There's no obligation to use all of his plan; we can take the half about wind power and say "great idea, we'll use this!" and then claim the spirit of bipartisanship as we fix the energy crisis our way.

I heard on right wing radio this morning someone calling in to complain that we went through all that work to bring the whooping crane back from the edge of extinction, only to put in windmill turbines which would kill them.  I got a laugh out of that one... the conservation efforts that conservatives fought so hard against are now being used as a weapon against energy independance.

He, along with Al Gore, has started the coversation.  That's a good thing.  

I'm willing to listen to a good idea no matter where it come from.

Two things about natural gas:

Natural gas, mainly methane (CH4), is obtained mostly from natural gas wells or as a byproduct of crude oil production. It can also be a renewable fuel when biogas - also called digester gas, swamp gas, or marsh gas - is produced by the fermentation of organic matter including manure, wastewater sludge, municipal solid waste, or any other biodegradable feedstock.

For instance, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are reduced by more than 90 and 60 percent, respectively, and carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, is reduced by 30 to 40 percent. When used in medium- and heavy-duty engines, CO and particulate matter (PM) reductions of over 90 percent, and NOx reductions of over 50 percent, have been demonstrated compared to diesel engines.

While still a green house it is one with a far lower effect on our environment, And while I do not believe it is the ultimate answer it's a step in the right direction. And t does moves us away from imported oil.

While Pickens main motive may be profit, so be it. If we are going to move away from a fossil fuel based economy the private sector needs to know it's a profitable business to be in.

So I guess you need to be a little clearer, at least for me, about your position as a win loose position for the planet.

it speaks volumes when a Bush enabler and big oil giant realizes that we have to end our dependence on oil. While his plan may not be perfect and his intent may be for the money, it helps the movement.

its a step in the right direction, we just need to make sure it keeps going that way.

I am absolutely not complaining about his plan.  I think it's imperfect, but it involves us taking several steps in the right direction.

Yep.  That's a good thing.

Slim Pickens and T. Boone Pickens are two very different people.

The good part about this is that he used to be a major GOP donor and this year he's spending all of his money on promoting his energy plan. See Republicans lose a major financial backer.

The other half calls for a large-scale conversion of motor vehicles to natural gas -- another finite, carbon-spewing fossil fuel. Kind of like shifting our addiction from heroin to crack cocaine

Good grief.

Here's some information from the Dept of Energy on CNG automobiles:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles /natural_gas_emissions.html

Let me highlight this part:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of natural gas, summarized in Clean Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (PDF 76 KB).
-

• Reduce carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97%
  
• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25%
  
• Reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60%
  
• Potentially reduce non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75%
  
• Emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants
  
• Emit little or no particulate matter
  
• Eliminate evaporative emissions

As automakers have improved the emissions performance of gasoline vehicles to keep pace with stricter emissions regulations, improvements in CNG vehicles have kept their emissions performance ahead of the pack. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has called the natural gas Honda Civic GX the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle on Earth.

The cleanest internal-combustion vehicle on Earth: emphasis mine.  Now, a key point here is that these vehicles are available now.  Natural gas is commercially viable now.  Pickens practices what he preaches: he drives a Honda Civic GX and he is paying $1.69/gallon to fill 'er up.

One would think that, if you suggested that there were a way to reduce greenhouse emissions by 25%, reduce other pollutants almost completely, and save people two bucks a gallon at the pump, all RIGHT NOW, that a reasonable person would take some interest in that, or see it as a powerful idea worthy of further study.  Only amongst the radical netroots pundits would this be dismissed as nothing more than the cravings of a crack addict.

Well, I would suggest that some of you folks need to start being more pragmatic.  Our government is broke.  The investment for new energy and infrastructure is going to come from the private sector.  And to the extent that you pretend the profit incentive is evil, or cling to absurd axioms such as 'only infinite sources are acceptible for use today', you will find that you are your own worst enemy.  Because you will perpetuate the gridlock between these two political ideologies that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

I want to underscore that point.  We need economics and science to solve these problems - ie, pragmatism.  What we do not need is to belittle the severity of this problem by turning it into yet another ideological war where only The Pure or The Infinite may be discussed, and any alternate suggestions are treated as bestial.

Sure, Pickens has financial motives.  So what?  To the extent that successful businessmen (and in this case one who is a major player) are financially motivated the help solve our current energy crisis, you should be celebrating, and not falling back on this tired old image of business as some sort of bogeyman.

You make valid points, but I reserve my right to not trust his motives, and to tell the truth about what he is presenting as a failproof plan.