If we came up with a renewable energy alternative that is cheap, cost effective, quick to manufacture, and is clean for the environment....it would get rid of our dependence on foreign oil and we could stop funding the jerks who happen to be sitting on all of it (like Venezuela, the middle east, etc).
To the guy above me:
Drilling spots like ANWAR only hold an estimated six months of oil for the U.S. It isn't really worth tapping into. Why shouldn't we wean ourselves from the oil teat? I have never heard a satisfactory answer from conservatives on this one.
2007-02-15 09:53:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Evan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Policy is one thing, practical application is something totally different. Truth is the only realistic long term energy policy is alternative fuel sources, because fossil fuel (oil being only one) is a limited finite resource that will soon be exhausted. If we can over fish the ocean to the point of causing species of fish to be on the verge of extinction, how long realistically can oil be consumed at the pace it is being exhausted?
2007-02-15 09:56:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by blogbaba 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of the Middle east oil goes to other nations not to the USA
2007-02-15 10:29:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by DAVAY 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The future is in renewable energy, which is also good for the environment. anything to get us away from being dependant on oil is a good thing.
2007-02-15 09:58:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by sydb1967 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
//// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\
With a proper energy policy, we wouldn't need Middle Eastern oil. One giant wind farm in either South Dakota or North Dakota, or one giant solar farm in Nevada or another sunny, deserty state, would provide all the energy we need.
Not to mention that every building could have its own energy supply, and be connected to the grid, which would keep us going in the event of an electromagnetic attack...say from a comet, an asteroid, or a nuclear bomb.
The only thing a good energy policy wouldn't provide is larger and larger dividends for the wealthy...they seem to be like giant, slow-moving dinosaurs, too unadaptable to change their portfolios.
//// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\ //// \\\\
2007-02-15 10:01:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by H. Scot 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well if the Dems would let us drill where there is oil in the US then we wouldn't have to rely as much on oil from countries that support Terrorists.
2007-02-15 09:52:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jace 4
·
0⤊
1⤋