With terrorism being a "real threat" does it not make more sense to become "energy independent".

Question

Not only that, but it is another way to remove even that much more from government spending.

It also severely limits their control of the people as well.

Answer 1

yes. what is the hold up with a private company developing something that takes the place of oil?
I don't think it's the job of the government.

Answer 2

We could be oil independent quicker then you think. The developement of other energy sources are severely hampered by the oil companies & the propaganda they shove at the American people. One example, the electric car. 20 years ago, GM developed an electric car that performed reasonably well. The only problem was battery technology. An engineer developed a new longer lasting battery. His shop was immediately bought by an oil company & closed. As long as the oil companies have congress in their debt we will be oil dependent as long as oil last. There are also many other renewable "green" energy sources being developed, I don't think none are as advanced as the electric car.An electric car manufacturer in China sells electric cars all over the world. Less in America then other countries. America has one of the most continuing sources of energy in the world: WIND. The wind blows, on a continuous basis, in the United States more than any other place on the planet. What could be more of a non ending source of clean energy?

Answer 3

I think you're being overly optomistic to think that it would lessen government spending at all.

The answer to you question is, of course it would. No one of any serious mind would dispute it either.

I think a clear eyed assessment of the various campaign promists floating around wold show that this is one point that all of them agree on as well.

How to achieve it is another matter altogether. It's certainly not something we can wake up one morning and decide to do and have done by lunch. End of the decade is more likely. End of NEXT decade is even more realistic.

And of course there are many propositions out ther for doing this that require or heavily favor govbernemtn funding. The reality is that some government money probably will be required, if not in payments then in credits and deferments.

Answer 4

Yes, but difficult to do. The US public, me included, want a lot of things but we want it cheap too. The average person could care less where our fuel comes from as long as it doesn't cost a lot. But at the same time we don't want the wind farm on our coast "ruining" our view, or oil slicks forming off our favorite beach, or a nuclear power plant in our backyard. Almost seems that the more traditional "power" cost us the more alternative energy sources seem attractive.

Answer 5

considering the fact that "capability" ability assorted issues in each and each of those contexts, the respond is "relies upon". definite, it fairly is achievable to experience a guy or woman's presence, whether you would be unable to work out them consciously or pay attention them promptly. there is pheremones, and how sound travels in a room (It there is unexpectedly a extensive merchandise at the back of you, issues will sound distinctive because of the fact the sound waves resound interior the room in a distinctive way). If something has an electric powered cost, then it fairly is achievable to hit upon them, whether people don't have the experience organs to do it nicely. some species have fairly magnetic compasses. yet we are able to experience a value in our dermis. you may experience it to 3 degree, it fairly is the way you comprehend once you will get a static marvel earlier you touch a doorknob. people are certainly paranoid, we don't have a particular experience to let us know while something is observing us, yet our suggestions is often processing at the two a unsleeping and subconscious point. we are extra effectual than maximum animals at noticing if something is out of place because of the fact we are such solid development matchers. in actuality we err and be conscious issues out of place extra usually than they're. thinking you notice a snake interior the shrubs that's no longer there won't get you killed, yet lacking one is. So the folk who erred on the element of "slightly too paranoid" survived and propagated extra effectual than the certainly unobservent ones. yet no, no longer a psychic presense form of concern. it fairly is imaginary. in case you prefer to coach your self to experience people's pressence, positioned on a blindfold. Like I stated, it fairly is no longer psychic, yet you will hone your listening to and smelling and non-seen information. no longer "Daredevil" or blind samurai solid, yet some.

Answer 6

If the environmentalists and other whack jobs would step aside and let us build nuclear power plants; without the costly lawsuits we could become energy independent.

An energy policy will have to mean more than conservation. If we conserve yet continue to buy from the same source; we are still dependent.

Answer 7

Yeh Hum Nahin (Say No To Terrorism)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=06pFjE_5MSc&feature=related

Answer 8

Yes, we need off foreign oil. Realistically, that may take some years to achieve that goal. A good start would be to allow oil companies to drill in the coastal shelf and in Alaska. Also, to allow more oil refineries and nuclear power plants to be built. But the extremist environmentalists that have the democrats in their back pocket, won't allow us to do any of those ideas. Thus forcing us to stay on foreign oil. Corn ethanol is a horrible alternative, as is the highly inefficient wind and solar alternatives.

Answer 9

I consider the "real threat" to be Bush's actions and policies. The multinational meeting concerning pollution had the U.S. resistant to making changes until it came down to the other nations pressing the issue until the U.S. conceded to their insistence. I PERSONALLY circulated a petition in California that would require 3% of the oil producers exhorbadent profits to be taxed and used for the development of alternative energy development. The air waves were flooded with multimillion dollar advertising by the oil producers warning that the price of gas would sky rocket it that bill were to be passed. I had told everyone-"Hay, the producers are going to have the prices sky rocket anyways. Why not have at least a portion of those profits go towards our future with alternative energy sources instead of their pockets?" Well that bill was defeated. One year later the price of gas is breaking records once again.
The new energy bill signed into law is a plus but could have done more:
Dear MoveOn member,
Before we head out for the holidays, we wanted to give you some good news—an energy bill victory that you helped make happen!
This week, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the first increase in auto fuel efficiency in over 20 years.1 New cars and trucks will have to average 35 miles a gallon—a 40% improvement over current standards. The bill also contains a groundbreaking green jobs package and improved efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.
The big automakers and coal companies lobbied hard against the bill, and President Bush threatened to veto. But MoveOn members—including you—joined with our allies in the environmental movement to keep the pressure on all year. Finally, this week, the President bowed to that pressure and signed the bill into law.
Thank you for your work on this important issue. Together we delivered hundreds of thousands of petition signatures, made tens of thousands of phone calls to Congress, held lots of local events, and made this an issue that Congress and the President couldn't ignore.
It's important to note, though, that we still have a long way to go. Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood up for clean energy in the House, delivering a progressive bill with new tax incentives for solar energy and requirements to generate 15% of electric power from renewable sources. The House bill would have paid for our clean energy future by taking away billions of dollars in unnecessary tax breaks from oil and gas companies that are making record profits.
But the Senate couldn't pass these provisions—one single Republican vote blocked the way.2 And so they didn't make it into the bill that the President signed into law.
This victory is an important first step in the fight to stop the catastrophic effects of the climate crisis and put us on the path to a clean energy future. But we have a long way to go together, and the year ahead will be a crucial one.
Thanks for all you do, and happy New Year!
–Noah, Ilyse, Matt, Carrie, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, December 21st, 2007

Answer 10

I agree.
One of my favorite bumper stickers:
"More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than in American nuclear power plant accidents."

Off the subject, but another favorite:
"I wish O.J. had married Hillary."