If we have the ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, why have we not done it yet?

Question

Greed? Not cost effective? Slow system?

This question is a tribute to Westhill

Answer 1

Good question. Here's a star.

There are many reasons. Top on the list for me is Banking.

We could switch to Bio Diesel almost immediately for every municipal vehicle fleet in use today. We could do the same with fleets that get government subsidies. Amtrak would be a good example.

What would happen if we suddenly did that and the reason for imports went away?
Our banks are owed money by countries and companies that are based on Petro dollars. They would default. That's not good news for us. Investors would start taking their money out. Remember, we are in the age of the Internet. There was a time when divesting took time and planning. Today, it happens at the speed of light, literally. It's done with triggered software programs that do mass buying and selling in an instant.
It has to be done incrementally.

It is being done. An example is the Central Ohio Transportation Authority. They switched their bus and support fleet to 90% Bio Diesel. It is working so well that they are building their own bio fuel reactor. Why? Because they can't wait for the oil industry to change over it's infrastructure to the alternative.

The oil industry can't switch radically because fuel would have to be rationed in the process.

It's coming. Be patient.

Answer 2

Many reasons.

When the oil prices were lower, it was not cost effective to drill in much of the US. But even though costs are now high, it takes time to develop oil production.

Then there are environmental groups and others who have successfully blocked drilling for oil in ANWR, and off the California and Florida coasts.

There are also people like Ted Kennedy and other elite who blocked a wind-farm off the coast of Massachussets because it would ruin the scenic seascape views from their Martha Vineyard mansions.

And as for ethanol, the problem is that it has caused a problem in other areas. Because of the demand on corn caused by the taxpayer-subsidized ethanol production, corn prices have risen. This increased the price of food that uses corn, and in meat and poultry and dairy products that use corn as feed. And more farmland has switched to corn, so the prices of other grains has thus increased. Ethanol is NOT the answer.

Answer 3

Basically we don't yet have the ability.
--But we could develope that ability through renewable sources etc.

There is no simple way of doing this.

Either: 1.use less oil. or 2. find more domestic oil.

Well if you can't do 2 then you must do 1.


This means stop doing the activities that use oil like flying on aeroplanes, diving in cars, hauling food and goods around the country. Heating your home etc

OR

Find an alternative.

Answer 4

Ever since the 60s, the dimmocrats have been leaning farther and farther to the left, embracing the extreme members of the whacked-out environmentalists in order to get their votes. This includes such groups as PETA and ELF, to name a few.

The dimmocrats had control of Congress up until Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" took it away from them in the 1994 election. Up until that point, the liberal left wingnut dimmocrats had enacted stringent environmental regulations making it nearly impossible to build new refineries or conduct exploration for new energy sources in the U. S. They had also enacted inane requirements for "bouquet" gasoline blends that the refineries had to produce in order to reduce air pollution, regardless of the cost or reduction in production levels.

During the time this was happening, "environmentalism" became THE politically correct theology to embrace and it is now practically impossible to change the insane laws that prohibit the oil companies from exploiting the reserves that exist within the boundaries of the United States.

For this reason, we are unable (lacking the political will!) to overturn the restrictions on drilling in ANWR. We are sitting on our thumbs while Cuba and China are exploiting the vast reserves of oil under the Gulf of Mexico. We are unable to drill for new resources that exist underneath the already tapped Permian Basin in Texas and Oklahoma. All in the name of the environment, regardless of the new technology that enables drilling to be conducted with practically NO threat of pollution or spills. And most spills occur during shipping - NOT production.

All hail mother Gaia and her disciples, Al Gore, et al.

Answer 5

We don't have a dependence, per se, we have plenty of our own oil in reserves to care for us for 10's of years, we just play it smart. Our oil is kept in reserves for the future safety of America, in case of a world war, or other horrific event. My father in-law worked for gulf oil in the refineries since he was 18, he'd now be 84, were he still alive, and he was one of the workers who transported the oil to where the reserves are kept. Looking at all that oil, could make you weep.
I'd rather pay $10 a gallon of oil, than to ever use those reserves now. In the long run, it's about keeping America functional, and operating, in case Iran or another country decides to harm us with nukes. We'll have the oil to produce then, and keep ourselves a functioning nation in the world, not be controlled by invading enemies. We will still be self-sufficient in such a case of another world war.

Answer 6

The Democrat Party has steadfastly blocked all legislation that would allow more oil exploration and access. Look at the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, or Alaska - every attempt to gain access has been blocked by the Democrats in Congress.
There is enough coal in Wyoming to supply power to the US for thousands of years, and the Democrats make every attempt to eliminate coal burning power plants.
You have to ask why?
Apparently the energy independence of this country is not as important as their political aspirations or bowing to a minority supporters voice.
Every attempt to generate a Comprehensive Energy program for this country, in Congress, has been derailed by the Democrats in Congress.
You tell me why.

Answer 7

Becoming an energy-independent country requires a large-scale, long-term commitment that will require massive amounts of federal money to invest in research and development. Historically, both the federal government and big business have focused on short-term benefits of their policies, because those goals are easier to achieve, and less risky. The U.S. needs a President with the vision and persuasive powers to convince the public and Congress that becoming energy-independent is an extremely high priority, and will require a full commitment to reach fruition.

Answer 8

Good Question

My opinion, given the 2006 promises by democrats to lower gas prices if you vote for us, to the 40 year failure of the public school system.

It is easier to use a issue to get the votes to obtain power than to fix the problem you complain about.

Source:

“Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few.

Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), Tuesday, April 18, 2006

“Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing for record high home heating bills this winter.

Steny Hoyer (D-MD), October 4, 2005

House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices.

Jim Clyburn (D-SC), July 26, 2006

Answer 9

We have the largest reserves of natural gas of any nation, thousands of viable wells that sit idle, and vast areas of public land that remain unexplored for oil deposits, but it takes actual capital investment, and some risk, to find and use these sources.
So why should the Oil companies take risk, or spend capital, when they grow wealthier every day on the import of ever-more-expensive foreign oil ?
It's all about their profits, so national security, and the US economy don't matter at all!

Answer 10

Greed!!! Bush and Cheney both have vested interests in BIG OIL! Do you think the oil companies can make a profit off other forms of energy?!!