Itâs wrong question, The correct one is why do we need oil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHN-Nr61IDI&hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHN-Nr61IDI&hl=en
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do we need foreign oil?
- Thread starter hapaboy
- Start date
no...its the right question...wether we want to quit our addiction is the challenge.Oil is going to bankrupt us through wars or kill us from destroying our environment.We dont have to go cold turkey but can reduce our use greatly.
Anyway its a finite resource with infinite demand.A disastrous combination that will shock us sooner than layer nnow that china and india are in the race to 'modernize'...
Anyway its a finite resource with infinite demand.A disastrous combination that will shock us sooner than layer nnow that china and india are in the race to 'modernize'...
Quote from dsq:
no...its the right question...wether we want to quit our addiction is the challenge.Oil is going to bankrupt us through wars or kill us from destroying our environment.We dont have to go cold turkey but can reduce our use greatly.
Anyway its a finite resource with infinite demand.A disastrous combination that will shock us sooner than layer nnow that china and india are in the race to 'modernize'...
Democrats are against every other viable source of energy. They are for pouring tax dollars into subsidies for unviable sources.
Get ready for gas lines, 55 MPH speed limit and mandatory rationing. All wrapped up in some save the planet rhetoric.
God forbid we conserve natural resources and show moderation as a nation.
You Bible has God saying "Be fruitful and excessive in all that you do, and do your best to destroy the planet before I do."
Don't worry, you will still drive as fast as you want and buy gas on the black market...
Oh, and why isn't solar and wind viable?
Does the sun not shine or the wind blow in your VA borough?
No matter what happens, the rich will get richer...
You Bible has God saying "Be fruitful and excessive in all that you do, and do your best to destroy the planet before I do."
Don't worry, you will still drive as fast as you want and buy gas on the black market...
Oh, and why isn't solar and wind viable?
Does the sun not shine or the wind blow in your VA borough?
No matter what happens, the rich will get richer...
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Democrats are against every other viable source of energy. They are for pouring tax dollars into subsidies for unviable sources.
Get ready for gas lines, 55 MPH speed limit and mandatory rationing. All wrapped up in some save the planet rhetoric.
fossil fuels arent viable as far global warming is concerned...and ethanol,corn subsidies/handouts is a bi-partisan collaboration.
At least bo and mccain both are thinking along the terms of a manhattan type project to develop a new clean energy source and end our reliance on fossil fuels and non viable nuclear.Nuclear will never get off the ground because private industry doesnt want to finance it.It is too much of a risk and it is highly likely to be not profitable after the 10 billion it costs to build each unit.Insurance companies will NOT insure a nuclear plant as it is too risky to them.If that doesnt speak volumes about nuclear viability what does?
At least bo and mccain both are thinking along the terms of a manhattan type project to develop a new clean energy source and end our reliance on fossil fuels and non viable nuclear.Nuclear will never get off the ground because private industry doesnt want to finance it.It is too much of a risk and it is highly likely to be not profitable after the 10 billion it costs to build each unit.Insurance companies will NOT insure a nuclear plant as it is too risky to them.If that doesnt speak volumes about nuclear viability what does?
The reason we don't use more wind/solar is simple.........they aren't viable on the scale that fossil fuels are. 50 years from now, our main sources of energy will still be fossil fuels.
If you think solar/wind are such no brainers, then get a group of like minded investors together and exploit this sure thing.
The dems are delusional if they think we can solve this problem by alternatives alone. They know this. That's why they have to frame the debate around emotion by using terms like "addiction", "speculators", "global warming" etc.....
If you think solar/wind are such no brainers, then get a group of like minded investors together and exploit this sure thing.
The dems are delusional if they think we can solve this problem by alternatives alone. They know this. That's why they have to frame the debate around emotion by using terms like "addiction", "speculators", "global warming" etc.....
Quote from Arnie:
The reason we don't use more wind/solar is simple.........they aren't viable on the scale that fossil fuels are. 50 years from now, our main sources of energy will still be fossil fuels.
If you think solar/wind are such no brainers, then get a group of like minded investors together and exploit this sure thing.
The dems are delusional if they think we can solve this problem by alternatives alone. They know this. That's why they have to frame the debate around emotion by using terms like "addiction", "speculators", "global warming" etc.....
I agree with you to a point. However, solar in particular has a lot of potential and the Dems are not going to put any significant dollars into it. If they had poured the billions that they suck out of all our wallets into solar (and possibly wind and a few other ideas), we would probably be in a vastly different place than we are now. And, at least, they wouldn't be pissing all my dollars into the street.
But the Dems are going to destroy the supply and, ironically, force our dependence on rogue states such as Venezuela and so on and at the same time slowly strangle our economy.
But that's politicians for you. If you (not you personally) think anything good can come out of Washington, then you are sadly mistaken...
Most dems I know don't say alternatives alone.
Just like changing crops. If you are going to transition to another crop, you move in that direction over time.
The goal is more oil, or moving away from oil?
In the 70's after the oil crunch, we did not have an energy policy to transition away from oil...so here we are 30 years later in the same mess.
Now that's great planning, eh?
Just like changing crops. If you are going to transition to another crop, you move in that direction over time.
The goal is more oil, or moving away from oil?
In the 70's after the oil crunch, we did not have an energy policy to transition away from oil...so here we are 30 years later in the same mess.
Now that's great planning, eh?
Quote from Arnie:
The reason we don't use more wind/solar is simple.........they aren't viable on the scale that fossil fuels are. 50 years from now, our main sources of energy will still be fossil fuels.
If you think solar/wind are such no brainers, then get a group of like minded investors together and exploit this sure thing.
The dems are delusional if they think we can solve this problem by alternatives alone. They know this. That's why they have to frame the debate around emotion by using terms like "addiction", "speculators", "global warming" etc.....
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Most dems I know don't say alternatives alone.
Just like changing crops. If you are going to transition to another crop, you move in that direction over time.
The goal is more oil, or moving away from oil?
In the 70's after the oil crunch, we did not have an energy policy to transition away from oil...so here we are 30 years later in the same mess.
Now that's great planning, eh?
There's one thing you can count on: find the alternative that is the most bone-headed, inane and generally destructive to the economy solution and they will support it with billions and billions of our hard-earned dollars.