Top Story
Fareed Zakaria: Wanted—A New Global Strategy
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years
 
 
expand

Power Failures

U.S. energy policy is seriously behind the rest of the industrial world. What President Bush should do to catch up.

By Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 7, 2008 | Updated: 8:32  a.m. ET Jul 7, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Ecocentric05 @ 07/31/2008 1:02:38 AM

    Comment: The earths' environmental issues are the most important topic the world is facing today, and as a vast non-renewable resource consumer, the U.S. government must be more pro-active (economically assisting or less regulatory) to promote citizens to create and implement new energy sources both public and private. I have faith that the day will come when the majority of americans will start seeing past their selfish financial endeavors and focus pro-actively on solving a major global problem while accepting the related economic windfall that impolitely attaches itself to responsible philanthropic change. Start writing letters and hope our representatives are truly representative.

  • Posted By: light speed @ 07/18/2008 9:28:41 AM

    Comment: I have no faith in anything Bush can or should do, I do feel the congress could help lower some of the cost of gas at the pump by getting control of the oil speculators. NO, this will not solve our problems but one part of the problem is greed. We all know, greed is what makes the world go around in the oil industry.

  • Posted By: Gessho @ 07/11/2008 12:33:29 PM

    Comment: I'll take George Bush over that dolt Gordon Brown any day.

  • Posted By: OBWan @ 07/09/2008 9:53:52 PM

    Comment: Gee! You want Pres. Bush to get serious about energy during the last 6% of his presidency. I am stunned!

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:37:04 PM

    Comment: Well, Hope Hill, that's it for tonight. I've tried to cheer you up and sincerely hope that it worked. Nobody deserves to be depressed over an election. Good luck in your recovery. Don't go manic on me now. Just hold steady.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:35:19 PM

    Comment: It would serve Obama right if he would just pick Hillary as his vice president, and just as he is taking the oath of office, she just gooses him. That would make him slap the bible that the judge is holding and affirm all of those accusations that he belongs to a religion with some other book. What a start. She could get even with him all at once and nobody would ever know the difference. I want to see that "I told you so" smile on her face when he slaps that bible out of the judge's hand.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:30:18 PM

    Comment: Hillary would have made the strongest president because she had a former president to back her up in a pinch. Neither Mrs. Obama nor Mrs. Mc Cain can back up with that kind of experience. An heiress and a pregnant mother with two children to care for just won't cut it as a backup. Besides, there's no telling what Mc Cain might call Mrs. Mc Cain the next time he forgets her name. That last name he called her just won't do. Can't expect any backup when you curse your helper. Just hope for the best Hope Hill.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:24:25 PM

    Comment: Hillary would have known what to do with the phone. Seen it in her ad.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:23:51 PM

    Comment: He's got that old man's sort of stare that looks like he's always trying to remember something that just slipped his mind. How about waking up at 3 AM to a telephone ring and asking "what the hell is that red phone doing by my bed, you cheap c*nt".

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:19:59 PM

    Comment: We might do well to elect Mc Cain as National Nursing Home Director. He has the proper stature and his teeth are beginning to whistle with the letter "s". Top qualifier. His vice president could be Cheney. He shot one of his hunting buddies in the face with bird shot which definitely qualifies him for a nursing home. Lock up his shotgun.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:15:07 PM

    Comment: Bush has made the office look so bad, it probably ought to be abolished anyway. We could create a new office to take its place called, "Presider Decider of The United States of America". We have actually had something similar to that in the past eight years, "Presider Divider of The United States of America". It'll be a much better place, either way, whatever we call it. Sooner the better.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:10:31 PM

    Comment: Since Hope Hill thought of it first, she should be our leader. I vote for Hope Hill as leader of our first voters' revolt in American History, where everybody in the whole country agrees not to vote in November. Our slogan will not be "yes we can", nor "help is on the way", nor "damn the torpedoes". It will be "hell no, we don't care".

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 10:07:30 PM

    Comment: What do presidents do, anyway. I saw a picture of Bush in today's news shoveling dirt. Why is a president shoveling dirt? Hope Hill is the only one making sense here tonight. She doesn't care who wins and I think that she is correct. Let's do a voters' revolt. Everybody in the country should agree not to vote in the presidential election. Neither candidate gets a vote. Can't get into office without being elected. That will teach them. Zero votes. Office abolished by acclamation.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2008 7:49:51 PM

    Comment: Well, Hope Hill, I think that you might be depressed, saying that you don't care, having been disappointed because Hillary didn't win. I know how you feel. There was a super bowl back there years ago when I felt the same way, just depressed as heck because my team didn't win. Just a referee call or two and we could have been the champs. My team, that is. Then a year went by and I finally came out of it. I hope that you will be able to overcome this feeling of hopelessness that goes with disappointment. I wonder how happy you would be if she had won? Would it be extremely extra happy, or just pleased as punch.
    I watched all of the primary debates and couldn't get too excited about anybody. Maybe I was already depressed and just couldn't get excited at all.
    Well, I hope that things will level off for you. Maybe there will be a good mayoral race of governor's race that comes along to get that old zest back. Hope yours wins. Good luck.
    I really would like to get excited about something again. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

  • Posted By: gary goldbladt @ 07/08/2008 7:14:41 PM

    Comment: "... Bush should do..." what Bush does best: Nothing. It's time to give the reins to a new leader. Whatever plans him and his Confederate Mafia come up with will only send the country down the wrong path.

  • Posted By: Hope Hill @ 07/08/2008 12:34:42 PM

    Comment: WITHOUT HILLARY I JUST DON'T CARE WHO WINS.

    Hope Hill

    • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/08/2008 8:45:10 PM

      Comment: Inexcusable. Do you not have children? Nieces or nephews? A scrap of human decency?

      We are 8 years late on making hard choices. There is a circle of hell saved for those who couldn't be bothered.

    • Posted By: nate31 @ 07/08/2008 2:16:45 PM

      Comment: That is outstanding the time for a choice that shapes America is now. Hillary didn't make it and that is a shame for alot of people. Pick a side though. Hillary hardly represents all that is great in politics. Pick an issue and make a stand. Please don't cry that your candidate didn't get selected and use it as an excuse the next 4-8 years.

  • Posted By: Chaotician @ 07/08/2008 10:32:38 AM

    Comment: It is sadly laughable for the "G8" to set goals for 2050; long after all of them are long gone! Any goal beyond the next election cycle is useless, a sop and a stalling tactic, and no doubt criminal! I suppose that it could be argued that nothing better can occur until and unless George is a historical debacle rather than a train-wreck in action! However, it would be far, far better to do the George thing; isolate George, America, the corporate henchmen and destroy the pretense that anything ias actually happening.

  • Posted By: gary goldbladt @ 07/07/2008 9:54:31 PM

    Comment: We also need a cap on the creation of relatively unstable nuclear isotopes. Nuclear power is old news. It requires a huge initial investment. And it has a terribly long lead time to energy production. There are hidden long term costs that make it undesirable. Nuclear also amplifies our risk from terrorists.
    There are other possiblilties that provide a much faster return with a much smaller investment. Focused solar, and flexible solar panels are now either under production or soon will be by many different sources. Both options promise 1 watt per dollar of initial investment. And, they don't increase our risk from terrorists. For focused solar, power plants in the south-west combined with super cooled power grid can supply, for the most part, the entire US energy demand. Some flexible solar panels have a 26 year lifetime.
    Nuclear is only cheap when the plants go into recievership. But, the tax payers never stop paying the bonds.

  • Posted By: collegevoter @ 07/07/2008 9:26:58 PM

    Comment: Why is it the oil companies responsibility? Let's see because the government is subsidizing them and, in many cases, giving them that money with the express, precondition that they use it to develop alternative energy sources. If they don't intend to do so, then quit taking the money. The notion that they need to be subsidized anyway is absurd. Farm subsidies are fought over every year. Oil susidies are handed out to even the largest corporations like candy. The constant need to excuse Big Business, no matter how wrong it might be, is sickening. Especially in the case of oil companies like Exxon Mobil making record profits.

    If Republicans really believed in the free market, they would be the first one arguing that there is no need to subsidize the oil companies. But they won't. Because they don't really believe in free market capitalism.

  • Posted By: danram @ 07/07/2008 9:25:58 PM

    Comment: Here's a sensible three-tiered approach to solving the energy crisis:

    Near-term: Reduce gasoline taxes and temporarily remove the EPA restrictions that require different gasoline blends for different areas of the country, thus freeing up valuable US refinery capacity. Also, re-establish position limits for traders of crude oil futures contracts and increase the margun requirement from 5% to 50%. Beginning in 2009, require all US auto manufacturers to make their new vehicles able to run on "flex fuels"

    Intermediate-term: Immediately begin aggressively developing untapped US oil & gas resources. By doing so, perhaps gas will still be $5 a gallon five years from now rather than $10-$15 a gallon. By drilling today, we can buy ourselves some time to make the permanent jump to alternative energy technologies..

    Longer-term: Provide tax incentives both for developers of alternative energy technologies as well as for venture funds who invest in them. Likewise, provide tax incentives for today's energy companies (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc.) to make the needed capital investments in their existing chains of service stations in order to be able to accommodate things like hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles, condensed natural gas powered vehicles. Finally, provide tax incentives for public utilities to aggressively commit capital to building up a solar power infrastructure.

    The technologies needed, for the most part, already exist. But in some cases, like the need for better battery technology, government should provide incentives for achievement (like the $300m that McCain has proposed) rather than simply throwing money at the problem by creating bloated new bureaucracies as Obama wants to do.

    • Posted By: nate31 @ 07/08/2008 2:07:43 PM

      Comment: That is an outstanding solution. We can further polute the environment in the short term with the lift on restrictions, we can drive up the cost of food by requiring the use of "flex fuel", and we can damage the environment for the long term by drilling for oil that most experts feel won't help at all. Then we can give the oil companies more money that they can not use to come up with solutions. Awesome maybe you can be our next president!

  • Posted By: woodduck @ 07/07/2008 9:14:08 PM

    Comment: Nuclear is the cheapest , most efficient way to generate power . We have been using it on ships for years, let's not talk about where to put the '' waste'' until we've generated it.. How have countries like Iceland dealt with the problm ? What is the BEST EXAMPLE scenerio. Don't give me the -- Drill but don't make a hole -- refine without smoke routine -- The American public is certainly spoiled-- it's step up to the pump time.

    • Posted By: nate31 @ 07/08/2008 2:09:29 PM

      Comment: Don't talk about where to put the waste? Are you serious, that sounds like invading with out a plan for occupation. Oh that's right we tried that. By the way how is that working out for us? Only nuclear waste is forever!

  • Posted By: zinc8 @ 07/07/2008 8:13:23 PM

    Comment: Bush and his cronies are laughing at the rest of us all the way to the bank. The energy industry refuses to innovate and nothing new will come from this country. But soon another country will be home to energy innovations and they will eventually kick our rear end. The days of the U. S. as the major world power are almost over due to the greed and short-sightedness of our energy companies, the ignorance of their puppet politicians, and the selfishness of the American public.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 8:35:04 PM

      Comment: Why do you (and much of America) make the assumption that it is the responsibility of the oil companies to come up with the innovation to move us away from their product? These companies are in the business of earning a profit for their stock holders. It is ridiculous to demonize them, because they are providing a valuable product that YOU use every day of your life. They are no different than any other company. The oil companies aren't the only ones with the ability to innovate.

      Our high oil costs are a result of increased regulation and restrictions on the oil companies leading to supply not increasing to match demand. This problem is exaggerated by market specualtion. The investors are the ones laughing all the way to the bank--not the oil companies.

      As for puppet politicians, there are plenty of puppets for the environmentalists as well, so you can stop with your one sided load of bull.

  • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 6:50:52 PM

    Comment: Oldgrouch, I agree with you that Big Al has a huge conflict of interest on the whole Global Warming propoganda, and that there is NO conclusive evidence that Global Warming is anything more than a natural cycle in the Earths atmosphere. When I say conclusive, I mean a conclusion that a majority of scientists agree on. They do not agree on Global Warming, yet it gets presented as though they do.

    It's interesting that Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist leading the Global Warming movement, is the same one who led a global cooling alarm in the 70's. It's even more interesting that the NASA temperature data used to support the Global Warming theory has been modified from the original data. Sure makes me go Hmmm. If you're interested in reading on theis further, here's an article on the subject.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

  • Posted By: oldgrouch @ 07/07/2008 5:48:28 PM

    Comment: What drivel. Despite all the puffijng and storming there is zero - repeat - ZERO evidence that carbon dioxide is changing the climate. How do you explain that the hottest year in the last century was in the 30's, not recently? Can you show me satellite data that proves the albedo of the earth has changed, and that carbon dioxide increase is the cause? No you can't, because that data does not exist. CO2 is not the principal "greenhouse gas" anyway, it's water vapor. CLOUDS!!! The amount of cloud cover has a far greater effect on temperature and weather than if the air contains 38 thousandths of a percent of CO2 instead of 32 thousandths of one percent. How do you ninnies explain that 15,000 years ago there were no Great Lakes, just a sheet of ice a mile thick sitting on Detroit? How do you explain that 1000 years ago people were farming in Greenland and wild grapes were growing in Newfoundland? Read Beowulf sometime. The king's hall in Denmark, a fairly chilly place even with global warming in winter, had no fireplace, just a fire pit to warm it.

    Al Gore has a financial interest in companies that market carbon credits. In the normal world this would scream "conflict of interest", but not for Saint Al. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. I note that I haven't seen any articles in Newsweek about this.

    • Posted By: nate31 @ 07/08/2008 2:13:11 PM

      Comment: The truth is probably none of us know conclusively whether global warming is man made, or a natural cycle. What I think most of us can agree on is that the levels of polution can and should be regulated for everyone, Republican, Democrat and even Al Gore. Let's stop arguing about specifics and start uniting behind a solution.

  • Posted By: oldgrouch @ 07/07/2008 5:32:56 PM

    Comment: What drivel. I keep hearing that alternative energy is the way to go. Well, i heard that when Carter was president too. Despite decades of efforts and billions in government research and subsidies there is nothing that compares to fossil fuels for ease of use and cost efficiency. An old stinky coal-fired electric plant puts out more energy units per pound of carbon dioxide than the most efficient hybrid on the market, and newer plants are even more efficient. I am fascinated that no one seems to look at the serious hypocrisy in
    the climate change movement, since there is one economic source of power, used in a number of countries, that is totally unacceptable to them: nuclear fission. France, Japan and Canada all have much larger programs than the US, and have great safety records. Yet when it is proposed this gets shouted down as unsafe. Still more interesting to me is the near total lack of interest in nuclear fusion, which is the cleanest process imaginable. No waste, and the "ash" is helium, the most inert element known. Idiots are calling for "Manhatten Projects" for alternative sources, yet a really viable prospect goes begging. The real problem seems to be that as long as this is government sponsored research the goal is not a final answer, the goal is more grants and research. The size of the investment needed, plus the heavy hand of government regulators makes it a tough sell for the private sector to handle. The work also goes against the grain of current industry; fusion would gut the coal and natural gas industry, since the fuel is potentially anywhere you have water. As for the Bush Administration being the source of all evil; if you check Chuck Schumer's speeches from the nineties, he was against drilling then. If he hadn't fought it then we would have the oil now. If Clinton had signed the ANWR drilling bill that field would be a mature producing area now. Great Britain and Norway drill in the North Sea, and despite some horrible accidents along the way have not had a serious spill in over two decades of the crummiest weather on the planet. We are making decisions that affect the nation because a well off the California coast sprung a leak when Nixon had just entered office! We cannot have wells 45 miles off the Florida coast, but we will have them 46 miles away. We just won't benefit from them, Raul Castro will. You are paying $4 a gallon because Congress wants the eco-nuts to keep funding them.

  • Posted By: t_mccluskey@charter.net @ 07/07/2008 4:13:13 PM

    Comment: two buisnessmen /former oil men currently head up our goverment . both strong advoctes of deregulation ..equals goverment oversight. now having helped usher in the deregulation and inturn billions of dollars of profit for themselves and their business friends . you want them to what Stop ! ? why on earth would they ? theve developed a concience? come on if that were the case this country would not find its self in the bipartisan mess that were in today $4 -$5 gal gas ? if that was all that we had to deal with then we might be okay .. what should concern us the most is what else dont we know about which is on the way ?

  • Posted By: tndoug @ 07/07/2008 3:36:55 PM

    Comment: why should the president do anything because he's getting rich from it. It's about the oil.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 4:36:30 PM

      Comment: Do you have any evidence to show that he is getting rich from our current oil price issue? The oil companies are not driving the price--speculators are causing a bubble in the oil market just as they did in the real estate market, and the tech market before that. None of that has to do with our current President. The short term investment de-regulation that allowed these bubbles occurred in 2000 before Bush came to office.

      • Posted By: OBWan @ 07/07/2008 10:37:48 PM

        Comment: Whala -
        People become suspicious when there is a long family history in the oil and banking industries - going back to at least the 1940's.

  • Posted By: cjwirth @ 07/07/2008 3:21:18 PM

    Comment: The power grid is a major concern, as almost nothing works without electric power: trucks and cars that depend on fuel that is pumped with electric motors, airports, communications, home heating, automated building systems, air conditioning, etc. And the Peak Oil crisis threatens the power grid. For a complete explanation see this free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

    This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:34:21 PM

      Comment: Yes, the power grid is already very fragile--remember the rolling black outs in California? Imagine what would happen if we were to make a quick conversion in society to plug in electric vehicles. That is likely one of the reasons why those vehicles failed to make it past initial consumer testing.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/07/2008 3:19:36 PM

    Comment: Zakaria ignores a rather important point. Neither Japan,nor Germany,nor Britain,are as litigous as the United States[which ranks first among all nations in lawsuits] As a result,even the exploitation of technologies deemed ''green''are subject to litigation by environmental organizations. Over at the Center for Biological Diversity website,what we see is a roll call of ''suit filed'',''suit filed'',''suing to block'',''preparing to sue'',all down its pages.
    Solar plants in Arizona . Wind farms in California and the East Coast. Soy farms on federal lands. Any and all attempts to either drill for what we have in fossil fuels,or even going the way of renewable energy are being stalled and fought by literally squadrons of enviro litigators ,lawyers and organizations,often pitting one against another. Obviously,in such a climate,to turn a phrase,nothing is getting done in such a means as it would begin having an impact on the nations energy woes.[So bad,in fact,that the founder of GREENPEACE,left the organization after being branded a heretic,for airing his opinion that such lawsuits and litigations were having an adverse effect on gaining energy independance].

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/07/2008 4:56:45 PM

      Comment: The modern green movement, as headed by Ralph Nader, tends towards complete impracticality. Nader himself is one of the biggest idiots and most dangerous problems to the environmental movement that I think I've ever seen. And there are a lot of people like him who are dangerously ideological - as bad as the current administration is, but in reverse - who will block the most practical of suggestions for not being a perfect solution, driving us right back to fossil fuels and greater catastrophe.

      We need to be blocking fossil fuel drilling and mining, unquestionably, given the unequivocal evidence that global warming has well and truly started. I think we should *not* be blocking windfarms, and we desperately need to get the ball rolling on solar power. We could be avoiding a lot of this if, back in 2000, we'd started subsidizing the solar power industry as heavily as we subsidize petroleum.

      Nader and the other ideological greens may be one of the biggest obstacles in the way of practical environmentalism today. I registered Green this election year just to show my support for the causes, but I'd probably never vote for Nader.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:26:09 PM

      Comment: Wow! Excellent comment! Our letigious society is one of the fundamental core problems with our society. This is a major hurdle to our progress in our energy industries, and virtually EVERY other industry in our nation. I firmly believe our Nation will continue to slide towards mediocrity until we correct this problem.

  • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 3:13:34 PM

    Comment: lillea: YOu couldn't be more wrong. Although the Democrats control the House and the Senate, it takes more than a simple majority to pass legislation and the Republicans have continued to block any legislation that deals with energy reform. Bush has no desire to conserve energy since his oil pals are the ones getting rich. No one has sabotaged our economy you idiot - we are all suffering. You need to find out how government works before you post something as idiotic as your posting.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:20:26 PM

      Comment: Unfortunately, it is never as simple as you make it out to be. The politicians ability to attach completely unrelated pork onto any bill they choose completely clouds the issue. A bill in it's purity may be a complete winner, but fail to get the necessary votes because of all the attachments that go along with it. And then candidates get bagged on for not supporting a bill for something when the reason they didn't support it had nothing to do with the bill itself.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:16:23 PM

      Comment: Can we please have a discussion like adults instead of resorting to childish name calling?

  • Posted By: lillea @ 07/07/2008 2:59:10 PM

    Comment: Bush personally wants to end the energy cirsis. The blame for the problem is in the laps of the Democrat controlled House and Senate. They have sabotaged our economy to spite Bush. BUT Bush isn't the one suffering.....it's the American citizen. They are a sick bunch in DC.

  • Posted By: lillea @ 07/07/2008 2:56:59 PM

    Comment: Believe me, Obama is not inventing anything new. AMOCO has been producing not only oil, but got into green energy about 8 years ago. AND there are wind farms popping up all over. The news reports will never tell Americans that the Bush administration has made leaps and bounds in the green energy field, but history will record it.
    ALSO, domestic drilling has already begun. So folks, we could be at the end of the energy crisis very soon.

    • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 3:52:43 PM

      Comment: All of the oil companies have looked into alternative energy but there has been little initiative to do anything since there has been no encouragement from the current administration. All the closed door meetings with big oil - whose minutes are off limits to anyone outside the administration - have produced nothing. Incentives will get big oil to find and quickly develop alternatives. But, the push has to be there. Why would they do anything when they are making billions now?

      • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 4:17:33 PM

        Comment: Yes, the Oil companies have done more research than anyone else on alternatives. They have discovered that the efficiency in using alternatives is less cost effective than using petroleum products. They will only become viable with either a government subsidy which costs you and I money in taxes, or with increased oil prices, which is happening naturally as oil reserves get used. Developing the technology to increase the efficiency to compete with oil at pre-2007 prices is a lengthy process.

        I agree that the oil companies may not be the best choice for the direction of funding of research into alternatives since some alternatives are free resources that could reduce or eliminate their revenue. You can't very well complain about a company failing to slit it's own throat.

        I find it frustrating that all of the blame seems to be directed at the current administration, when the reality is that this problem has been mounting for decades, yet NO administration has taken any real action towards solving the problem. The reason for that is that the American people as a whole were disinterested until it hit us in the pocketbook.

        • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/07/2008 5:03:21 PM

          Comment: This is very true, and we all need to take responsibility for our own carbon use and stop blaming Bush as much.

          The thing about it, though, is that the serious consequences are beginning to happen in earnest on Bush's watch, and this decade was the one when we unquestionably needed to grab the problem by its horns and start working through it or start hurting. And Bush's environmental policies have unquestionably moved us backwards instead of forwards - it's not as if he's done nothing, he's absolutely strengthened the petrochemical industry that our reliance on is beginning to cause massive, truly structural problems with the economy. There were movements towards environmentalism under Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, and while I agree that previous administrations deserve some of the blame, look at Nixon in particular, who's absolutely vilified in American thought and yet actually started the EPA.

          It also doesn't help that Bush won a highly disputed election fraught with irregularities in a Republican-won state against the most environmentally activist major politician that was working in America at the time.

  • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 2:31:27 PM

    Comment: So let me get this straight. The Environmentalists/Liberals put restrictions which restrict our local oil production over the last 30 years without implementing a plan to replace that energy with alternatives, and now that oil prices are through the roof, it's somehow Bush's fault?

    No, if using petroleum products is truly the evil it is being made out to be, we need to look in the mirror for the finger pointing. If, as Americans, we were interested in paying the premium associated with the alternatives over the last 30 years, they would have been developed, and found their way to market. Now that we finally appear to be interested, the alternatives will be developed--but expecting a short term transition to them is unrealistic.

    This notion that implementing a plan now to invent our way out of high fuel prices is 30 years too late. Converting our society to alternatives will take 3 times longer than drilling for our own oil, so the only responsible plan has to include BOTH harvesting our own oil to the extent possible, as well as an aggressive effort in developing alternatives. The funding for the R&D should come from selling oil out of our strategic reserve--not from decreased military spending.

    • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/07/2008 5:13:11 PM

      Comment: The real reason environmentalists are in arms against petroleum has far more to do with global warming than energy prices.

      The thing about the planet is that, burning fossil fuels at the rate we are, we will run out of planet long before the world uns out of oil. Canada's forests have, in the last year, turned from a carbon sink into a carbon emitter due to the presence of heavy wildfires in the summer in the *northernmost* regions of the country. The increased warming is also helping the Mountain Pine Beetle turn a tremendous amount of Canadian forest into dead trees just waiting for wildfires, which when burned (it's really a question of when, and not if, given changing weather patterns) emit carbon on a scale comparable to human CO2 emissions. The problem is serious, maybe even critical, already. I personally don't believe we're looking at less than millions dying from ecological disaster in the best case scenario going forward, and it's not looking like we're going to be looking at the best case scenario.

      I very strongly disagree that we need to harvest as much oil as possible, because while it might help our economy in the short term, in the long term we are looking at environmental damage so profound that it will literally kill *billions* worldwide, not millions. The evidence is pretty unequivocal that global warming is increasing the severity of wildfires, droughts, rainstorms, and hurricanes - there's a good chance that New Orleans has already become a casualty of global warming, though it's not widely believed yet.

      What you're proposing is intended at keeping our economy going at somewhere near the rate it's currently at. That's been off the table for a long, long time now. Our primary concern ought to be getting off a petroleum-based economy no matter how much it hurts, and it will, or else we're going to see entire cities destroyed in exactly the way New Orleans was, and worse.

      • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 6:04:50 PM

        Comment: Yes, I understand that Global Warming is a key driver of the movement against petroleum. I think we all agree that we need to move away from petroleum products, but many of us don't buy the propaganda of Global Warming. While there is no doubt that the earth has warmed a little over the past few decades, it appears now to be cooling this decade. While the activists claim that the evidence is conclusive, and portray the catastrophic extremes in what appears to be an effort to scare people into getting on board, there are as many (or more) reputable scientists who disagree with those conclusions.

        If the predictions of the activists, and your portrayal, are accurate, it's too late to reverse the problem anyway, and we have no way to stop the progression of Global Warming. If they are not accurate, it's not as big of a problem as it is made out to be. I just think we need more of a concensus among scientists before we take extreme measures in what appears to be a futile effort to control the earths atmosphere.

        It makes you wonder when the NASA scientist leading the Global Warming effort is the same one who led the Global Cooling alarm in the 70's. The earth has a natural system for correcting cooling and warming trends in the water cycle, so I tend to question the conclusions and motives of the activists.

        • Posted By: Jimbozi @ 07/08/2008 10:15:31 AM

          Comment: You can argue the cause of global warming all you want but ask the folks in Alaska if global warming is ral and they will laugh in your face.

          If we think forests burning emit carbon wait until the permafrost starts to decay

    • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 4:41:37 PM

      Comment: You were wanting to stop the name calling? Environmentalists recognize that drilling for oil that endangers wildlife comes back to haunt us all since there is a ripple effect of damages. And, those of us who are moderates realize that this is not the answer so, wildly drilling has been discouraged. Bush has had options but none of those benefited the oil companies so he has chosen to do nothing stating more than once that we have no problem. Only in the past few months has he come to admit that there is one. (My favorite - "Oh I hadn''t heard that gas was going up to over $3.00 per gallon." George Bush when asked about the price of gas in the country.) Many alternatives have been looked at and seem promising but, without dollars for research have not gotten as far as they could have. And, oil companies have made inroads but are not about to cut their own throats by pushing them. And, car makers have had the knowledge to make more fuel efficient cars for quite some time but, without pressure to do that and with customers continuing to buy, they didn't move to making those automobiles soon enough. Converting to alternatives will take no longer than drilling for oil will and, in the long run, will prove better for the country.

      • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 6:24:54 PM

        Comment: The environmentalists tend to portray the worst case scenario as reality, which is not universally supported by the scientific community. This makes me question their motives and the conclusions they prematurely pose as conclusive.

        Yes, auto makers have the ability to make more efficient vehicles. They have had 50+ MPG vehicles since the 70s, yet we, the American public do not buy them. Power vs. fuel efficiency has always been a trade off. We have opted for more power instead of fuel efficiency. We have been disinterested in this issue until it hit us in the pocketbook. You can't blame the Auto makers for producing what sells the best.

        As for the time frame to convert our economy, do you actually believe that we could develop the technology and change over the entire infrastucture of our society that has taken 100 years to build in the next 10 years? I sure don't, and I can't bear the notion of putting all of our eggs into one basket with no backup plan when we fall short of that goal.

        Even if we do get the technology for alternative fuel worked out, there is still going to be a large demand for lubricants and plastics which will continue to require petroleum which can be supplied by the oil we will produce from our local drilling efforts.

    • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 3:26:47 PM

      Comment: To lillea: We will not be at the end of the energy crisis any time soon but, we are making progress - in spite of George Bush. He has not tried to enact any programs that would deal with alternative energy during his entire time in office. When research on such programs has been suggested, it has not gotten the votes needed to pass it by the Republicans. Offshore drilling - if started today - would take up to 10 years to show any benefit to the American people. More drilling is not the answer - alternative energy sources is the way to go because oil is finite.

      • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 4:06:23 PM

        Comment: You are assuming that the solution has to be one or the other. In reality, we need to Both harvest our oil, AND develop the alternatives.

  • Posted By: junkmail6 @ 07/07/2008 2:26:55 PM

    Comment: Market forces will eventually prevail, and there won't be any doomsday scenarios. (BTW, a couple acres and the "ability to defend themselves"? Things would end up more like "The Road Warrior".) Let the EU and other nations make massive investments, many of which won't pan out. And keep the Feds out of it, until real problems make real solutions clear.

    As far as more drilling goes, I think that's a bad idea. It will simply delay what's coming, assuming B.O. (Big Oil) can start drilling soon enough, and there are other uses for oil than fuel.

    We are a democracy, in spite of what some claim, and democracies don't do things until everyone feels a certain level of pain. Rising energy costs and the side-effects of carbon based fuel are starting to get people's attention, and things are already starting to change.

    As far as being #1 on the list of nations with energy policies: The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 2:42:38 PM

      Comment: While drilling is not the ultimate solution, it will at least buy some time for the alternatives to be developed to viability--(which they currently are not.) While it could take as long as 10 years to see oil from these wells, it will likely take 30 years to convert our society to alternative energy sources. The fact that the price of oil is based on the cost of FUTURES means that even a plan to drill 10 years from now will help to reduce prices now, (or at least slow the rate of increase.)

      • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 2:55:59 PM

        Comment: NOT TO MENTION THAT THE OIL/COAL/TIMBER/SHALE ARE ASSETS ON OUR(AMERICAN CITIZENS) BOOKS THAT WOULD BE STUPID TO NOT SELL, EVEN IF WE WOULDN'T NEED THEM FOR HYDROLIC FLUID, GREASE, AND OTHER LUBRICANTS FOR THE NEW ELECTRIC/FUEL CELL OR WHAT EVER IS THE NEW BREED OF VEHICLE!

        • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:07:09 PM

          Comment: Excellent point LIKEITIS!

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/07/2008 1:27:17 PM

    Comment: Did you know that if McCain is elected you will have to pay income tax on the value of the medical insurance that your employer gives you? Worse still, he is offering a tax break for people who pay their own insurance, BUT only $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.

    Let's say you have a family of four. Your insurance policy costs would be at least $1,500-2,500 per month under a self-pay plan, which cost more than employer group plans. So, you pay $18,000 -$30,000 per year for insurance, and you get to deduct only $5,000 of that. If you paid $25,000 for you insurance, you would be out of pocket $20,000 per year. This is FAR WORSE than the current system, where if you are self employed you can deduct 100% of you medical insurance costs.

    So, if you're not self employed, you would stick with your Employer's plan. Employer plans for a family of four have a value of $900-$1,500 per month totaling 10,800-$18,000 per year. Surprise! On April 15th, you owe tax on all of that as INCOME to you. Say your bracket is 25%, and the value of your Employer medical plan is $14,000. You will OWE THE IRS an additional $3,500, and that's ON TOP of whatever monthly premium you already pay to your employer for your insurance.

    Many analysts say that McCain's new rules would encourage employers to stop offering health benefits. If that happened, then far fewer Americans would be insured than are insured today, because what family of four can afford $18,000-$30,000 out of pocket per year for self-pay health insurance?

    Furthermore, McCain's plan does not require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions of people who self-pay their insurance. People under employer group plans have all of their pre-existing conditions covered. This is a hugely unfair aspect of the current system. Insurance companies can afford to cover the pre-existing conditions of the much larger pool of people with group insurance, but they refuse to pay the pre-existing conditions on the smaller pool of self-pay customers. They have been allowed to price gouge the self-pay customers, which is a form of market manipulation that should be illegal.

    So let's say one of your kids had diabetes and you have high blood pressure, then your employer stops offering insurance. You now have to buy your own, but you and your child are INELIGIBLE due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, yeah, they will let you buy the insurance, but you can't use it for any pre-existing condition until you have paid on time every month for two years. And you know what happens at one year and 11 months? You get a letter saying your policy has been cancelled. I have many patients this has happened to.

    McCain's plan SUCKS.

    It does nothing to help middle class working Americans afford or obtain medical insurance. In fact, it makes the current system WORSE.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/29/mccain_unveils_health_care_pla.html?nav=rss_email/components

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 7:33:29 PM

      Comment: From what I read the $2500 and $5000 figures are a refundable tax credit--not a deduction. These are very different things. A deduction is a reduction of your taxable income. A credit is a direct reduction of your tax--dollar for dollar. A refundable credit is counted as a payment, and can even pe paid back to you as a refund if you otherwise do not have any tax liability.

    • Posted By: whala @ 07/07/2008 3:00:18 PM

      Comment: Your analysis is inclomplete, and assumes that the cost of individual coverage would remain the same if the nation were to move away from company provided health insurance. If that trend changes, so would the premiums for individual coverage. I, for one, would welcome the ability to have a choice in insurance plans. Most Americans have to take whatever their employer offers. I see people all the time who are locked into an employment position they hate because they can't afford to give up the health insurance they currently have. That should not be that way.

      McCain's plan may suck, but Obama's sucks worse. Obama's plan is that health care costs to much for people to afford, so the government will tax the %#!! out of Americans in order to pay the ridiculously high premiums. Can we please not put a band aid on our broken arm? Especially when the hospital charges $100 for a stupid band aid.

      If someone wants to get my attention, they are going to have to tell me how they are going to fix the Medical profession/Insurance industry relations that have led to the cost of health care & insurance being inflated 10 times more than it should cost. Fix that problem, and the rest will take care of itself.

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 07/07/2008 1:15:33 PM

    Comment: A better choice for VP is Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He is pro-gun, a former rancher and businessman who ran successful international companies on multiple continents, has some innovative ideas about energy and conservation, and speaks fluid Arabic.

    He also is a democrat, widely popular in his home state, and could really boost the dems in several areas.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580387,00.html

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/07/2008 1:07:25 PM

    Comment: I find it interesting that the greatest challenge of the last eight years has been a trick question - not terrorism after all, but the desperate need to get away from a petrochemical-based economy and onto a sustainable one. And it's one the U.S. has almost completely ignored. The losses from 9/11, substantial as they were, probably won't be anywhere comparable to the economic fallout from the end of the era of cheap oil and our inability to adjust to that fast enough, not to mention the assorted environmental damage. The U.S. auto industry is already becoming a casualty, and American shipping and retail are both on their way to serious hardship due to fuel prices that aren't going to get substantially lower ever again. If the next president comes in and has some success putting America back on the right track, the dollar might strengthen some, and that would help, but the era of buck-fifty-a-gallon-gas is one hundred percent over. We'd all better start adapting or face the consequences.

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 07/07/2008 12:59:38 PM

    Comment: The conservatives want to let Big Oil rape the Middle Class's pocketbook and finance Al Qaida and Iran by making the price of oil high. The liberals want to let America be swarmed over by millions of illegal immigrants who will rape more than the Middle Class's pocketbook. A certain "liberal" senator from Massachussets lobbied against a windfarm being too close to his home...

    When world oil production peaks, and then begins its inevitable decline, everyone is going to wish that we had massive solar plants producing electricity that would go towards battery-powered cars like the Chevy Volt. Indonesia is no longer OPEC... they are now importing oil. Mexico in the next decade will probably be in the same situation... their is declining.

    Domestic production in the US peaked in 1970 and has been declining ever since (read about Hubbert peak... he predicted this decades before it happened). All the drilling offshore and in Alaska will not restore pre-1970 levels of US oil production. I infact HOPE they allow all that drilling, if for no other reason that I can laugh at all the idiots who don't understand energy economics and the fact that raising world production 1% won't do anything ot the price of oil.

    I also laugh at all the idiots who fall into the whole "liberal" vs "conservative" debate in this country. This red-blue divide is simply the elite people who really rule this country (representative republic = proxy plutocracy) dividing and conquering (the middle class) so they can hopefully die with the most toys.

    The smart people in this country should buy an acre or two of land away from the cities, install solar power (tied to the grid and/or using battery backups), prepare to grow and can/pickle/store their own food, and also be able to defend themselves, since there are two things I learned from watching Katrina: desperate people are dangerous and behave ugly, and the gov & police won't be there to help.

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 07/07/2008 12:40:17 PM

    Comment: Oops that didn't show up full link, here it is:
    moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx? PT=10&showchartbt=chart&compsyms=XOM%2CWMT%2CCVX%2CMSFT%2CKO&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=4&C5D=1&C6=2003&C7=7&C7D=1&C8=2008&C9=2&CF=0&D7=&D6=&symbol=HAL

  • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/07/2008 12:37:11 PM

    Comment:
    www.fuelcells.org

    The EU has made an alliance with companies and put 1.5 billion dollars towards fuel cell based cars and what they called hydrogen Highways. The DOE (Department of Energy) has put together a plan to do the same thing, which Obama backs (Check out "Know the candidates" on fuelcells.org)

    Being fuel cells are technology from the 70's, if our country doesn't get a clue and get it soon, the US will look like Bagdad Bob of the world when it comes to energy.

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 07/07/2008 12:29:07 PM

    Comment: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=10&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&compsyms=XOM%2CWMT%2CCVX%2CMSFT%2CKO&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&CP=1&C5=4&C5D=1&C6=2003&C7=7&C7D=1&C8=2008&C9=2&CF=0&D7=&D6=&symbol=HAL&nocookie=1&SZ=0

    That link is to msn's moneycentral's stock charts... This chart goes from April 2003 (Bush invaded Iraq) to now. The purple, green and orange lines at the bottom are Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Walmart respectively showing about 30%, 5% and 0% stock rise in 5 years. The black, blue, and red lines are Halliburton (VP Cheney's company), Chevon (Condi Rice's company, where an oil tanker is named after her), and Exxon-Mobil respectively, showing 400%, 200%+ and 150% stock price increases in 5 years.

    Any questions about who's benefited from Bush's energy policy?

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 07/07/2008 12:22:39 PM

    Comment: Forget Bush - he has prostituted himself for Big Oil too many times, and has proven himself incompetent on too many other issues.

    McCain has few new ideas, nor does Obama seem to have many specifics.

    The real governmental push, if there is one, will come from congress. Unfortunately, given their inablity to get past their own propensity to prostitute themselves to Big Oil and other corporate lobbyies, the prospects of a new direction for American energy are dim.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 2:47:49 PM

      Comment: ......................YOU ARE CORRECT SIR (MY BEST ED MCMANN IMITATION)

      HE WAS AFTER ALL THE OIL INDUSTRIES BEST PRODUCING WHORE!

      OBAMA '08! ANY CHANGE AT ALL WILL BE A MOVE TO THE BETTER, .................AND DON'T WE ALL OWE THE GOP SOME BLEAK TEAR JERKING TIMES?...................LOL!

  • Posted By: just jerry @ 07/07/2008 12:06:20 PM

    Comment: Bush had, and has, an energy policy and it hasn't worked because there hasn't been a willingness to be open to anything but the "party" line. No ability to work with those who hold different opinions, and an over reliance on polarizing politics for political gain has prevented both parties from working together on so many problems.
    Senator McCain, humbled by his experience as a torture captive in the Viet Nam War, has been willing to work for the nation first, not the political party; that has been a very hard thing to do in such a polarizing environment, and it has won him much respect and the ability to work together to resolve problems rather than use them to beat each other up based on what political party you are in.
    The politics of the political parties now has democrats who lionized McCain and strongly considered having him run for vice-president on an unity ticket in 2004 are attacking him now simply because he is running for president as a republican.
    An energy policy that works should be the goal, but it isn't, winning the election is.

    • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 3:20:48 PM

      Comment: Unfortunately John McCain has changed his policies as often as he has his socks. First he was against the tax cut for the wealthy - now he is for it since he needs their money and their votes. He was against offshore drilling - now he's for it as he is now under the thumb of the same oil executives who basically own Bush. A tax-free summer for gas has been put down by all the economists as useless but McCain wants it . McCain is not the same person he was four years ago and is certainly no one I want in running this country.

  • Posted By: 4carol @ 07/07/2008 11:53:43 AM

    Comment: Why would Bush do anything now?? All he'll do is nothing, the same as if you vote MCDumb, and that is continue to rape the American public, excluding the rich, of course!! Their idiology is never to fix anything to make things better for the average American!! After all, that would be conceding to the Constitution and what our founding fathers had planned for this great country, for all to enjoy, not just the chosen few!!!

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 2:43:30 PM

      Comment: TRUE BUSH CAN DO NOTHING NOW, AND HE WAS NEVER PRONE TO HELPING AMERICA, ONLY HIS FAMILY AND THE OIL INDUSTRY!

      THE PAYBACK IS HOWEVER VERY TASTY.....................NO MATTER WHAT HE TRIES TO DO TO REPAIR HIS IMAGE OR LEGACY (HISTORY BOOKS ARE GOING TO BE BRUTAL ON HIM) THE DEM CONGRESS WILL AVOID ANYTHING HE ATTEMPTS .....................SO THAT WHEN OBAMA IS PRESIDENT HE WILL START OFF WITH A FEW GOOD STEPS!

      IF YOU BELIEVE IN KARMA............THIS IS IT! (PERSONALLY I DON'T)

      OBAMA '08! TAKING THE OVAL OFFICE WITH "SHOCK AND AWE"!........................LOL!

    • Posted By: brookschaos @ 07/07/2008 12:37:37 PM

      Comment: And just what is Bush supposed to do to help the average American? This is liberal non-thinking at it's best! Bush doesn't control the economny, Congress does? And that Democratic bunch of idiots haven't done a thing since being elected. As for the Constitution guaranteeing you a the right to enjoy life, get a clue!!!! You've got to EARN it. Just like the rest of us Rich Republicans making well less than $100,000 a year. You liberals seem to think we owe you something, well let me tell you we don't. The government doesn't make money, it just re-distributes it and at a very in-efficient manner at that. Thanks to liberal thinking we are raising more and more Americans to think that the government should take care of them. That's SOCIALISM! and it doesn't work!!!! And it DIRECTLY contradicts our Constitution. As for other's comments regarding Big Oil, get a clue. As someone who is very familiar with the oil industry in the US, Big Oil employess millions of people, providing jobs and benefits to average Americans like me and every time you bash it you look the fool you are. The truth be known, it's the Democrats fault that we are in the mess with oil prices that we are dealing with now. They prevented domestic production and left us at the mercy of foreign idiots like Chavez. And they also haven't allowed new refineries to be built for well over 30 years and now we cannot produce enough for our needs. ALSO, you might want to check on a alot you Democratic demi-gods and find out how much of their money comes from Big Oil. Millions for Gore, the Clintons, Kennedy's, etc. It isn't just a Republican issue so do get your head out and be fair. Gore is the biggest hypocrit in the world about global warming just look at the FACTS. Most Americans need to go back and take Economics and Civics 101 because most do NOT understand who really controls the economy and how it works.

      • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 2:34:25 PM

        Comment: WELL......................................I WOULD GUESS, SINCE I HAVE TO MAKE ENDS MEET WITH MY PIDLEY LITTLE INCOME , THAT BUSH AND HIS GROUP OF ADVISORS WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT ..................
        "STAYING THE COURSE", WHEN THE COURSE IS TRILLIONS PER YEAR IN IRAQ, THAT WOULD BE A DIRECT COMPARISON TO ALL OF US DRAINING OUR 401K'S AND GOING TO BEST BUY AND OUTFITTING ALL OUR HOMES WITH THE LATEST GREATEST HOME THEATERS!

        ESSENTIALLY EXTREMELY BAD BUDGETING, WHICH HE KNEW AND DISREGARDED OUR NEEDS AND WANTS....................................YOU KNOW.......AS IN DEMOCRACY...............THE GIFT THAT BUSH STOLE FROM OUR POCKETS, AND SUPPOSEDLY GAVE TO IRAQ!

        P.S. THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A "PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY ORDER", IT IS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CONGRESS...............................BUT THEN BUSH WOULDN'T BE BUTT PORKING US TO HELP HIS OWN FAMILY!

        • Posted By: wgoin @ 07/07/2008 3:23:07 PM

          Comment: Democrats do not now have a large enough majority in the House or the Senate to move any legislation if it is not also backed by Republicans - who have had their way through most of Bush's term. Why do you need to call names? Many Democrats are moderates - just as many Republicans are. We don't need to name call and it certainly doesn't accomplish anything. You are seriously an angry person. Get some help!

          • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 6:55:41 PM

            Comment: TRUE, THEY CANNOT PASS LEGISLATION BY THEMSELVES.........................YET!!!! SOON THOUGH!

            I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOT FAR FROM THE 60VOTE MARK(END OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOP.......VERY SOON!

            P.S...............ALMOST ALL OF MY POSTS I AM IN HYSTERICS JUST TYPING THEM, I HAVE NOTHING TO BE ANGRY ABOUT OTHER THAN THE WAY MY COUNTRY HAS BEEN MANIPIULATED INTO SOME SORT OF AUTOCRACY..............WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE UNEDUCATED.................
            ............BUT NOT NOW!

            P.S. IF MY POSTS UPSET YOUR GENTLE NATURE, ..........................DON'T READ THEM, KNUCKLEHEAD!

      • Posted By: ThePrairiePrankster @ 07/07/2008 1:19:28 PM

        Comment: The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006. So I agree with you, the do nothing Republican Congress did nothing. Just like the do nothing Democrats who have controlled Congress for the past 2 years. A barrel of oil cost between $9 and $12 in 1998 and 1999, no one could drill in this country at that price and make money doing it. The free market worked.

      • Posted By: OldGamer007 @ 07/07/2008 1:02:23 PM

        Comment: What is the percentage of votes required to override a presidential veto, let alone a filibuster in the Senate? How long have Dem's had that majority? In trying to point partisan fingers at the demarcates for everything the republicans have screwed up, you've only proven yourself to be ignorant to how government works.

        Typical wmd kool-aid sipping neocon...

  • Posted By: jdh1094 @ 07/07/2008 11:07:41 AM

    Comment: Bush hasn't been serious about energy in 8 years. What makes you think he's going to start now?

  • Posted By: panhandle @ 07/07/2008 10:56:41 AM

    Comment: The Bush Whitehouse is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil. His slavish devotion to the oil companies supercedes any obligation to the American people. Beginning with Cheney's clandestine meeting to set energy policy, this administration has utterly failed us. I don't believe the President cares that I can't afford to buy gas and groceries. As a leader he is a failure. Yes, some progress is being made in the private sector, but any solution is going to be too late for me and for my family. I am going bankrupt trying to buy gas to get to work and groceries for my kids.

    • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/07/2008 2:21:22 PM

      Comment: The Bush Whitehouse is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil. His slavish devotion to the oil companies supercedes any obligation to the American people.

      COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF...................SO F'NG TRUE!

  • Posted By: lillea @ 07/07/2008 10:21:23 AM

    Comment: Most urban Americans have NO idea that America is making tremendous progress in the renewable area.
    Just travel across Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas. It is amazing to see the HUGE wind farms in operation. This area is ideal for capturing the wind and turning it into energy!!!!
    Check out the UCLA campus ...they have been using a huge land fill to create gas to operate their heating and cooling units on campus.
    Come on, we ARE progressing. Get out of your little hole and check out all the innovative'energy operations around the nation.

  • Posted By: Karenn1 @ 07/07/2008 10:19:30 AM

    Comment: First the 100 mile per gallon car it within reach. Then the rest of the possibilities.Then it seems that we are serious.Not just Oil Corp.drone.who has a mortgage to pay and will put out the spin that we are doing something.

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES
Daniel Lyons

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by