When Senator Barak Obama was but a candidate for the presidency, he said six dollar a gallon gasoline would be a benefit because it would spur development of the mythical “alternative energy”. His only concern was the cost rising sharply over a brief period of time. He now faces a struggling economy that most certainly will falter again due to high fuel/energy costs. A moratorium on oil prospecting and production in known oil rich areas endears him to the far left of his electoral base. That refusal serves only to exacerbate oil speculation markets’ presumption that the cost of oil will continue to rise…and so it does Being elected to the Office dictates decision making and accountability. His second term will be dead on arrival if the economy recedes further. If NATO suggested we enter oil prospecting and production to save lives in nations facing food shortages due to high energy, would he acquiesce? Perhaps with only six or eight weeks of pleading by various international committees he could find a way to protect the planet’s starving millions and find political cover for a “Drill Baby Drill” policy and save America as an unintended positive consequence.
I get a kick out of these threads, we are not going to Drill our way out of this problem. GM, Nissan, and Toyota all have cars out to help ease are burden on oil. I blame Obama as much as I blamed Bush for high gas prices. Which is no blame at all on either for high gas prices. We have free markets, this is what we get.
Just how free is this market if we aren't allowed to utilize resources available.. I'd agree it was a free market if people were freely allowed to drill, and then compete with each other to determine the market price...instead we aren't allowed to drill, so then a monopolistic OPEC gets to set the price for us, and the rest of the world. The simplest fundamental property of capitalism is restrict supply and demand (price) goes up. I don't think drilling is the save all answer, but it damn sure won't hurt anything until someone finds one. Electric cars are not the answer yet. Too impractical of a vehicle, but they are getting close. Most people can't get by with a tiny car that has a 200 mile range. I think if we are going to try and find alternative energy methods, it should be in the industrys that use petroleum on a massive scale, not in the consumer vehicles that use it.
“Electric” cars are either nuclear, LNG, coal, hydro-electric or oil powered. As yet, there are NO electric cars powered by alternative energy sources. The “State of the Art” electric car has an electric only range of only 40 to 60 miles. Then one must plug that it in, and wait for four to six hours, or start an internal combustion engine (still the single most efficient self contained power source known to man) to proceed further. Wise up, Germ.
The Volt and cars like are extended range, most soccor moms do not need a Surban either How many more people have to die for oil? I am not just talking about wars. Take a look a Cancer Alley in places like where we refine oil. We have the Tech to fix this problem, so let's fix it
