State Of Denial Address

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 24 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]380018[/snapback]</div>

We do have a plan ... since the 1970's. We just haven't used it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 25 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]380748[/snapback]</div>

As usual Pinto Girl is correct (except with regards to the iPhone ). The following graph is from the department of energy. At best we would reduce our foreign imports by 6%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html

 

Actually, wouldn't that be 9% (64/70), not 6%? Of course, the import demographics will also be shifting. Our two biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico. Mexico's Cantarell oil field has peaked so that means that Mexico will not be able to supply us with as much oil as before. Thus, we'll have to find supply elsewhere. There aren't a lot of stable, friendly sources out there that aren't already under a lot of production pressure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 26 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]380945[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the correction! Still 9% in my opinion is not enough to justify ignoring the purpose gf creating a wildlife refuge. Specially when the country could easily develop an energy policyy that saves 9% in oil use.

 

For those of you who subscribe to the New York Times paid service, Paul Krugman's oped piece today (1/29/07) entitled "Corn Cop-Out" was excellent and directly on point. Putting aside the fact that Krugman is (imho) the smartest economist in America, and gets his facts right, he's just an excellent and entertaining writer.

It's only accessible to paid subscribers, but I think a few quotes might be considered fair use.

"For those hoping for real action on global warming and energy policy, the State of the Union address was a downer. There had been hints and hopes that the speech would be a Nixon-goes-to-China moment, with President Bush turning conservationist. But it ended up being more of a Nixon-bombs-Cambodia moment."

" .. researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that converting the entire U.S. corn crop — the sum of all our ears — into ethanol would replace only 12 percent of our gasoline consumption."

"Even the Department of Energy, which is relatively optimistic, says that the net energy savings from replacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol are only the equivalent of about a quarter of a gallon, because of the energy used to grow corn, transport it, run ethanol plants, and so on."

"So why is ethanol, not conservation, the centerpiece of the administration’s energy policy?"

"Subsidizing ethanol benefits two well-organized groups ... Meanwhile, ... Where’s the organized, powerful constituency for tougher fuel economy standards, a higher gasoline tax, or a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions?"

The gist of it is that the proposed energy strategy is the best government that money can buy. If you subscribe to the NY Times, its an entertaining if somewhat depressing read.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 29 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]382258[/snapback]</div>

The "organized, powerful constituency" you seek is groups like MoveOn.org. Thanks to the power of today's technology (cell phones, internet, email, etc.) these 'grass-roots' organizations are having a real effect in Washington. The 2006 Democratic victories are but one example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jan 24 2007, 01:31 PM) [snapback]380161[/snapback]</div>

I found Speaker Pelosi's 100 eye blinks a minute a bit more distracting myself!

As for this discussion on energy dependence. You want people to change their habits, either raise that tax credit for hybrid cars or increase the taxes on gas to make it more expensive...it a lot of ways it simple econimics.