Is drilling for oil in more places the answer to the planet's energy dependency?

Question

Part of the Bush Administration's solution to the energy crisis is converting more coal to diesel fuel and opening up of some current 'off limits' places to drill for oil.

Now I'm kinda thinking, "Hum... that's really smart... use up ALL the planet's fuel then sure that will work because we won't have any choice but to find new energy means."

Is this really the best solution?

Answer 1

No Beach Bum that is not the answer, the answer is developing alternative energy. Some is already practical, like nuclear, wind and solar. It is known that when fossil fuels are burned it gives off carbon which in turn is poisoning the atmosphere.
You know that John Kennedy said that we will put a man on the moon within an decade and they did it in 8 years, a similar approach is needed to address the energy problem. Dedicate scientist to come up with a fuel that does not harm the planet. It could probably be done in a few short years and is long overdue now, we knew we had a problem in the 70's

Answer 2

You have a bit of a straw man there. Even Bush himself would not say that drilling for oil in more places is THE answer to the planet's energy dependency. Though there can be no doubt that greater domestic oil production could ease to some degree what has happened in the oil market while having a STRONG concerted national effort to develop alternative and renewable energies for the future. The suggestion that more oil be produced domestically is merely a small part of a much larger energy plan.

Answer 3

I think Nuclear power is the only long-term solution to the global energy needs. Yes I am aware of disposal cost and other issues with nuclear waste, but when we have totally eradicated our world's other fuel resources, then what choice will we have left? It will be many many years before any other energy sources can be employed in anything near significant amounts to take the burden off of oil and coal.

Answer 4

oil is the best solution for the short term. we really will have to slowly ween ourselves off of it though. the problem lies in the fact that there is no profit in researching technology for alternate fuels.

if private corporations were sufficiently contracted in competition with one another to find a more efficient renewable power source, and they were exempt from taxes, or at least allowed tax breaks, and had the prize of claiming its patent, then i guaruntee we would see results within five years. the government is anything but efficient, a business will find the fastest and most efficient way to make a product. but is this pheasable without blowing the budget? it would have to be a worldwide effort on the part of financing.

Answer 5

If you add Bush, Cheney and Rice together, you get oil. In that context of course it's the best solution, for them, not us. OPEC, pardon the wording, held us over a barrel thirty five years ago, what have we leaned? I live in Florida and we are experiencing a building boom. Why solar energy is not included in the building of new construction is beyond my comprehension. If you have watched politics long enough, there is only one answer, profits. Our elected officials could care less about the masses. If they did, we would already have alternative energy sources in place. We sit on here arguing about morals, while we are being raped by the politicians. It never ceases to amaze me.

Answer 6

Well, his ideas i guess r right this time around as far as finding alternate means and reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Converting coal to diesel fuel is a cheaper and cuts dependency on foreign oil just as drilling domestically. Your views also go on to show yer shallow knowledge n vacuum at the top.

Answer 7

It would be a temporary fix. In his speech, though, he alluded to some long term fixes.
We are about 15 to 20 years away from converting personal vehicles to hydrogen cell technology. Right now about 1% of our electricity is coming from wind driven generators. In about 5 years that will be increased to 20%. There are some new technologies coming to the market very soon that will make homes energy independent. One of them is roofing material that generates electricity.
The next 10 to 15 years are going to see some big changes in where our energy is coming from in this country. But until that time, we may need some of the oil locked away in protected areas.

Answer 8

Well, that wasn't for the planet's oil dependency, but for the USAs dependency on foreign oil.

For reduction in oil dependency, he was talking about increasing fuel efficiency and increasing development and use of alternate and renewable fuels and energy.

Until a new energy source is found, it makes sense to increase self-sufficiency.

Answer 9

now it is. The predictions are that Alaska can supply the US with oil for 250 years, if such is the case, alternative fuels would be easy to create by then. There is so much oil in the world right now, that people screaming "we are running out, oh no, stop using oil!" are just people who have not done any research into it

Answer 10

Not for the long term no, but for now we can help ourselves be less dependant on forign oil. This will give us the room we need to look for other sources of energy.