics. Next year, 37 governors will be elected in them. These nine "Apollo governors," many of whom face reelection battles in 2006, have just raised the bar on what qualifies as progressive state leadership on economic development and the environment. More power to them.
We also want to hear from you. Please let us know if you have a sweet victory you think we should cover by e-mailing nationvictories@gmail.com.
Co-written by Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist, documentary filmmaker and blogger (www.boldprint.net) living in Brooklyn.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Good going Rod Blagojevich! First you push for drug importation from Canada, then use state funds for stem cell research, and now you are joining the Apollo alliance. With Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, IL has some of the most progressive politicians in the country.
Posted by schoenburg at 07/21/2005 @ 04:07am
No one disputes that our dependence on foreign oil has seriously snagged the US. We are caught in dangerous shoal waters. It would be wonderful to get off that reef.
The problem of energy alternatives however, is daunting. They are just not yet competitive, even at these high oil prices. And the moment they become competitive OPEC can lower its prices until the the newcomer faints away. Which is why relatively little private investment has been going into alternatives. Most has been govt dough. Even this Apollo Alliance is drawing on California govt pension funds, not private venture capital. The smart money is staying away. Because, of the high risks. Who wants to sink his cash into an infrastructure, and it would take hundreds of billions, at the mercy of Arabian oil able to sell at $7 a barrel?
But there is an answer. Namely to induce Detroit to start producing a new kind of vehicle. It would be dedicated, by law, to alternative energy engines. Such a law can not impose itself on internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, but it could on a new class of vehicle. Its capabilities are revolutionary. They need to be to insure a market despite higher operating costs. This solution would not only allow the country to start transitioning to alternatives, it would give Detroit a boost in the arm, and have other bonuses. Is it just pie in the sky?
To see what I'm talking about, look here. [xellex.freehomepage.com]
Posted by nacl at 07/21/2005 @ 06:24am
What I notice most about this article and the Apollo website is that there seems a dearth of actual concrete ideas or proposals. Who could argue we could use better energy policy? But merely arguing that without some sort of plan is just a feel-good waste of time and certainly nothing to get excited about.
Posted by jeck at 07/21/2005 @ 08:49am
Good concept, but I would love to see the project plan and risk assessment on this one! I was a bit confused to because I was looking for a concrete business plan on the website and it seemed to be pie in the sky concept. Not to knock unions or construction projects, but has anyone seen the overall costs and time delays on the "Big Dig" in Boston. I think it went two to three times over the budget and came in way late. Now they are saying the tunnels may not even be safe! That was a great concept that was driven by two Dem Senators named Kennedy and Kerry. The kicker is, they were getting federal tax dollars for it, so they didn't care one bit about the delays or overruns. Imagine what this would turn into.
Something needs to be done, but I would like to see something with a bit more meat on it before giving kudos.
Posted by dancall at 07/21/2005 @ 11:33am
Why don't we invest in combining bio-diesel and hybrid Technology? We would have a renewable form of clean burning energy that the mid-west can create and have the technology now and we will have cars that get 100mpg. Problem solved.
Posted by Patches at 07/21/2005 @ 12:57pm
Yes..there are some difficulties with the whole alt energy...it still not always cost effective...but sooner or later we won't have any choice. A few years back science correctly predicted peak US oil production. We all remember when gas prices shot up in the 70s, and we began to import much more heavily......That very same science has predicted peak WORLD production is right around now, give or take a few years. Oil is finite, so we gotta come up with something pronto...this is a step in the right direction
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/21/2005 @ 1:00pm
Agree with Dan over the "Big Dig" project in Boston. A whoppingly woeful waste of taxpayer money, this, which neither Kerry nor Kennedy has sufficiently answered for.
Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/21/2005 @ 1:04pm
What is usually missing from these dialogues on changing our emphasis on an oil driven energy structure to some alternative is true Cost Benefit Analysis. I recommend this link for those who may not be up to speed (ha,ha) why this is so critical to the process.
http://www.ncedr.org/tools/othertools/costbenefit/lead.htm
The reason we continue with an oil driven energy structure is $$$. It is cheaper at this time than alternative resources. This applies, not just on the production side but also for the consumer. There isn't enough desire on the part of consumers to pay even higher energy costs at this time, especially when most estimates I have read are at 2-3 times current energy costs.
Our market economy has always driven R&D and change because it is cost driven. Is it cost effective to produce and market, and will the market bear the cost in sufficient numbers to justify that business model.
One additional fact to put in the mix; the timeline for scarcity of oil to sufficiently supply our current energy model keeps sliding out in the future. In the mid 70's, there were many predicting we would have nearly exhausted the world's oil supply by sometime in this decade. Now the worst case scenario is 2040-2050 and the optimal is 2075-2100. Either way, we have sufficient time to develop technologies we have yet to even research, much less the current leading possibilities.
This is not meant to support "big Oil". But any effort to initiate change will ultimately be driven by the combination of the Cost Benefit Analysis mentioned at the beginning of my post, the market itself, and the technology advances.
Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 1:42pm
The 'Big Dig' is not nearly as much a waste of money and resources as the war in Iraq. Having made the previous statement, no way am I endorsing the wasting of tax dollars; but, it is imperative that Government underwrites the funding for high risk, cutting edge technology/projects. Just like we did for the putting a human on the moon, and as we have done innumerable times for new Defense Projects, via DARPA. Below, I have provided a copy of DARPA's purpose.
DARPA's Purpose: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the central research and development organization for the Department of Defense (DoD). It manages and directs selected basic and applied research and development projects for DoD, and pursues research and technology where risk and payoff are both very high and where success may provide dramatic advances for traditional military roles and missions.
Source: http://www.darpa.mil/
Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/21/2005 @ 1:48pm
Addendum to my previous post: Here is a Very left wing site called Third World Traveler and their web resource link on World Oil Reserves and Use. I use it when drawing a proper range of estimates from both sides of the debate.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html
Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 2:00pm
Nonsense Zero. Why must all your responses be based upon evil intents by those whose viewpoints you oppose. In your mind there is no other justification in which we can possibly be basing our viewpoints.
Why is it so inconceivable to you that we have legitimate interpretations (even allowing for disagreement on those interpretations) rather than pure evil greed and a desire to "screw others".
We see the Constitution limiting where and when the Fed should spend money and the Military is right at the top of the Constitutional priorities. And we believe the Fed must not spend money where it is not Constitutionally authorized.
Based upon your comments, evidently the Government must also produce all of its current procurements (both in weapons and non weaponry). Frankly, that is a frightening thought to most Americans on both the right and left. Having business supply the military is one more control to ensure that no political extreme can completely tyrannize our nation. Plus the right to bear arms to defend against that very threat (hence the 2nd Amendment).
You do nothing to further this country when you rely upon emotional rantings rather than accepting that others can interpret the Constitution differently than you without being evil and corrupt. We debate and then vote and then debate some more in this country with election outcomes determing which view is preferred.
Your hatred of corporations and the military is irrational.
Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 2:45pm
I am glad to hear that Halliburton/KBR has stepped in to ensure that "no political extreme can completely tyrannize our nation."
Looking briefly, perhaps too briefly, at the Apollo website, it does contain some substance. But I would agree with Jeck that there isn't a whole lot of meat. This seems to be the current status of dramatic democratic proposals: look for progressive solutions, then cut back their efforts in the face of yet-to-come, but certain criticism from the right, in effect self-censoring their own intentions. Why not go out boldly and talk about a New Deal situation in which the entire system of energy production and consumption technologies is revamped? Their current proposals sound perfectly delightful for the business community (tax incentives, anyone?). A very kind and gentle approach, I think. Will they work? Hmm....
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/21/2005 @ 2:56pm
Patches has the right idea. Daimler Chrysler had been working on a prototype called the Dodge ESX3 which was a regular size family sedan that acheived 72 mpg (average). The only problem with it was that it cost about $15,000 more than a comparable gasoline car in 1998. But they were able to cut that cost in half to about $7,500 in 2000. See here [autointell.net]a for details on that. However, I don't know the current status of the project. Also there are studies (I don't have the time to provide the links, sorry. Google "bio-diesel algae" and you'll find lots) to just about prove the feasability of producing bio-diesel on a large scale. As I have posted here before, bio-diesel has many benefits including the use of current infrastructure, the ability to be combined in any percentage with petro diesel, it's produced locally (keeps American money in America), can be used to heat homes & power any diesel motor.
Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 4:50pm
There have been several stories in my area recently about homespun pioneers who have purchased Mercedes diesels from the late '70s, tweaked them a bit, and now drive them around burning used vegetable oil from seafood and chicken restaurants. At this point, it's a lot of work for them, since they have to haul their own 50-gallon drums of grease into their garages and must refuel from home. Still, it's relatively easy and produces dramatically lower negative emissions. And the smell is surely drumming up increased business for the deep fried restaurants!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/21/2005 @ 4:56pm
Zero, I stand by my earlier criticism of you. Your response to my post to you at 2:45 today contains not one thread of logic. Where in my posting can you find a scintilla of evidence that backs up your ranting? Perhaps my statements that people of opposing interpretations of the constitution should respect each others right of interpretation and then with open and honest debate let the voting process determine which path prevails?
I'd love to hear what is so regressive and dishonest about that position. And you continue to complain when some of us wish to engage in honest debate which is the backbone and strength of our nation.
I don't recall ever hearing Katrina on this site or when appearing on a Cable News program desirous of less dialogue and debate. Wow, never thought I would have a place for a defense of Katrina against "liberals" (quotation marks because I'm still not sure if Zero is a liberal or just someone off the deep end who hates everyone who doesn't agree with him).
Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 5:07pm
Not to mention they are probably getting the waste oil for free, otherwise the restaraunts have to pay to have it removed. That's another advantage of bio-diesel or greasecars [greasecar.com]. Free or low cost (some bio-diesel home brewers claim costs of 60 cents per gallon, plus their time of course) fuel.
Posted by thejman at 07/21/2005 @ 5:09pm
THEJMAN: It might surprise you that a conservative agrees with you and Patches about pursuing bio-diesel. I see nothing wrong with setting up significant tax credits and other financial incentives for companies that can develop this technology into one sufficient to be affordable and readily available for large segments of the population. Making it available on a large scale is usually one of the greatest hinderances.
There is another factor for which both parties are guilty. I refer to ethanol as an example. Senators from both parties in Agricultural states like Iowa continuously block incentives and other favorable legislation that doesn't favor Ethanol. So there is much to overcome from a Congressional standpoint on both sides.
Posted by love liberty at 07/21/2005 @ 5:15pm
LL, no such thing on Tax credits. That will be a tax cut and you are showing your neo-con ways again!
Here we are trying to have a conversation about alternative fuels and expressing different ideas/concepts. Why must the war in Iraq be pulled into this? If you look at the proposed number of $300 Billion to complete this guess of a project with the track record of government projects, that number will be over $600 billion in no time flat.
Zero, why don;t you address the fact that people in New Mexico are paying for the Big Big in Boston that was a run a way project. Kennedy and Kerry did nothing to stop it, only to keep going to the government for more money.
This project would dwarf the Big Dig and there are also other NEO CON thinking that must go on, like: what to do with all the gas stations across america? Who is going to to pay for ALL the mechanics across the country? How many jobs will be lost? How many dangered birds will be killed? (Have you been hearing about the wind farms in CA? Pretty funny, I think. You have environmentalists fighting themselves) So, please keep the hatred down a notch and smile for once!
Posted by dancall at 07/21/2005 @ 11:56pm
I meant ALL the Mechanic training...
Posted by dancall at 07/21/2005 @ 11:58pm
Zero. it is a shame that conservatives have "really ruined this website." Here we all were ranting and raving, moaning and groaning among our own kind and having a great time of it. Then those freaking conservatives had to come along with their ideas. Imagine such a thing, as if we had time for actual debate over ideas! We are much too busy saving the world from racism and homophobia, Halliburton and conservatives, and making the world safe for dead babies, for that. You know, when you know you're right about absolutely everything you really don't need to think anymore. And isn't that the way we want it? Thinking for oneself is such a tiresome busines, and you know how we hate business. I say let the government do all our thinking for us. You keep telling them, Zero! Maybe in time they'll get the idea we don't want no stinking rational reasoning round here and maybe then they'll pack up their big brains and go home. Then we can get back to patting ourselves on the back for our high-brow nuanced understanding (Halliburton sucks! Conservatives suck! Bush sucks!) and trading sanctimonious tirades with those who know how to appreciate them.
Posted by jeck at 07/22/2005 @ 09:19am
My wife works in the energy industry and suggested that we put a windmill on our roof to generate electricity. So I looked into it, and figured that it would pay for itself in about 30 years. I calculated (roughly, mind you) how much energy I could expect to generate, the cost of the electricity, maintenance, etc. It just wasn't worth it $ wise on existing construction. However, for some one off the grid it definitely worth it. And I have also read that there is an new polymer that has inceased the efficiency of solar electicity generation vastly. The problem is that these proven technologies have not yet been adopted. That's where I believe the govt can help. Give tax breaks for it, promote it, use for govt-owned infrastructure. We've got to get started now. As ZERO points out, we have only 70 years of oil in the ground left. So we MUST use this energy to set up the new infrastructure. If we wait until the cost of fossil fuels goes thru the roof (and it will as supplies dwindle) it'll be a big drag on the economy. And I'm sure that both sides of the aisle would get no small amount of pleasure from sticking it to OPEC.
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 10:04am
It's a shame that mayor and governors are having to lead the charge on getting alt energy moving. I don't think anyone could argue that if Bush and co led the charge on this stuff that it would make it happen. The admin (and the legislature) are dragging thier feet to appease various interests whether it's "big oil" afraid of losing market share, some fat cats from a special interest need to fly around first class to "meetings" in fancy hotels. Getting our energy needs met has GOT to happen, or there will be horrible consequences...more struggles over limited resources, economies sputtering, even failing. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I really don't care which party makes it happen as long as it happens. Yes there are plenty of obstacles...but the folks at the top should be pushing us forward and inspiring, not holding us back on this. If Bush (who I detest) would have said right after 9/11 "We've got to get away from our dependence on oil pronto. I want another power source and I want it NOW!!" (backed up with cold hard cash in the right places) this country would not be in the predicament that it's in now. Hell, if he made that speech today I'd give him props. At this point, he's not making it enough of a priority.
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 10:27am
Were, Is there any estimation of how many windmills would be needed to fuel a New York City, Chicago or Los Angles? Where would we put all the wind farms? I was under the impression that location of the wind mills is vitally important for a couple reasons. One, they need to be in areas where wind is constant and in areas away from high weather traffic, such as tornados and the like. I have driven through some of these Wind Farms in California. They are eye soars and I can't imagine what it take to run a city like NYC on wind power. Also, how far can the wind farms be from the city or area they are supporting? If you take NYC and the surrounding area, the population and lack of space, I can;t figure out a place to put them. I know Connecticut would never allow it, New York would have to go out 90 miles outside the city limits, and New Jersey would be the same. The population in the Tri state area has to be close to 20 million people plus office buildings. I am not a huge favor of Nuclear power, but it is the cheapest and with the technology today, pretty safe.
As far as the oil supply, there are engines that can get 60 to 80 miles to the gallon. They have had these for years. If we implemented these engines, the price of gas would sky rocket due to the volume purchasing going down. Either way, we the consumers are going to take it on the chin.
Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 10:29am
Yes on the chin...but I'd say we can take a swing back...
I know those wind farms you're talking about...eyesore? maybe for the cows....or has the sprawl got all the way out there already...
You're correct, windmills don't quite have enough oomph to generate all our electricity...they require good wind (not available everywhere) and lots of space...though there are some windmills that claim they can work in an urban setting...they are built to lay down in high winds...windmills could only be part of the solution. I'm sure you've heard the story about Kennedy opposing the Cape Cod windfarm because it detracts from his view from the veranda of his Hyannis mansion. Lame if you ask me...he oughta say "not crazy about the view, but it's worth it" or something...make a sacrifice fer chissakes...
oh an Boston, not Chicago is the windiest city in the US ;)
at the end of the day, fossil fuels are finite. About every 10 years we use more than all of the previous consumption (yes ALL in HISTORY)...and setting up the infrastructure takes energy...we were gifted with the oil in the ground...we've got to use it build an energy "legacy"..not piss it away...plus it's gonna end up dragging us into more wars...
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 10:43am
I got a buddy whose a farmer, and he uses wind energy for one of his big green houses...it's cheap, reliable and perfect since the area the windmill is in is all clear...so it can work..
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 10:48am
I thought it was an eye soar because it is beautiful country going through the mountain ranges to get to Joshua Tree State park and then bam! It was pretty wild! They are MASSIVE!
I think they have other fuels to turn to, but with the impact on all the gas stations and mechanics having to possibly get new tools and training, it would be too drastic a measure to do now. I think you are starting to see the slow integration of a plan that was implemented years ago with the acceptance of the oil companies, car manufacturers and the govt.
It also should be a telling statement to everyone on this site that the Chinese trying to buy Unocal, no one is screwing around and they need the oil to fuel their growing military. Their navy is primarily on diesel engines...if the oil runs out...they are screwed.
Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 11:06am
But you have to think like a neo con to think of those things. :)
Posted by dancall at 07/22/2005 @ 11:07am
Intereasting that no one has mentioned photovoltaic power systems. When setup with a solar H2O system these can reduce your energy demand by up to 75% ave system will recover the costs in 7 - 10 years. The current rebates being given by energy companies Con ED, PG&E in the west make this a very viable alternative to the oil based energy systems. We have to start somewhere in the 60's we went to the moon some said the costs were excessive but we have reaped the return in new products and technology that have made the initial investment pale in comparison. Here is the next frontier of development do you want to hide your head in the sand because it will take a little work or get on board.
Posted by dycel8r at 07/22/2005 @ 11:25am
ah..I was thinking of the windfarms in Nor Cal...heading east thru the Bay area...so I guess I haven't seen the other ones...still...I'm sure all those oil pumps in Texas are not exactly beautiful...
I dont expect that we'll suddenly not have gas-powered cars...so the small business that supports it won't be totally vanquished...there will be plenty of money to be made supporting hydro or bio-diesel or electric car maintenance...
yeah...any military needs oil, at this point...to me that's yet another reason to dry and drop the dependency...Imagine..."hello, OPEC? yes...we need more oil so we can invade Ethniklashistan...no?...pLEEEEEEEze...."...not a very good position to be in...China will grow it's economy, and it's military. It can't be stopped. India too. They have the great advantage of a huge population to grease the engine of thier economies. Once they get all those folks educated and ready for better paying jobs, we won't be on top anymore. So we need to get the diplomacy together in regards to the monster they will likely become.
The mayors and governors going ahead with doing something about the whole energy problem underscores the frustration that the alt energy industry has experienced with the feds.
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 11:45am
DYCLEL8R...Yes...the bold vision thing seemed to work getting us to the moon. I don't see why the govt shouldn't take a similarly bold approach to getting the energy thing together wouldn't work....
Did you read that a company in Vancouver (?) has developed a much-improved solar panel? It's WAY more efficient. We just need to slap them on our rooftops.
A while ago my wife and I won a trip to Italy, and there the govt forces the agriculture industry to grow sunflower for use in biodiesel oil production. All the farm owner just use the marginal land next to the road for this...real pretty in the summer seeing all those sunflowers by the road as you drive along...of course Italy gets a lot of sun, so it work well there...
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 11:49am
Speaking of bold visions and the space program, maybe we should urge Democrats to support George Bush in his proposal to return America to space, ie a planned expedition to Mars. We're going to need a lot of energy for that sort of trip and I imagine the funding would include lots of good research into more efficient batteries/fuel cells as well as harvesting solar energy.
Posted by jeck at 07/22/2005 @ 12:40pm
Yea...the press ripped him one for the timing of his announcement...a man on mars might actually benefit the energy industry...especially batteries and fuel cells...though isn't that technology already developed? My sense is the current obstacles to those technologies in particular getting to market is thier current price...
Speaking of batteries, are you familiar with some of the latest flywheel technology? Pretty darn cool (thx NASA!)...it's a heavy wheel encased in a vacuum, held in place with magnets, made of a super strong epoxy...spun at 100,000rpms...the technology is already in use for large buildings, especially in places where there are frequent power outages....
Anyone know how much criticism Kennedy took for his "man on the moon" announcement?
Posted by wereverywhere at 07/22/2005 @ 1:12pm
Regarding previous posts (especially by Jman and Patches) on Biodiesel and other alternatives to oil; I have been spending some interesting time on a Fed site that should get far more promotion by both sides---the Dept of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/index.html
This is a very impressive site and I would think we can all agree to utilize a more positive approach from links like this even if we don't fully agree on the means of implementation (how much Fed $$).
Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 3:30pm
They have a alt fuel station locator which I just tried. Unfortunately for me at this time, there are only 2 stations within a 100 mile radius for me --one 60 miles away and the over a 100 miles away..but this further along than I thought..see, even a conservative can admit learning something new!
Posted by love liberty at 07/22/2005 @ 3:35pm