Shoutistics
243,463
Total Shouts
6
Last 24 Hours
Leaderboard
The Shoutbox
Tell me, would you rather have all that oil now, or during a serious world crisis?
I'm all for setting up the wells and pipelines, but I am adamantly against using that oil unless we have a shortage.
We have plenty of oil right now. There are no shortages, and probably won't be for awhile. The majority of it comes from Canada and Mexico, which are both under NAFTA. Another sizable chuck comes from Venezuela where there are boatloads more to be drilled. No, we do *not* need to tap Anwar.
Quit talking about getting more oil, and start talking about real alternatives to the energy crisis.
I'm all for setting up the wells and pipelines, but I am adamantly against using that oil unless we have a shortage.
We have plenty of oil right now. There are no shortages, and probably won't be for awhile. The majority of it comes from Canada and Mexico, which are both under NAFTA. Another sizable chuck comes from Venezuela where there are boatloads more to be drilled. No, we do *not* need to tap Anwar.
Quit talking about getting more oil, and start talking about real alternatives to the energy crisis.
If "to their own ends" means "so we have more energy," then yeah. Not everyone who feels strongly about this is a politician. Some of us just think we need more energy.
Yes, a wonderful, magical solution that we can implement instantly without any sort of transition period. 
This is definitely one of those issues where you can highlight imperfections in all the solutions. Yet something needs to be done.
The issue is staggeringly simple at its core: if you think we need more energy, there are a limited number of ways we can go about it. Nuclear power, increased drilling, and future technologies to name a few. Every sane person is for finding cleaner, renewable energy sources, but it's not going to happen overnight, and we can't do nothing while we wait for various energy forms to become viable.
Thus, I humbly submit that, if there's oil under our feet, we get at it. Not as an alternative to new energy sources, but to supplement and transition. If anyone's got a better idea rather than "tough it out until we can mount a windmill on your Camry," I'd love to hear it.
Originally Posted by John McClane
Don't drill in Anwar! Find a real solutin!
This is definitely one of those issues where you can highlight imperfections in all the solutions. Yet something needs to be done.The issue is staggeringly simple at its core: if you think we need more energy, there are a limited number of ways we can go about it. Nuclear power, increased drilling, and future technologies to name a few. Every sane person is for finding cleaner, renewable energy sources, but it's not going to happen overnight, and we can't do nothing while we wait for various energy forms to become viable.
Thus, I humbly submit that, if there's oil under our feet, we get at it. Not as an alternative to new energy sources, but to supplement and transition. If anyone's got a better idea rather than "tough it out until we can mount a windmill on your Camry," I'd love to hear it.
Ya know the truth is that both sides, the "green" people and the "drill more" people are just using the current financial crisis to their own ends. The truth is neither "solution" is really as helpful as they say.
Don't drill in Anwar! Find a real solutin!
Drill in Anwar! The lovelorn caribou will thank you!
I am living up to my screen name, I am a freak because I'm voting for...(Gasp) Nader!
Oh yes, I can certainly agree that there are many times where intervention is worse than the disease. Then again, that's where "checks and balances" come into play. Not addressing *any* type of energy bill is just too much to excuse, IMO.
I think a light touch is necessary, but I think politicians like the rest of us see opportunity in everything, so how they deal with some things is concerning.
I'm not sure, actually. I don't think, for example, that they simple ignored it, so much as they could not reach an amicable solution. It's easy to blame the lot of them for that, but to do so is to suggest that somebody should have backed down, basically.
Whether or not it's good, I'm not sure. I'm simply pointing out that, when it comes to government intervention, the cure can be worse than the disease.
Whether or not it's good, I'm not sure. I'm simply pointing out that, when it comes to government intervention, the cure can be worse than the disease.
Originally Posted by Yoda
And sometimes, I daresay that's a good thing.