RobertN Wrote:tigertom Wrote:That is interesting. It's time to REALLY start getting the attention of those that can help. Write your governmental officials (Senators/Congressmen) and sign this thing. It's getting around ... all over the U.S.A. If you don't know about it take a look.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actionc...6a1e096659
So the solution to the problem is to drill? Congrats. You just set back the development of substitutes for about 5 years. Of course, it is great for your selfish needs filling up your Hummer with cheap gas. Why not put that $10 toward developing clean new energy sources? But then again, you are a Republican so you don't care about anything but yourself and big business. 
Actually the solution is to do BOTH--drill where we can (specifically, I would exclude ANWR as our future hole card, but would push both offshore and oil shale development), AND hasten the development of alternative fuels, AND be prepared to implement serious conservation measures to reduce consumption, AND be prepared to pay A LOT more in the future, no matter what we do.
I remember the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings formula for balancing the budget--1/3 defense spending cuts, 1/3 non-defense spending cuts, 1/3 tax increases.
I think that's a pretty good model to follow now--1/3 alternative energy, 1/3 development of historic energy sources (fossil and nuclear), and 1/3 conservation. Solar and wind are neat sources of energy, but they are pretty much limited to electricity generation and their upside their has limits with current technology (e.g., getting more than 30% efficiency in storing energy for use when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing). Ethanol development would proceed a lot more effectively if we got rid of the farm state subsidies for corn ethanol (the most inefficient source) and tariffs on imported ethanol (eliminate the tariff, and the Cuban trade embargo, and we could probably get rid of our OPEC dependency with Cuban and Brazilian sugar cane ethanol), but don't bet on farm-state Obama to do either. We also need technological solutions to issues with existing sources--nuclear waste disposal (it's starting to look like the best answer may be to dilute it and put it back in the mine where we found it, a fairly cheap solution), CO2 produced from coal liquification/gasification (producing more electricity from solar/wind would free up coal to liquify to replace some oil and gasify to replace some natural gas), and coming up with ways to increase efficiency and reduce emissions from petroleum based fuels.
The best way to foster conservation is higher prices. Look at the buying decisions Americans are starting to make now, and realize they'd be going even more in that direction at a higher price. Tax the price of gasoline up to $5+ per gallon (and possibly provide a prebate of tax on, say, 10,000 miles at the CAFE mpg rate, to minimize the effect on lower-income and conserving drivers). Simply passing higher CAFE standards and assuming that will solve the problem ignores the inventiveness and resourcefulness of the American public. The era of cheap energy is over. Any politician who thinks he or she can accomplish anything by rolling back the gasoline tax for the summer is seriously delusional.
Much has been made of the Brazilian model, and it is an impressive one. Their biofuels effort is widely praised, and justifiably so. But that's not the only thing they did. They also significantly increased domestic oil and natural gas production (from 3% to 27% of total energy usage in 30 years), and they developed their hydroelectric resources to produce 35% of their annual energy needs. By comparison, the much ballyhooed biofuels make up 20% of their energy supply.
Their model was a bit easier for them to execute than it would be for us, because their total energy usage is so much lower than ours. We don't have the hydro potential that they do, and nuclear and conservation will probably have to fill that gap for us. But there are lessons to be learned there. The arguing over whether to develop domestic oil and gas or convert to alternative fuels misses the point that we need BOTH, along with significant conservation measures, to get where we need to go.
One thing that really does need to go is our "all or nothing" litigation/regulation approach to all things environmental. The oil companies want to drill everywhere, and rightly so considering their mission. The environmentalists don't want drilling anywhere. If the only means to resolve this is the current litigation model, with winners and losers determined based on specific situational issues rather than what is best for all stakeholders on an overall basis, then we will always end up with inefficient solutions that we can't afford.
I say this as an environmental lawyer who has made a fair amount of money navigating clients through the existing system, but it's still a system that is geared more toward generating fees for environmental lawyers and consultants than toward actually doing anything to help the environment.
/
All knowing dems to determine what's "reasonable"
....Second, she's a strong Christian and Social Conservative and a Family woman with a son in the Military. Third, she has strong libertarian/conservative(limited govt.) credentials...and fourth she's a woman and can appeal to some percentage of Hillary voters out there which is important.
. At least you admit the thrust of your activities. Now, advise us folk how to get OVER your clients positions and get on with something that is positive for "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" .... that would be really nice of you ! ! ! 
