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

2007-02-18 14:03:00 · 11 answers · asked by NuncProTunc 3 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

The question didn't mention cars--energy conservation includes cars but is much more than that--why so much focus on cars in some of the answers??

2007-02-18 14:31:38 · update #1

11 answers

because with all the energy we save, we can replenish the stockpile of nukes after we obliterate the entire Middle East -- since we don't need their damn dirty oil anymore. Hooray for us !!!

2007-02-18 14:28:18 · answer #1 · answered by Tiberius 4 · 0 0

America will never become so efficient that we don't need Mideast oil. Even though Saudi Arabia is the world's largest exporter of crude oil, they import a lot of gasoline. Actually all the top exporters of crude oil, require imports of gasoline, natural gas, electricity and/or coal. As long as crude oil remains abundant, other resources won't compare economically or safety wise to crude oil. Nuclear energy is more efficient but who wants to live near a nuclear plant. Coal is abundant internally in the US, but is cost-prohibitive when you have to build a plant and have zero emissions. Conserving energy is a worthwhile goal, but it alone cannot realistically make the US energy independent.

2007-02-18 14:18:13 · answer #2 · answered by GL Supreme 3 · 0 1

Renewable skill is a grand concept that right this moment is purely too inefficient to offer sufficient tremendous scale mass skill to be plausible. Your neighbor might run he domicile on image voltaic and wind, yet what related to the cities and the business sector that should want hundreds of those gadgets according to block. think of approximately it, some day with examine and technologies moving forward we can use option components. the concern is straight away, suitable now. The Democrats have held us hostage to foreign places skill for almost 25 years now with moratoriums and bans on the form of relatives components. we would have that skill that we choose now and we would possibly no longer be sending billions to our oil producing enemies each year. The Democrats have a ban on new refineries, new nuclear flowers, relatives drilling and new coal mining aspects being unfold out. they want to kill sparkling coal technologies and organic gas technologies with the cap and commerce invoice, many of the Democrats like Pelosi have thousands and thousands invested interior the foreign places oil commerce and distinctive greater have gained in my opinion by means of specific pastime communities that want to maintain us on foreign places oil. So recreation, ask the dumb lib questions and examine blame everywhere else, however the blame belongs to the Democrats and them by myself. Oh, and moon bats such as you that save helping them.

2016-12-18 06:13:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Money is a powerful tool, these type of people look for profit not at humanity as we are lead to believe. There is no profit in using infinite energy, to make money you must have a shortage not an over
abundance, capitalism is not set to work like socialism,capitalism is all about one person making money and the rest suffer for it, its bad.

2007-02-18 14:11:50 · answer #4 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0 1

You don't realize how little of the oil goes towards cars. Most of it is used in factories for power and making their products.

2007-02-18 14:07:23 · answer #5 · answered by Chris_Knows 5 · 0 1

Monetary motivation rules the oil wars.

2007-02-18 14:07:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

A good motive to conserve is for our future generations.

2007-02-18 14:09:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Wow, I didn't realize conservatives were the only one's who drove big cars? Or maybe ignorant azzez only think that.

2007-02-18 14:12:08 · answer #8 · answered by theodore r 3 · 0 1

Excellent Question! But the "conservatives" are still driving their Suburbans getting 9 mpg. They just don't get it.

2007-02-18 14:10:16 · answer #9 · answered by Dennis H 4 · 0 2

But then all the cash wouldn't be flowing in an upward direction---the neo-cons would never go for that!!

2007-02-18 14:06:25 · answer #10 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers