Pulling The Plug On Oil

Poppycock. First, more countries are refusing to participate in co2 abatement than are willing to participate. The list grows longer daily. Second, we are a consumptive economy. There will be recovery without increased consumption of goods, services and energy. The goal should be to provide enough energy to allow growth. A policy of a shrinking pie is a recipe for disaster. The "green" jobs don't pay a living wage. Manufacturing is and will be the basis for a healthy economy. If it isn't done here it will be done overseas and foreign workers will take those dirty, nasty jobs. All we are going to do is export our co2 and jobs offshore. Canada,China,Russia,Jpan, India all have disputed the co2 hoax. They will be more than happy to take up the slack. There is global consensus on global warming and the consensus is that it is a natural cycle. It is only Europe and the fools in the US Congress and Senate that want to dismantle our economy.

No president ScumBama is NOT taking energy seriously. He's a confirmed liar talking sh*t ,just like he did to get elected. If you believe his sh*t, you are a sucker who will learn the hard way that you have been duped.

When you have no job, no home, no retirement and nothing to eat, thank dumb ScumBama and the rest of the criminals on Corruption Hill. It's going to take massive unemployment and poverty before dumb ScumBama is impeached for treason and the rest of the criminals on Corruption Hill are removed. With the loss of 700,000 jobs, month after month after month ScumBama-nomics ain't working. When 20 million people lose their unemployment benefit at the end of '09 and 20 million more are unemployed, then the sh*t will hit the fan.

For someone who is the Secretary of Energy, Chu is badly misinformed. Science on global warming is anything BUT decided- wind and solar are not viable options as both require massive subsidies to compete with oil and gas, and nuclear is not even in his discussion even though it is perhaps our most promising option. As for the "oil as security issue" problem- how about we tap into the massive shale oil reserves that exist within our own borders, as well as using the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both hold great promise and would give us a dependable supply of oil so we can craft a sensible and well-planned transition to multiple energy sources. The change will not and cannot happen all at once, no matter how the fanatics scream, so lets do this rationally and intelligently.

vstillwell , sorry to burst your bubble, but BummerDude makes some excellent points. He is right that the science is not clear and is very divided on causes of global warming. He is correct that nuclear is a great way to go. he is correct that the earth has gotten warmer and colder, all by itself, for millions of years, on cycles. So, why do you insult him, instead of debating his points with those of your own? Perhaps you just suspect he is right and you have nothing better than insults in your bag of tricks. Sad.

Why in the world would we trust someone with a Nobel Prize in Physics? What has physics ever done for us?

An added benefit of supplanting oil in transportation and electricity generation is that more will be available as a raw material for petrochemicals (a use not as easily replaced). The darkest scenarios for "the end of oil" literally have us thrown into the 19th century. If it becomes effectively unavailable as a raw material, that's a crippling blow.

We also have to own up to incredible selfishness and shortsightedness in the last 35 or so years. Suburban sprawl has made problems much worse, not better, and building was based on assumptions that cheap energy would continue forever. Traffic and monster commutes put a bad enough dent in quality of life, but if budgets also are drained for the "privilege," then people will be trapped in a structurally expensive lifestyle that will feel (and be) quite stressful and unfulfilling. All because of an oversold vision of the American Dream that's long overdue for re-examination. The "American dream" makes a lot more sense if you think in terms of designing a lifestyle to maximize consumption for the benefit of businesses that supply it, rather than the benefit of the consumer. It's no wonder why Home Depot or Exxon would be a cheerleader for it, but average consumers have a lot less to cheer about.

The good news is that other global models already show that less-is-more, especially when it comes to getting more family or leisure time. By harnessing the power of community and living in denser, more sensible surrounds, you can greatly reduce or eliminate any number of expenses that are clobbering families now. Europeans work about 30% less, make about 30% less, pay much higher taxes, but don't take anything like a 30% hit to standard of living versus Americans and, in some areas like vacation time and health care, are easily better off. If Americans keep listening to conservatives and the fend-for-yourself crowd, they'll be working into their 70s with little or no safety net, just so Sam Walton's heirs don't have to pay much in taxes. That's third-world, but that's where it has been heading.

Where the heck is nuclear in all of this? We know it works, we know it is clean, and we know we can really ramp it up, unlike solar or wind. Liberals never change; they can't say "nuclear" cuz the Hollywood types will howl. So much for "change I can believe in" Obama is as married to Barbara Streisand as if he were on her wedding license.

If you feel so much responsibiliy for future generations, then why are we going to tax them to death with the humongous defictis we are building today?

In regard to Global Warming, have you studied the science or just heard this from some control freak?

And why do I want government telling me how to live?

I choose liberty and to hell with BO.

Chu says "We will double our alternative-energy capacity over the next three years." Assuming this means wind and solar (and does not include hydro and nuclear, a reasonable assumption) we have already doubled out capacity in the LAST three years. So when it comes to alternative energy, Obama aspires to be just as good as G.W. Bush.

For like the umpteenth time it has to be stated the the "science is NOT clear on the carbon-glabal warming link. This planet has gone through vast temperature changes, both low and high from its inception and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. Fossil fuels are fine and so far the "evidence" that they are limited is in dispute as well. In the mean time nuclear is a great way to go. Wind and solar are for garden lights and 15th century Holland.