Want independence from foreign oil? Here you go independence.

Good news -- Lots of local oil.

Bad news -- less incentive to use "clean" energy sources.

No wonder we ran the indians off their land. :-(

How about using oil, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear together and reduce oil use gradually rather than trying to wreck the economy in the mad rush to eliminate oil. Cause like it or not we use oil for more than just running our truck and cars.

When we go get that oil, where are we going to refine it?

This is good news, don't get me wrong, but to make any real impact on the finances of everyday people, you've got to be able to turn it into gasoline.

Also, how is wind, solar, hydro and nuclear going to get a long-haul trucker from Bangor to San Diego? How's it going to get a family on vacation from Minneapolis to Orlando? Nothing against any of those technologies. I think we should develop them. But, they don't address the main component of our petroleum demand.

The answer begins with making oil and natural gas a public utility, so that we can break the monopoly of the oil industry. As long as that monopoly continues to strangle off refining capacity, it doesn't matter how much oil we find wherever. The policies in place have been quite firmly entrenched by decades of oil company officials carving them out in stone while acting as politicians.

The completion of the oil industry takeover of our government was indicated by the illegal march to the middle east, as predicted and even demanded by the kook fringe group PNAC, throughout the 90's.



"Also, how is wind, solar, hydro and nuclear going to get a long-haul trucker from Bangor to San Diego?"

First, you're missing the entire point of alternative energies. First and foremost, their use in heating and powering BUILDINGS is absolutely critical in reducing our demand for oil in general, and foreign oil in particular.

Secondly, solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, and tidal, among others, are clean energies that will not contribute to carbon emission.

Thirdly, who says that an electric or electric/hybrid vehicle cannot be produced? The French have just developed a vehicle that runs on compressed air as well. Welcome to reality.

Finally, forget nuclear. It takes a MASSIVE amount of fossil fuels to bring a nuclear power plant from design to profitable status. I read some years ago that it takes at least 18 years online, with heavy use of coal in the meantime, for a nuclear power plant to become profitable.

Meanwhile, it produces deadly waste that we have yet to figure out what to do with. Ever tried to insure your house against nuclear fallout from a nuclear power plant? Give it a shot sometime, if you live within a few hundred miles of one. Good luck.




Charles, I'd like to see your basis for claiming that an aggressive "apollo project" mission to rid ourselves of oil dependency altogether would somehow "wreck our economy" any worse than our dependence on oil has wrecked it already. This seems to be the fall-back mantra from the right whenever someone discusses either the issue of energy or global warming, yet I've not seen a single shred of evidence to back up the claim.

In fact, most economists that I've heard speak on the subject, predict massive economic growth from a large-scale, nationwide committment to move away from fossil fuels. They liken the idea to the great work projects of the 30's, and the construction of the interstate highway system. Did these things cost the nation, or did they generate REVENUE for the nation?

In fact, both. This seems to be the core difference between liberals and conservatives (if any such thing even exists these days), in terms of infrastructure. Liberals view (and rightly so, based upon historical references) the building out of infrastructure as "INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE." Conservatives tend to view it as "unnecessary expenditure."

Yes, of course there is a cost involved in ANY infrastructure buildout, but how can you place a cost on the initial investment on anything that returns that investment so many times over that you can't even keep track?

How many times has the investment in rural electrification and communications links been turned? How about the huge amounts of money spent on critical dams and irrigation, as well as public roadways and bridges?

If you listen only to the conservative mindset, you would view all of these great projects as meaningless, wasteful, ruinous expenses. But, these people are simply not living in reality on the matter. They've somehow forgotten that it was only BECAUSE of these massive financial outlays by the public that the nation rose to the economic status that it did, and it is the direct result of the unraveling of infrastructure due to neoconomics that the US is now falling backwards.

Look at China, for example. 20 years ago, they were a largely backwards, stumbling nation economically, with no real future in sight. Then, they began a massive investment in public infrastructure. At this point, after less than 20 years of buildout, they are poised to become the #1 economic force in the world for the next 100 years. It's not an accident, nor is it coincidence.

So, what have you, Charles, to back your claim that a massive buildout of infrastructure will suddenly result in economic collapse, when world history has always proven the exact opposite to be the case?

Look at the rush to get ethanol to market without looking at the consequences of the massive implementation of it. The cost of fuel is still high. The cost of food has gone through the roof. I am not opposed to the buildout what I'm opposed to is the all or nothing attitude of the extreme environmentalist .

"Look at China, for example. 20 years ago, they were a largely backwards, stumbling nation economically, with no real future in sight. Then, they began a massive investment in public infrastructure. At this point, after less than 20 years of buildout, they are poised to become the #1 economic force in the world for the next 100 years. It's not an accident, nor is it coincidence."

Yes they have made massive strides but the big difference is that they are building and expanding with 100 year old technology where we are being asked to build infrastructure for a "wheel" that either hasn't been made yet or isn't a self sustaining technology. I'm all for new ways to make the wheel but if it's going to be the next "big" thing it should succeed or fail with out being propped up by the government and thus making the public pay for it twice.

Oil helps us live the life we have through the many

Products Made From Oil

Clothing Ink
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Transparent tape
Antiseptics
Vacuum bottles
Deodorant
Pantyhose
Rubbing Alcohol
Carpets
Epoxy paint
Oil filters
Upholstery
Hearing Aids
Car sound insulation
Cassettes
Motorcycle helmets
Pillows
Shower doors
Shoes
Refrigerator linings
Electrical tape
Safety glass
Awnings
Salad bowl
Rubber cement
Nylon rope
Ice buckets
Fertilizers
Hair coloring
Toilet seats
Denture adhesive
Loudspeakers
Movie film
Fishing boots
Candles
Water pipes
Car enamel
Shower curtains
Credit cards
Aspirin
Golf balls
Detergents
Sunglasses
Glue
Fishing rods
Linoleum
Plastic wood
Soft contact lenses
Trash bags
Hand lotion
Shampoo
Shaving cream
Footballs
Paint brushes
Balloons
Fan belts
Umbrellas
Paint Rollers
Luggage
Antifreeze

Model cars
Floor wax
Sports car bodies
Tires
Dishwashing liquids
Unbreakable dishes
Toothbrushes
Toothpaste
Combs
Tents
Hair curlers
Lipstick
Ice cube trays
Electric blankets
Tennis rackets
Drinking cups
House paint
Rollerskates wheels
Guitar strings
Ammonia
Eyeglasses
Ice chests
Life jackets
TV cabinets
Car battery cases
Insect repellent
Refrigerants
Typewriter ribbons
Cold cream
Glycerin
Plywood adhesive
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial turf
Artificial Limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Mops
Beach Umbrellas
Ballpoint pens
Boats
Nail polish
Golf bags
Caulking
Tape recorders
Curtains
Vitamin capsules
Dashboards
Putty
Percolators
Skis
Insecticides
Fishing lures
Perfumes
Shoe polish
Petroleum jelly
Faucet washers
Food preservatives
Antihistamines
Cortisone
Dyes
LP records
Solvents
Roofing

"Look at the rush to get ethanol to market without looking at the consequences of the massive implementation of it."

Ethanol is a disaster that only came to fruition because of lobbyists. It has no business even being in the discussion, imo. Not only does it NOT do anything to solve carbon emissions, it does next to nothing to move us away from oil, AND puts our food supply in great peril at the same time.

The fact that ethanol is a disaster says nothing of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, or any other alternative energy source that may be developed and utilized on a large scale. Ethanol has its roots firmly planted in the oil industry. The others do not.



"I'm all for new ways to make the wheel but if it's going to be the next "big" thing it should succeed or fail with out being propped up by the government and thus making the public pay for it twice. "

You mean, like how the "free market" allowed the likes of Bear Stearns, the S&L's in the 80's, and upcoming banking failures are allowed to "fail without being propped up by the government?"

The republican mantra of "let the free markets decide" has brought us colossal economic failure after colossal economic failure, and what happens after the fatcats have gutted the companies and industries that they've profitted from, and left them in collapse? The public steps in to save them. And, in the republican's mind, the perfect transistion would be for the public to rescue them, so that the "free market" can once again destroy them for profit, so that, once again, the public can be called upon to save them. An endless cycle of greed and destruction, with the lower 99.9% being forced to pay the price of the greed of those tiny few. What a lovely plan.



"Oil helps us live the life we have through the many

Products Made From Oil"

First, if all we needed oil for was consumer products, there would be no need for foreign oil, and the overall demand for it would be extremely low in comparison to what it is today. The vast majority of our oil needs are for transportation and buildings, not consumer product processing.

LP records?

Secondly, all of those products could be manufactured from hemp and other bioplastic-producing plants, such as sugar beets. There is no specific requirement for any product produced from organic carbon for that carbon to come only from crude oil.

My point Clark is that oil is not something that is going away quickly and trying to do so could cause more problems.

"Ethanol is a disaster that only came to fruition because of lobbyists. It has no business even being in the discussion, imo. "

I agree Clark but the majority of the lobbyist I heard screaming for ethanol were environmental lobbyist and the oil companies probably figured that if ethanol is going to be forced onto the market why not make some money. Unless of course the oil companies shouldn't be making any money at all .

"The republican mantra of "let the free markets decide" has brought us colossal economic failure after colossal economic failure, and what happens after the fatcats have gutted the companies and industries that they've profitted from, and left them in collapse? The public steps in to save them. And, in the republican's mind, the perfect transistion would be for the public to rescue them, so that the "free market" can once again destroy them for profit, so that, once again, the public can be called upon to save them. An endless cycle of greed and destruction, with the lower 99.9% being forced to pay the price of the greed of those tiny few. What a lovely plan. "

I think the government should quit bailing out companies who make bad choices be it greed or market .