[SustainableTompkins] voting and pest control

[bosak at ibiblio.org]

[marloco at verizon.net:]

> what do you guys make of the republican response to the peak
> oil issue?  didn't it seem as if his response was the most
> thoughtful?

I agree that the Republican statement is well written and its
boilerplate says more of the Right Things About Energy, but I
wouldn't jump from that to thinking that Meier (or any of the
candidates) has a handle on "Peak Oil" if that term is taken to
mean the realization that alternative energy development is not
going to avert a liquid fuels crisis.  I don't believe that any of
the three candidates had heard of Peak Oil before our sister group
contacted them.

It must be admitted (an old lefty speaking here) that the only
Congressional group with a clue on this is House Peak Oil Caucus,
which (though nominally bipartisan) seems to be driven mainly by
Republicans.  But most politicians on both sides think that an
acceptable energy policy consists of calling for the formation of
more committees and mindlessly supporting concepts that are either
questionable (like ethanol) or simply bogus (like hydrogen).

The only candidate for the 24th District to have actually
committed to joining the House Peak Oil Caucus is the Libertarian,
Mike Sylvia.  And the only one to come out and actually say on the
record that oil and gas are finite resources is the Democrat, Mike
Arcuri.  So the statements add up to a wash as far as I'm
concerned.  The news here is that our sister Peak Oil group to the
east broke through and made contact -- something we'll want to
follow up on with whoever wins.

Jon