Could this goal possibly be common ground for opponents on this issue?

Question

Countries that import a major portion of their oil consumption should try to mostly eliminate oil imports in 20 years.

Using a major effort, public and private, to develop and deploy nuclear, solar, and wind power plants for electricity. And to develop and deploy vehicles indirectly powered by those plants, using batteries or fuel cells.

I know some here disagree about global warming. But this goal also addresses the rising price of oil, and undesirable economic dependence on Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. 3 of the 4 top oil exporters.

Could we come together on that? Or not?

Twilight - good man. I understand (generally, not specifically) where you're coming from.

James69sk82001 - You need to get some real information on oil (also). We do not have enough for many years. The US passed its' peak production years ago. The world is just about there. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil, by the most optimistic estimates, is about 6 months worth.

Good websites for more information:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://energybulletin.net/primer.php
http://www.peak-oil-news.info/

Good book:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Oil-Edge-Perilous-World/dp/0618562117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4624064-2234266?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192735040&sr=8-1

Answer 1

Hmmm. Lets see.

Save resources. Be independent of radical governments. Less pollution all around. Cleaner and nicer for everybody. Less impact on the land. No mountaintop leveling. No oil spills. Energy conservation saves money and increases productivity. Quiet cars with one moving part simpler, easier to maintain and last longer. Whole new source of jobs for next phase in economic system. Good feeling you get when you've done something for the next generation.

Nah, makes too much sense. ;)

Answer 2

What I would like to see (and I hope this is what you might be looking for) is alternative sources of fuel to compete with gasoline.

I don't buy in to global warming. But the advent of new industries to provide consumers more choices for their vehicles I think is exciting.

Alternative implies choice. We don't want to replace gasoline, just give it competition because in the short run the price elasticity of gas is very high. In other words, consumers have to pay high prices at the pump because there are no substitute goods for gas. It's only in the long run that people have more choices for high prices: metro, bikes, etc.

Competition will also breed better products, gasoline that burns cleaner, more effeciently and is better for the vehicle.

Having competition in the market will take away the monopoly gas has because nearly all vehicles run on gas.
Hopefully they'll make cars that can accept a variety of different fuels to power the vehicle (some car companies are already doing this) so that consumers need only buy one that will accept different sources of fuel.

Now wouldn't that help the enviroment? Most definetly and in my eyes this is the best solution to overcoming oil dependence. A little diversity will go a long way to keeping a healthy economy.

Answer 3

Yes, it probably is common ground.

Environmentalists want to slow down Global Warming by eliminating the dependency on oil, and those wary of depending on foreign oil want to do the same.

Conclusion - alternatives to oil are needed.

You ask "Could we come together on that? Or not?". Personally I can share the conclusion, but that is as far as it goes. In the spirit the question is posed with, I will decline to explain why.

Answer 4

Man - I thoroughly reject this notion that if you don't "believe" in man made global warming, then you're pro-pollution, pro-fossil fuel, anti-environment.

There already is a major effort going on to develop wind power in the USA. Nuclear is being halted by the same people who want to eliminate coal.

Oil isn't as big of an issue today as it was 40 years ago. This is the reason why $90/bbl oil isn't causing world wide recessions.

The problem is the environmentalist side where their definition of progress is regression of man's progress to before the industrial revolution.

Answer 5

Yes. We should be doing everything we can to get off foriegn oil for our nations security, and simply reducing pollution as much as possible.

I am not yet convinced that CO2 emmissions are the major cause of global warming because I question the temperature data used, but feel we have nothing much to lose by reducing pollution and the use of foriegn oil.

Answer 6

Just so you know where I am coming from, I don't believe man is the cause of global warming.

However, I agree with your comments (except for nuclear power). I think we are much better off not importing oil. I wish the tree huggers would allow wind power plants even though a bird or two might get killed.

Answer 7

I'm completely in favor of ending our dependence on foreign oil. Our oil money is being used to fund terrorism schools and violent acts.

But that issue is completely different from whether rising atmospheric CO2 is causing a global catastrophe or not.

Answer 8

It sounds good to me. I think 20 years might be a bit optimistic. I still like the idea of hydrogen power though. Internal combustion engines could be converted to run hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element. Solar, wind and nuclear power could be used in electrolysis to extract hydrogen from water. It's already being done.

Answer 9

I agree completely. The U.S. economy is hostage to foreign oil suppliers. We will have to learn to live without oil all too soon anyway, because the world supply is limited, and when it is gone it is gone. Most predictions are for it to be gone by 100 years. Or if not gone, in such short supply as to be way to expensive to use as fuel.

Answer 10

I am FOR free markets and also FOR freedom.

When one or a limited numbers of countries can completely change my lifestyle by closing the oil and gas tap, it's NOT freedom, it's being a captive customer.

The BAD EXAMPLE OF CHILE : the government did NOTHING to push for energy independence and renewable energies thinking "the market will adapt itself". What's the result? Their neighbor, Argentina closed the gas tap and preferred to use it for themselves or sell it to China. As a result:
- electricity prices are among the highest in the world
- their energy supply is uncertain and their grid instable
- gas turbines are not in operation (wasted large investment)


Moreover, energy independence and environmental sustainability are keys to long term peace and wealth. Any economist would confirm it.


When the first pioneers pushed for renewable energies, a lot people thought they were a bunch of socialists or something like it... now people realize they were just ahead of their time.