So your conclusion would be that it really saves taxpayers' monies and efficient use of taxpayer' dollars.
It looked like the rights of women were being deliberately removed from the equation by the Justices of the Supreme Court.
And around here, there's an entire political party dedicated to protecting them as they pollute for free.
You claim that renewable energy is always expensive.
I am told the cost of, well, this year's funding is $4 million, which seems to be a reasonable investment in such efficiency.
It also might trigger some of the tax incentives that are built in now for home energy efficiencies, which would be sort of a double benefit...
The things I can control or the things that the United States can control are its emissions.
If you care about deficits or economic growth, you have to care about climate change and its costs and risks.
And to quote you the cause of climate change is rising energy consumption using fossil fuels; correct?
They have completely lost their grip on reality, and are so subservient to fossil fuel overlords that they're willing to eliminate hundreds ...
I think it runs counter to good economic policy, good social policy.
To export our responsibility or our privilege really of being this great humanitarian force in the world is a terrible message.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1690 and associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Connolly.
I am fearful that if we were to pass 1690 as it is drafted, it would not only really violate that long tradition of America being a place th...
