Naaah - it's better to send our soldiers into meat grinding civil wars to keep the unit cost for SUV drivers down.
2007-10-03 12:18:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Crude oil from South America is more difficult to refine than crude pumped from the countries in the Middle East. American refineries are not geared towards 'processing' this type of oil and the companies claim the costs to do so would be prohibitive.
While it would be ideal to remove ourselves as a country from the internal politics of nations that have been eternally at war, our foreign policy has been to be involved in any way possible, under the guise of 'national interest.'
So, to answer your question, yes, we could 'make nice' with Mr. Chavez, but Russia and other non-Middle Eastern countries would not be able to meet this nations demands.
2007-10-03 12:25:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by ken erestu 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes, but it wouldn't matter. Oil is a fungible commodity - it is easily transportable and there is a single worldwide market for it. Therefore, any disruption in oil supply anywhere in the world affects the price of oil about equally everywhere.
Even if the US could replace all the oil it currently imports from the Middle East (about 10% of total US consumption) with oil from other sources, foreign or domestic, due to the global nature of the oil market, the US would be no less vulnerable to disruptions in the Middle East than it is today.
2007-10-03 12:34:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The answer is complex. Yes theoretically we could, but it would take years before we could be much less dependant on foreign oil.
Brazil started using sugar cane to develop flex fuel cars in the 70's after the oil embargo. Things were rough for about thirty years, but now they aren't as dependent on foreign oil as we are.
Flex fuel cars don't get as many MPG as petrolium based cars, but it's a small price to pay for breaking our addiction.
2007-10-03 12:24:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It doesn't even enter the minds of you SUV gas guzzling Americans who show nothing but contempt for this world it's people and it's environment and continually deny global warming ,that just maybe you could do without YOUR Middle East Oil Teat if you would simply reduce your stnking immoral gas consumption by 30 % (according to the US Dept of Energy) by using smaller much more fuel efficient vehicles.
The last thing you lot do or think of is to allow anything including the existence of earth and life as we know it ,to get in the way of your greed and avarice and consumerism which once again manifests just how monumentally hypocritical you CHRISTIAN AMERICANS (or at least 87 % who claim to be ) are given your pontificating /moralizing holier-than-thou claims to follow the teachings of Christ. Greed and avarice are two of the most IMMORAL behaviors to a Christian.
2007-10-03 12:33:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
We do have the means to supply our own energy needs, from oil to renewable energy. Why we don't? Lobbyist, cost to switch from one power to another(in the long run it is worth it but most people focus on short term spending)
2007-10-03 12:20:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by ST 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
As long as the republican party is in power, we will never kick our dependency of foreign oil.
Greedy oil companies have more influence over bush and cheney than most people understand.
The Republican elected two oilmen into office...now we all get to pay the price for it.
2007-10-03 12:20:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Villain 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes, if we'd been investing in nuclear power for the last 30 years.
2007-10-03 12:20:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
It wouldn't necessarily be quick, but yes. Through diplomacy and aggressive research into alternatives such as wind and wave energy, alternate auto fuels, geothermal energy.... etc... we could. No one of these things is the solution, but by combining them all, it would be possible.
2007-10-03 12:20:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Fretless 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes, but the big guns{oil companies have the government in their back pockets}
2007-10-03 12:19:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Gypsy Gal 6
·
1⤊
2⤋