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

New energy initiatives have been discusses in the last 28 of 32 State of te Union addresses. Why won't Congress and several successive White House Administrations allow us to drill in the Gulf or in Alaska. People can say it's about the stinkin caribou all damn day buy there has to be a whole lot more to it. What do you think it really is?

2007-02-06 00:48:07 · 6 answers · asked by suburbandude 2 in Politics & Government Politics

6 answers

Oil prices are extremely high and we have to deal with unsavory characters in the middle east to feed our need for oil.

Yet Americans are still buying huge vehicles that get 6 miles to the gallon.

The oil problem is one that Americans have 100% brought on ourselves, no excuses or passing the buck.

2007-02-06 02:34:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The problem in this case seems to be the disruption of wildlife in the areas, especially Alaska, which is really the only place we CAN still drill. We already HAVE drilling rigs and refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, remember the reports about the damage they took during hurricane Katrina? So Alaska is it. Any construction of oil producing facilities in those areas will affect the local ecosystem, unless they build the facilities UNDERGROUND, where the oil already IS. Minimal impact on surface dwelling wildlife, of course, there will stil be roads, outbuildings, etc, but everything which CAN be bureid SHOULD be buried.

That seems to be an acceptable compromise strategy and considering the oil business made like 400 billion dollars last year I think they can afford to reduce their footprint in ALaska as much as is technologically possible.

If theyre not willing to do that, then to hell with them we'll stop using our cars.

2007-02-06 00:56:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Reducing our consumption of oil, or increasing the efficiency of what we do consume can go much further than drilling in ANWR.

The caribou are only brought up by people who want to oppose reducing oil consumption. That's the only place the caribou ever surface in this discussion.

2007-02-06 00:57:43 · answer #3 · answered by Silent Kninja 4 · 0 0

We wouldn't need 40% of the remaining oil if we would rebuke the enviro-terrorists and start building nuclear power plants again.

The technology has been proven to be safe and the issue of dealing with the nuclear waste is better than the emissions from all of the oil and coal fired power generating plants.

2007-02-06 01:00:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Because the environmentalist organizations have said it will kill the wild life and damage our land. They have many people believing the Alaskan pipe line is out of oil.
They will not allow use to build refineries either because they say we will end up polluting the air more with more refineries.
They want to go to alternative fuels and so forth yet they do not tell you that it will use more energy producing than what we supposedly would save

2007-02-06 00:57:32 · answer #5 · answered by sapphire_630 5 · 0 1

I just wonder why we still export oil.

2007-02-06 00:52:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers