English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-18 11:12:37 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

We should have done it 30 yrs ago.

2007-01-18 11:19:00 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 18 1

I'm an environmentalist. But, I'm also a realist. We are currently funding both fronts of the war on terror. I think the true solution is developing alternative fuels in the U.S.

But, if I had the choice between continuing to support terrorism and allowing temporary drilling offshore (until the U.S. can get behind a good clean renewable energy source) I'd choose the drilling. It makes no sense to send our cash to countries that want us wiped off the map.

First and foremost we HAVE to develop our own fuel sources (preferably something that burns cleaner than oil).

2007-01-18 11:16:51 · answer #2 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 1 1

Florida does not want it because it endangers their coral reefs and billion dollar tourist industry. Cali's don't want it because it interferes with their green energy plan. If your talking about the royalties, I do not believe they should be receiving public land for free. I know this was done when oil was cheap, but now its a blunder and the government is being robbed by these said companies, big oil has pulled 100 billion in profits, they should have to pay their fair share of taxes.

As said, I think we should jump on the green energy bandwagon and ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, especially foreign. Deep sea oil reserves will keep us fueled for only so long, and we are consuming more energy every year. Oil cannot keep up and we will eventually deplete those major fields.

2007-01-18 11:16:46 · answer #3 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 0 1

i think of off shore drilling will purely bypass to the oil businesses. considering that all of them have self belief interior the marketplace why ought to they sell the oil right here, it is going to likely be properly worth greater in different markets in the process the worldwide. the subject isn't purely that we've an potential disaster its that further and extra international locations as they adjust into economically doable create further and extra call for for oil. and easily drilling for oil and employing greater oil does not something to sparkling up the subject concerns of pollutants and worldwide warming. i think of the entire concept is purely a rip-off to enable us to dig ourselves right into a deeper hollow of debt and irresponsible use.

2016-10-31 11:35:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think the U.S. should spend more time and money on coming up with better alternatives for fuel. It would make us a far better country if we didn't have to worry about oil so damn much..

2007-01-18 11:17:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Definately. Find the oil and do the setup. But burn up the middle east oil first.

2007-01-18 11:16:34 · answer #6 · answered by rjf 3 · 0 1

Let's get it before the Red Chinese do! It is off OUR shores!

2007-01-18 11:55:17 · answer #7 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0 1

Very much needed to become less dependent on foreign oil

2007-01-18 11:25:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

A good idea, would help lesson our dependence on foreign oil.

2007-01-18 11:16:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Wish I was there

Good job

Go big Red Go

2007-01-18 11:16:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I think we're better off producing mass quantities of e85. The car makers are already producing vehicles that can use it.

2007-01-18 11:21:07 · answer #11 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers