Act of Congress Needed: Stop Funding Our Enemies

That would take years to impliment. This country would stop running without oil and we have to get it somewhere. It would cost billions to tap into our natural resources while we still have to purchase oil while that is being set up. I would like nothing better than to not be dependent on the enemy but these things should have been started many administration ago.

I have a thought, I saw something on discovery channel or one of those educational channels. Kerosene is extracted from coal, I think kerosene is a relatively clean burning fuel, but why not convert cars to run on kerosene, we have more coal than we could ever posssibly use, it's just lying around because it isn't a clean burning fuel.

I do not think American automobile manufacturers are going to be around too much longer, they can't get the picture. Europeans are coming up with alternatives. And are now outselling american auto manufacturers.

If we intend to actually win the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must do what neither Bush has allowed the military to do, go in and do their job, and not say the war is over because you win one battle, then remove all your troops, then send people in who are totally unqaualified to do the jobs they are being asked to do and with absolutely no equipment. Which is what our fearless leader did at the beginning of the war in Iraq, except nobody wants to remember that!

John, your point is quite valid - but the unfortunate thing is that lawmakers are playing politics with our troops and the war. Take a glaring example like Halliburton. Despite its reprehensible actions against our troops and against our country, it continues to thrive.

I came to the conclusion of putting this plea out in the open is simple: The losses, let alone the cost of a nuclear war would be considerably greater than the cost of ramping up domestic fuel production.

Everything takes time, however, when you don't HAVE a lot of time, people tend to join together with like minds to get it done.

But Mario, our enemy is not Haliburton.

Much as you'd like to concentrate your disdain for a Vice President out of control (I join you there), the fact remains that we need to take POSITIVE AND DRAMATIC PROGRESS AS CITIZENS to disarm those who would not only like to nuke Haliburton, but you and me as well.

The sudden and urgent change in Americans' habits - going "cold turkey" is likely the only way we will ultimately squelch the enemy. It's like a "sneak attack" that they never thought WE COULD PULL OFF. But we can.

I am concerned about how many businesses would be affected, but:

1) The next attack on our soil MUST be avoided; it will be catastrophic, and we are best PREVENTING it will an ALL-OUT assault by 300 Million Americans, moving as one, in conjunction with 125,000 troops. 125,000 troops won't get it done alone.

2) In the long run, with sacrifice now, the American economy will flourish from this radical change. Think gardening: sometimes, to bring a plant back to good health, you must prune the branches back - sometimes way back. By the following season, fresh branches come back stronger than ever.

Going 100% North American, with ZERO dependence upon OPEC fuel will not ONLY greatly reduce the financial MIGHT of OPEC nations and the insurgents they fund, but it will cause an EXPONENTIAL IMPROVEMENT in the US economy.

Science advances in biofuel production such as HYDROGEN; American auto manufacturers will be FORCED by military law to change to run domestic, renewable fuels, and our US dollars will STAY HERE, funding US citizens. $100 Billion in solar energy, distributed to the household level - imagine the power of strengthening millions of individual power plants, rather than giving enemies one big target to hit, should the war come to the heartland; then imagine the positive benefits we will all experience with clean, renewable energy at home.

Some sacrifice now will lead to a very bright future.

Good article, John. I have been disappointed ever since Jimmy Carter told us to put on a sweater and cut back on consumption. The writing has been on the wall for nearly 40 years and "oil independence" is no closer. I believe the technology exists and the ability to mass produce affordable, personal power stations is within reach. Our so called "leaders" have failed to act on this looming problem for reasons I can not understand. The threat of catostrophic terror attacks or invasion by a foreign entity pales in comparison to the damage that would be done by simply cutting off the oil flow.

Good points Rex. I have zero problem with "big oil" making profits. I have zero issue with defense contractors enriching themselves.

I do take issue with the brilliant environmentally-conscious innovators who choose to snipe from the sidelines, rather than get into the theater and COMPETE with fossil fuels.

Folks can bitch all they want, but all that sells is ads on Gather and other blogs, not to mention movie tickets. They can posture and future-think all they want, but all that sells is Popular Science Magazine.

The market is free. That doesn't mean you might not get bloody competing for your piece of the pie. "Put on a sweater" or "buy a high-mileage vehicle" is NOT EVEN a pacifist's strategy toward conservation. That's the approach of an invertebrate; a tissue-thin paper tiger.

Hope is not a strategy.

Activating a nation with a few simple, specific, measurable goals to defend our country and build its collective energies by distributing power to the People - literally and figuratively - now THAT is a tiger worth employing.

John: Personally I have lots of problems with big oil making windfall profits while taking huge tax subsidies. We should not be using taxpayer money to boost their profits. I also have a very real aversion to price gouging which affects our entire economy for the benefit of one industry.

You do make some good points. However, I wouldn't trust this current administration with the level of emergency powers you suggest. Not as far as I could throw congress overhand. They've already proven themselves incapable of not abusing what they have now and greedily grabbing for more and more.

We do need a valid and workable energy policy. Not one written by the energy companies behind closed doors in collusion with the VP, but a legitimate one in which everyone from the highest to the lowest is called upon to sacrifice for the common good. You're right. We need simple, specific, and measurable goals.

We didn't have to be in this untenable position. We as a nation chose to ignore the growing energy crisis across several generations because congress was busily selling out to the highest bidder. Now we're where we are. The thing is that starting from the bottom rather than half way up the mountain means it's going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more to fix.

We're funding them over there so we don't have to fund them here. Wait...we're funding them here, too.

The energy industry is the furthest thing possible from a "free market." It is a monopoly that has grown to the point that it is its own corporatocracy. Oil companies no longer even have to collude, in order to price fix, since they share their internal documents with each other.

Btw, Carter instituted an "Apollo mission" to see that 20% of the nation's electrical energy was to come from the sun within 20 years. His program was dismantled the moment the industry's president was put into the white house in 1981.

As for using kerosene in automobiles, it's possible that it could be used in diesel engines, because of their extremely high compression ratios, but wouldn't likely find a place in a typical gasoline-driven engine. Additionally, it's likely that extracting kerosene from coal would require far more energy than could be produced at a commercially acceptable rate. It would probably be far more commercially feasible to produce biodiesel.

There's also a very exciting new technology (Thermal depolymerization process) very quickly and easily breaks down ANY organic material, whether it be raw sewage, garbage, old computers, medical waste, etc., literally ANYTHING that is comprised of organic compounds to sanitized water, magnesium, calcium, high grade carbon, vaporous gases (to fire the plant), and a very easily refined, very clean oil.

A Butterball plant in MO is the first commercial TDP facility in the country. It gobbles (no pun intended!) up turkey renderings by the truckload.

While it's not likely that this would ever become commerically viable enough to produce significant amounts of gasoline, it does provide a way of reducing landfill waste, while at the same time producing some valuable materials, including oil. Definitely worth pursuing on a grand scale. Every landfill site in the country should have one of these plants.

Very little is stopping any of us from installing solar panels and windmill generators on our property, and building our own electric cars or making our own biodiesel fuel (restaurants produce large amounts of waste cooking oils that can easily be made into fuel). However impractical it may be for most, the fact is that there are things available to us today.

There is a carbarator that get 100 plus per gallon but the gov. took it and hid the facts. as well as the auto industry.

Vickie, please share who developed it and let's pull it out of hock! ;)

Is ANYONE posting in here yet USING so-called alternative fuels yet?

While I agree with the idea of stopping the purchase of OPEC oil it is easier said than done. While your recommendations sound good on the surface without some adjustments to the cost of implementing them the burden would not be evenly distributed.

1. Hardest hit by gas rationing would be those people who have little choice about driving too and from work.

2. Hardest hit by rationing of other oil would be those who need it for heating purposes and there are limits to how lower thermostats could be set without endangering the health of some people.

3. I am not sure rationing could be applied to those industries which manufacture products which utilize oil as a component

4. What does "distribute" mean in reference to home base solutions. My daughter (and the bank) own are home and while it is well situated for conversion to solar power the cost of converting is prohibitive. Converting an older home to solar is prohibitive for most people and the oldest homes which sometimes have 3 stories not counting the basement are the costliest of all even though they sometime have the advantage of not have trees to block the amount of sun that reaches the roof.

5. Also related to distribution is the cost of converting the many older buildings that house multiple residence or business. Even if the owner has the upfront money needed it, passing that cost on to the tenants could make staying at their current location cost prohibitive.

6. Both placing a tariff and banning future oil imports would place the greatest burden on those who currently have no choice but to utilize oil until an alternative source of energy is available and that would impact their ability to come up with the money to convert existing facility or to purchase to the currently higher homes and motor vehicles that use an alternative source or power.

7. While nuclear power plants may make good targets for terrorists their existence does reduce the dependence on oil, so it seems there is a confusion of goals with the suggestion that the number of such plants be reduced.

8. Upping domestic production of oil is not feasible until we have some real expectation of an alternative source that can be used when our oil runs out. Also there is no point the upping refining capacity if there available supply of crude oil is reduced.

9. I would also include requiring all new construction to utilize solar or another alternative energy source and reduce their need for externally supplied power to as close to zero as possible.

Regardless your suggestion or my added one, the recommendation would require time to implement. Reducing our need for oil should have been started even before Carter was honest enough with us to recommend it in 70's and was derided for refusing to paint a picture of a rosy effortless future and also had his recommendations ignored.

Carol, you defined the trap we find ourselves in. The operative phrase is "cost prohibitive". It is no accident the price of oil and gasoline hover at the breaking point for most Americans. Although we hear of increased world wide demand it hasn't reached the point where it's become entirely unaffordable. Many of us feel the strain but still find the money to heat our homes and drive our cars. And it will stay like that until serious efforts are made to free ourselves from this deathgrip.

I wasn't into politics all that much when Carter came forth with his plan but it struck me as odd that we were at the mercy of a handful of oil producing nations that could stop us in our tracks anytime they wanted. And here we are 30 years later still facing the same dilemna. Carter isn't personally responsible for that but the shot was fired across the bow and our leaders have scratched their heads, ever since, wondering what was that sound. The federal government has the power and the money to mandate research into alternative fuels but doesn't seem to see it as a priority. People cry out for stem cell research, aids research, environmental impact research, and everything you can think of but where is the cry for real energy research? That other stuff won't matter much when this country grinds to a halt and becomes another third world country looking to others for a handout.

Rex.

While I doubt we will become a third world country, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "That other stuff won't matter much when this country grinds to a halt....."

I was was into politics when Carter warned us, and he was met with charges of preaching doom and gloom and not having confidence in America by no less than Ronald Reagan who also assured us our nation had a bright future ahead of us. Unfortunately we chose to not re-elect the visionary who presented us with an uncomfortable truth. As a nation we are very good at ignoring inconvenient truths.

And by the way, I think used the term inconvenient truth when talking about Carter before Al Gore. who has chosen to use his status to point out another related inconvenient truth. I hope that is trying to disperse the gloom created by the oil crisis we do not ignore that truth. The long term effects of global warming might not be a dire as some suggest but trying to pretend it doesn't exist or is do to circumstances such a solar flares over which we have no control both lead to no need for action on our part. We must keep that pending crisis in mind as we search for a solution to the energy crisis.

It is time for Americans to stop pretending we are ostriches and get our heads out of the sand! Before any Canadians think that statement doesn't apply to them I will say it does. As far as I know our neighbors to the north have not come up with plans to end their dependence on fossil fuel and even if some of them hope to discover new oil reserves within Canada's borders, I remind them that it was not that long ago that the Alaskan reserves became a viable source of oil, and we already know they won't last forever. Fossil fuels can be depleted and unless we prepare to end our dependence on them the day when we must end our dependence on them will arrive before we are ready to deal with the consequences.

Carol,

Because we SHOULD have started this effort during "Carter's term" is hardly a reason to back off DOING it now, and doing it quite decisively. We controlled our own destiny then, we control it now.

If we WOULD have started back when NIXON outlined a plan to be independent by 1980...I could go ON too with the yadda, yadda, yadda woulda shoulda BS and do like the politicians have done and beat the issue into a verbal pulp to basically squelch any hope for action.

But woulda-coulda doesn't cut it any more, Carol.

Now, we are paying the price in more ways than we can imagine. Now, with over $7 Trillion in OPEC fuel purchased since the 1970s, we have funded our enemies to come back at us today and fulfill their desire: to destroy us.

We are beyond a graduated, grandiose, erudite, double-spaced and hospital-corner-tucked plan, posturing for all to see ten-step growth plan for the future of energy in the USA.

We are NOW quite literally, hanging our very existence in the balance, hoping those who DEFINE THEMSELVES as our bitter enemies won't create a nuclear bomb and use it on US.

Hello? Ten point plan? Did you READ what I was saying? I didn't think I wrote too many words BETWEEN THE LINES, did I? STOP FUNDING OUR ENEMIES.

No. Better we make it a one-point plan and do it now.

Otherwise within a decade, it's going to be a four word plan: Kiss Your Ass Goodbye

I agree with most of what you have said (though I do think that rationing would need to be handled carefully). There are a number of alternatives to gasoline including feuls made from corn and hemp (which is not the same as marajuana. Smoke hemp and you get a head ache, not high.) Those are both very renewable.

Currently South Korea has what I consider a brilliant way of killing 2 birds with one stone. Electiricity for Seoul is supplied by it's garbage. Seriously, all my food garbage goes into a special container and is taken to a plant where they compost it and use the heat from that to create electricity. Less trash in landfills and more lights in the city. They also have enforced recycling which the US hasn't gotten anywhere near.

Christine, excellent solution. The solution in the US will be a combination effort. Biofuels, garbage/methane "digestors," solar, and existing infrastructure - not to mention CONSERVATION.

Thanks for the comment - keep on comin'

Conservation - what a concept. Seriously though, what will it take to get everyone to conserve energy? Fuel (gasoline prices) in the US is the lowest amongst developed/industralized countries. Electricity is also the same. For about two generations now, no effort has been made to teach us the benefits of conservation and hence we keep wasting and wasting some more. The only way I believe will work will be to induce a massive shock to energy users by making gasoline cost about $5.5-6/gal via a tax. Same with electricity i.e. increase rates 2-3x. This will generate enormous source of revenue which can then be funneled to multitudes of alternative energy projects. However, how does one keep that source of revenue purely for research and development.
Insofar as OPEC is concerned, if we were to cut oil imports from opec which account for about 18% of total production, this supply would easily be absorbed by Europe, India and Asia and would only end up hurting us.
Ethanol in my opinion is a start but right now is more dangerous economically than beneficial. Why, its expensive to produce and without the generous government subsidy of 50cents per gallon the porduct would not be worth it. Second, the risks of inflation created by the lack of corn especially when the 130+ ethanol plants currently being built is very real. Just check the price of milk and chicken whichhave risen over 23% in the past year. Also as more corn is planted, crops such as soy beans etc are not planted which increases their prices which is then passed on to consumers.
Just rambling thoughts.

Patrick, it's not hard to ramble on a subject like this. All these things are interconnected and one answer can lead to ten more questions. I think John has an excellent point when you take global politics and economics into consideration. In my lifetime, I've seen situations that needed a political "fix" and we poured money into them. No fix comes and the world starts believing the US is obligated to bail out every country that can't handle it's own internal affairs. (How much was just promised to Gaza?) The world sees us as the rich bastards that own everything and has no problem hating us while taking our money. In this case, we are, as Carol Lahane said, keeping our heads in the sand while we finance the very ideals that wish to see us on our knees. The question becomes; when will we, as a nation, demand our government take decisive action to break this addiction and lessen the threat of economic paralysis that can be inflicted at the drop of an oil drum?

I agree that dependence on foreign oil needs to be stopped. We need our "leaders" to take a real leadership role on this issue.