Can both sides of the aisle work together towards energy independence?

Question

Without partisan bickering?

I'm for using our untapped oil resources, as long as it's done in an environmentally responsible way.

I'm for hydrogen research.

I'm for exploring other cost effective energy sources. Emphasis on cost effective.

Lets remove our dependence on foreign oil, or at least minimize it as much as possible.

But lets be realistic, it will cost more. Will you pay more at the pump knowing it's in the long term interest of the US?

Answer 1

Without bickering? No way. Can they come to a consensus? Probably. The Democrats are very beholden to the environmental lobby that wants no new drilling in the US at all, so it'll be a fight. I think it's in everyone's interest to have ZERO depenence on anything in the Middle-East though, no matter what they must do.

Answer 2

Last year, Bush signed an executive order that opens up the Colorado shale oil fields. Currently, the major oil companies are in a bidding war to see who will be allowed to develop that resource. Once they are done, they will add that oil to our market.

Note that the Rand corporation puts the amount of oil there at between (conservative estimate) 500 years worth to 1000 years worth (more realistic estimate) at the entire world's current rate of consumption. That's not counting the other sources of oil within the continental US. The US actually has far more oil than the rest of the world combined, only we don't develop it because liberals block all efforts to do this (note that the environmental impact is basically zero as that oil sits on a lifeless wasteland).

Anyhoo, unless the democratically controlled house and senate are somehow able to browbeat Bush into rescinding the order or (worse) a democrat becomes president in '08 and orders harvesting of that oil to cease (very likely), then energy independence for the US will become a fact within a year. Sooner if it becomes fast tracked due to war.

The important thing to understand, I think, is that US energy dependence is based on choice, rather than need. It's actually a form of welfare our country engages in. Something we do with most areas of our economy. We give sweet deals to various impoverished countries with resources, hoping that the inflated price we give them for it will be used to become prosperous and, ummm, not evil. It's been done since WWII and has been a spectacular failure. It's the reason that muslims feel free to wage jihad all over the world, rather than be a few penniless beggers squating in the desert. Just to add insult to injury, we could have been enjoying 25 cents a gallon gas prices all this time but CHOSE not to so that we could bring those people into the modern world.

Answer 3

you could locate this unusual, yet Hillary Clinton. while she grew to grow to be a senator, she worked very annoying interior the Senate, and made particularly some compromises between the two aspects. the two aspects of the aisle appreciate her. The worst, i might think of may be Barak Obama. some southerners, to at present time, have issues working with African-human beings, and likewise he's very youthful and does not comprehend which you will desire to furnish a litle take a splash.

Answer 4

Not Me, I think that we disagree on a great number of issues on this forum, but this is one in which our views coincide.
I for one would be very willing to pay more at the pump, with this country's long term interests in mind.
Unfortunately, I think that you would find that the U.S. culture today is too "instant gratification" oriented for any hope at a long term solution. We will be buying Middle East oil until it runs out or becomes cost ineffective.

Answer 5

With the Republicans it depends on whether their friends can make money from it, and to some extent that applies to the Democrats, too. Some Democrats may also just want to act on it because the people want it. In any case, until it can make a big profit for corporations none of it will make it into law.

Answer 6

What I find interesting is that if we were to become energy independent, we would be in such a better place strategically (militarily, economically, and even socially).

So to me, they are shooting themselves in the foot to spite the other and shafting the population at the same time.

I would like to get off of oil or increase car mileage (and other efficiencies) to the point that we could get by on our present reserves and not tap our others. (Keep those for national emergencies.)

Bottom line, they can, but only if they both get to take the credit.

Answer 7

Great question. Of course they can. Once they realize that energy independence is needed as a matter of national security and prevents global warming as a side effect, both parties can unite behind the cause.

Answer 8

A better question is should they?

Why not automobile indepenence?
Electronic independent?
Free trade is good for us.Oil is part of that free trade.
How about droping the 50+ cent a gallon tax on fuel comming from brazil.

Answer 9

The chances of there being a cold day in hell would first require using every last drop of oil on earth.

Then they can talk energy.

Go big Red Go

Answer 10

Not as long as Exon Mobil and Chevron are in the middle of the aisle