Vote Inflation
While the media continues to swarm over the Obama trip to “points beyond,” John McCain is hitting some key swing states to talk about more pressing domestic issues, including energy policy. As the New York Times points out, these are key battlegrounds and it’s a message which may resonate with the hurting pocketbooks of voters more than the opinions of foreign leaders.
“McCain’s message adding domestic oil production to a policy of alternative energy investment and conservation is favored over Obama’s message that blames oil companies, calls for investments in alternative energy, and rejects limited offshore drilling,” concluded a recent Democracy Corps analysis of Mr. Greenberg’s research.
That provides an opening for Mr. McCain on the economy in his most important electoral targets. Mr. McCain has placed top priority on holding Ohio and reversing Democrats’ 2004 victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, whose combined 42 electoral votes exceed those of Mr. Obama’s critical red-state targets of Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia.
“It’s not whether he wins or loses the issue nationally, it’s whether he wins it in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania,” Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster, said of the economy. That’s the turf Mr. McCain aims to occupy while Mr. Obama travels.
I have maintained for some time that energy policy and pain at the pump will be one of the driving issues in November, and McCain’s plan for energy is the more sensible of the two. Will this translate into votes? I obsess over polls far more than is healthy, but I’ve long since come to the conclusion that the COPM states will carry the day for this election. (Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.) Obama can actually afford to sacrifice Florida, (and he may well have to) but if he can carry those four states, McCain has no realistic path to 270. If Obama carries three of them, McCain’s path is steep and still likely impossible. But if McCain can nab two of them, Obama has work to do elsewhere.
These areas are exactly where McCain is hitting the energy and economic message while Obama tours abroad. Will it provide the needed impact? A look at the most recent poll of polls shows that Obama enjoys a small lead in all four, but Big Mac remains in striking distance. Obama is up by 7.7 in Michigan, 3.6 in Colorado, 4.5 in Ohio and 7.7 in Pennsylvania. Two are inside the margin of error and two are outside, but not by much. This period of time, while Obama talks abroad about Iraq and Afghanistan and McCain talks energy and the economy in these states, should prove instructive. If Obama gets a big bounce in the local polls from this, McCain has a dark cloud on his horizon. But if the local talks on these subjects begin closing the gap with Obama, the Illinois Senator might not want to start picking out drapes for the Oval Office just yet.
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
I don't see how McCain's (Exxon's) energy policy is better than Obama's. But I do know that Florida voters do not want drilling rigs threatening their critical tourism sector, and this could turn into a big problem for McCain. I haven't seen yet, but I expect to see Photoshop depictions of oil rigs off the Florida coast. This won't play well in coastal states, and the benefits are speculative at best.
Since the oil companies have failed to develop the oil and gas leases they already hold, and because many of those are easier than offshore drilling, and because oil companies lost dozens of oil platforms in the last few hurricanes, and because those losses polluted the Gulf coastline causing ugly, toxic and expensive problems, pushing for offshore drilling is actually a pretty stupid policy proposal that could well cost McCain Florida.
GreenDreams, I always enjoy your comments here, but do you happen to have a link handy on the oil rig thing? One of the talking points I've heard consistently (and I'll admit I've not done the leg work to track it down) was that while production was shut down, there were no noticable leakages, spills, etc, during the hurricanes.
Colorado is Amazingly liberal. No chance for McCain here.
Pa. Mi. and Ohio he has a chance because Obama does not faire well with the working class because once again he is going after welfare and not jobs.
Obama wants to give us more mandated programs but this does not help people at their job, at the grocery store and at the pump.
If McCain drives this home then he has a chance in these 3 states.
Colorado however has been sliding slowly towards being neo liberal for years now. Write Colorado off and dont spend a dime here.
Jazz, the lefties here never bother to place a cite (even from Daily Kos) to go along with their wishful thinking. It has dragged this website down from analytical debate to political advertisement………..”But I do know that Florida voters do not want drilling rigs threatening their critical tourism sector, and this could turn into a big problem for McCain.”
Seems Green needs to actually go out and meet some people from Florida……..
“Rasmussen Reports conducted a special Florida survey to measure the immediate impact of the offshore drilling issue on the Presidential race. As one part of the survey, respondents were told that McCain favored offshore drilling and said it would bring down the price of gas and oil. They were also told that Barack Obama opposed offshore drilling and said it would not bring down the price of gas and oil. After hearing the views of both McCain and Obama, most Florida voters agreed with McCain–61% said it was likely that offshore drilling would reduce gas prices. Only 34% disagreed and said that offshore drilling would not accomplish that goal.”
Jazz, here is a link mostly describing the physical damage to the infrastructure:
http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm
And this one summarizes the number and extent of the spills:
http://www.mms.gov/SettingtheRecordStraight/Est…
Since McCain is not going to win, it does not matter where he is, what he says, or what half-assed policy proposals his staff has put together.
It is much more important to discuss how the U.S. economy will function under the proposals that Senator Obama is making. I do not think you have to worry about the tourism industry is gasoline is $8 dollars a gallon and you can only drive 60 miles in an electric car and it makes 1.5 days to take the train to Florida
When you look at the energy proposals of Al Gore and the other environmental extremist, they will basically close down most of the tourism business in the U.S. Only those few areas that depend upon rich foreign tourist who do not drive will be able to survive. A state like Hawaii will be in a permanet depression and most of the population will have to leave.
The oil rigs shut down. They use zero dispersion oil production which means leakage from the well is minimal. However if a platform breaks free of its moorings and is set adrift then their is potential for subsequent leakage which is of course an area of concern but if their is enough notice given then the lines can actually be purged and no leakage will occur.
Actually if McCain could put together some really strong econonic proposals and hammer them home then he has a chance against the spend and spend Barak Obama.
McCain is trying to fight Obama on Iraq and thats a losing strategy. Obama can do anything and the foreign nations would sing his praises. He needs to target the economy and force this election to be about setting this stuff straight.
Balanced budget. Fiscal restraint. Pay down the debt. Get it done. Help people with their jobs and their economic wellbeing. Obama has no solutions and simply wants to spend, spend, spend.
He won't though cause he is clueless so Obama really has nothing to worry about. If I was running McCains campaign Id have the senator up by 5 points not down.
Jobs, economic health, Prosperity, lowering fuel prices and Balancing the budget. Fiscal responsibility along with restraint are winners. Iraq is not.
SD,
And McCain wants to invade the ENTIRE WORLD!
How hard is it to come up with a criticism of Obama that doesn't require painful hyperbole?
From the Orlando Sentinel. From the St. Petersburg Times. Here's one from Tampa Bay Online.
I just left My beachhouse in Sea Isle on Galveston Beach about 2 weeks ago. We hung out in the water, got bit by a couple jelly fish, pissed on each other…… but other then that I didnt see any floating oil along the beach for about 40 miles up and down the seaward side.
The worst thing I have to worry about is the salt eating my silverware down there and we drive golf carts instead of expensive vehicles that get corroded by salt.
So if one reporter with an agenda writes an article there is someone like me who can call the guy full of you know what.
Then there's the claims about China drilling for oil off of our coast because of their deal with Cuba. Not really.
You have at least as much of an agenda as any reporter, Neocon. Based on most of what you post here I consider the reporter much more reliable.
What is my agenda Jim?
I dont google up Bakersfield, Ca. And pretend that I know whats going on there. I do however know that for the most part that that brown they are talking about happens to be the tide kicking up low sand bars along the Galveston Isle Coast and not oil and gas floating in the water.
PA is safe for Obama. MI is safe unless Romney is the VP pick. Sorry but those states just aren't going GOP soon.
CO is becoming Democratic probably good for Obama.
Ohio, as usual, is the tossup. A PPP poll today has Obama up 8 there. But he'll have to work for it.
As I said before, we can't just drill out way out of this but we need to look into drilling in new areas as a stop gap while developing alternative energy sources.
However, new drilling will to NOTHING for gas prices anytime soon, 3 to 5 years is the estimate. This is a fact that McCain likes to keeps quiet.
Why not take a real look at where McCain has voted for a realistic energy policy in all his years in the Senate? When was the last time he voted FOR alternative energy funding or research? I remember a bill a few years ago that'd mandate any oil from ANWR be used for domestic markets ONLY… how did he vote on that?
What should we expect from the man who wanted a “gas tax holiday”. Yeah, talk about psychological economic help.
It does not matter what Obama voted for. What McCain voted for. It matters what is good for the country.
Drilling is good for the country, because right now oil is going to slip some but not enough. More committment to drilling will make it slip more, bring the prices down and drive gasoline down.
The fact is that Big oil does not want to drill for oil. Good. Thats more for the rest of us to discover and develop. The fact sheet put out by GWB and friends states drilling now wont matter on prices. True that. Thats what big oil wants us to believe so they are in no hurry to drop record prices.
I find it truly amazing how the opponents to drilling use facts hit and miss to support their agenda.
They hate big oil. Big oil is liars. Bush is a liar. Cant trust them
Big oil and Bush says oil drilling now wont matter…….yep thats true says those calling Bush and big oil liars.
Every day that we look for new places to drill, that delays the day we will rid ourselves of our dependency on oil.
The idea that people somehow put faith and stock in Bush and oil that deny it to them otherwise is blinded to the fact that economists forced them to essentially admit that it won't work, and their argument hinges on it being a long term solution, but it isn't.
In ten years, it might save you a penny. Oil is the past. It shouldn't dominate our energy. Wind, solar, nuclear, whatever it takes. Oil can be a part of it, but drilling is just delay. It puts us in the same situation we are in now ten years from now. If you want to pass that buck again, then you can go ahead and tout it, but I don't think this generation will go with you.
So, the way to win is to tell people a feel good fairy tale?
I was pretty disturbed during the primaries about all the pomises the two Democrats were making., but they all do that for the priamries. It's the general election now, and it's time to expect more reasonable and deliverable promises.
On energy, more than any other issue, Obama makes the most honest and most cogent sense. THERE WILL BE PAIN ( real truth telling) but if we want to work ourselves out of this, we can't fall for short term sops.
The man with the gas tax relief plan is the one with a better economic plan? In a pig's eye. That tax is used for highway ocnstruction and maintenance, and the fund is seriously short of money. The tax should be raised! What good will cheaper gas do if there are no roads to drive on? The trucking industry is in a panic about this.
McCain just moves his policies around for votes, addressing this factor here, another there. Obama has a unified policy, which includes many of the separate pieces of the economy, so we don't hurt one by helping another.
The future for the economy and the planet (energy + jobs + new businesses) is in green and conservation technologies. We can either start doing it now, or delay and start from scratch in another few years. Climate change is very much a part of the economic considerations, as well, , becasue it affects crops, water supplies and health.
McCain's 'better' economic policy is exemplified by his latest ad, which says, in so many exact words, that the prices at the gas pump TODAY are Obama's fault.
'Nuff said.
BTW, I have no problem with including some drilling in a compromise energy package. but folks like McCain would have to produce an honest compromise, (no preferential treatment) before I could believe it. There has been a huge shortage of truth in his truth telling on energy.and the economy.
ChrisWWW,
Please explain how tourism in places like Florida, West Virginia, Penn. Dutch country, colonial Williamsburg, Gatlinburg, TN can survive in a zero carbon economy. They cannot be reached in an electric car. They are low density area that depend upon people having a car.
How can something as simple as tour busses survive in DC, NYC, SF, etc. They are too heavy to work as electric vehicles. How do the airlines survive withouth carbon based fuel.
The problem with the progressive yuppies cheering on Al Gore is that they back pack in the Andes. they never go to amusement parks or to go Lancaster , PA.
I agree with runasim. Although McCain's energy plan has improved in the last few weeks, it is still largely a plan stuck in the past. I'm fine with drilling for more oil, but the idea that it will have a dramatic effect on oil prices is exceedingly unlikely — unless Neocon gets someone to listen to his wildcatters maybe. Short of that, shining a light on oil speculation and the machinations of the oil industry seem to be the only real way to affect prices.
McCain says he believes in green jobs. He believes flex fuel vehicles should play a greater role, and believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise. No mention of any sort of concrete support though. In fact, he wants to eliminate all subsidies for existing (crop-based) biofuels and makes no mention of whether he intends to support replacements. So I'm now sure he expects fuel vehicles and alcohol-based fuels to catch on. He wants to sink $2 billion/yr on clean coal. Okay fine. But that appears to be years away. His support for clean energy alternatives (wind, solar, waves, geothermal) is lukewarm, and they obviously take a back seat to nuclear. But he never talks about how much nuclear power will cost, and never addresses waste treatment and storage. Recently he added some support for zero and low emission vehicles (which is a good thing), but I think that battery prize of his is a waste of money. He still hasn't provided many details about what that entails, but from the sound of it anyone who comes close to what he's talking about is going to get filthy rich anyway.
IMO, Obama's plan is considerably more forward-looking and comprehensive. He has a much better understanding of the advantages of energy efficiency and how to address it. He understands the infrastructure, intellectual capital, and manpower issues in the deployment of clean energy sources. If anything, Obama is over-ambitious. That concerns me. For example, I think his $10 billion/yr private capital fund is a waste of money, because capital is already flowing into clean energy at an incredible rate — $148 billion in clean energy investments worldwide in 2007 alone. And that's the bottom line to me — there is tremendous growth potential worldwide in clean energy: manufacturing, jobs, revenue. Clean energy is the industry of the future, and it makes economic sense to grease the wheels. Just don't overdo it, Obama.
Anyway, with regard to the original topic of vote inflation, McCain was smart to hammer his economic/energy plans in battleground states while Obama is on his world tour. But Obama will be back next week with almost 4 months to regain any ground he may have lost. But I'll bet the significance of his trip will have a lasting effect which McCain can't duplicate. I'm betting McCain wishes he never brought up the idea.
The link provided by ricorun regarding the amount of oil spilled was not functional. Please use this one instead.
On energy, more than any other issue, Obama makes the most honest and most cogent sense. THERE WILL BE PAIN ( real truth telling) but if we want to work ourselves out of this, we can't fall for short term sops.
This is heartless Bull****.
The pain the left seems to be suggesting is the collapse of half of the United States infrastructure. Tourism, automakers, RV sales, Gas stations, Boating, Transportation.
Again what is going to replace oil. THERE IS NOTHING AT THIS TIME THAT CAN or has the POTENTIAL TO REPLACE OIL………NOTHING.
This is mindless, heartless drivel. Pain? 8 dollars a gallon gasoline goes beyond pain. Obama does not have a plan.
He has a plan to get elected.
That is his plan.
Short of that, shining a light on oil speculation and the machinations of the oil industry seem to be the only real way to affect prices.
Legislate and Regulate. Once again the mentality of the left believes we can legislate and regulate our way to energy conservation. At tleast from some on the left Im beginning to hear the “I think drilling is okay, but its not the longer term answer.”
I will agree with that. BUT……it is the short term answer.
I continue to ask and the left continues to shove a stick in my eye……….WHAT will replace oil?
Silence? But if we legislate and regulate something it sure does make us feel better.
Superdestroyer, I think you're ignoring one important fact. Nobody is trying to get everyone in America to buy electric cars today or even this year. The technology isn't there yet (yet being the operative word) to make that feasable for every person and every vehicle. But there are a lot of people who live in or very near cities who could save a lot of money on fuel and conserve a lot of gasoline by switching to electric or hybrid-electric vehicles in the next few years. As the demand for EV's grows, the price will come down and the technology will improve. Right now, Tesla Motors (http://www.teslamotors.com/) has an EV roadster in production and for sale that can go 250 miles in a single charge. They have plans to put a sedan in production within the next 2 years. Chevy is nearly ready to launch the Volt EV. Nissan has an EV in the works. Imagine the impact in 10-15 years of gradually replacing thousands of gasoline-powered cars with electric vehicles. Even if it's something that only catches on in urban areas, that's an awful lot of fuel being conserved and perhaps that reduction in demand is what we really need to lower the price of gas. Like you said, the EV engine can't work for long distances or heavy-duty vehicles, but that doesn't mean we can't make it work in the future. And for now, there are other ways to make gas and deisel engines more efficient, further reducing demand for oil.
Neocon: Again what is going to replace oil. THERE IS NOTHING AT THIS TIME THAT CAN or has the POTENTIAL TO REPLACE OIL………NOTHING.
While that may be true, more domestic drilling will not appreciably affect oil prices. At least that's what the EIA have concluded. Even Bush concedes the point. McCain says it will have a “psychological effect”. But you can't run your SUV on psychology. I know you have a different opinion, but even if you were accurate you yourself have indicated that they aren't likely to see the light of day.
It goes without saying that expanding domestic drilling will eventually enhance domestic supply, add jobs, and reduce the trade deficit. But affect price? That doesn't appear likely. So I really don't understand your point about the “collapse of half of the United States infrastructure. Tourism, automakers, RV sales, Gas stations, Boating, Transportation.”
Ricorun,
Domestic production will definitely have a huge effect of the trade balance. If it was not for oil the U.S. would be running a trade surplus. Even if domestic production does not affect the price, it will have other good effects on the ecomy.
Amanda,
Physics is working against an electric Car. Ford has bet the farm on an electric car without having a functional battery. IBattery research has been going on for decades and results in a lot of knowledge about the limits on batteries. Besides, you still have to generate the electric to power the cars and the Obama Administration is probably not going to approve the construction of any new nuclear power plants.
That leaves the U.S. trying to generate all of its electricity during the sunny parts of the day. I wonder how the elite progressives believe an area like the Wisconsin Dells can survive with electric cars and trains.
The arguments by foes of clean energy seem a little desperate and shrill, like the sky will fall if we try to move away from total reliance on oil. And BTW, no one said “no oil” as we need it for plastics and such. But hey, folks. Our children will need some too. How selfish we are to want to use it all up right now.
Electric cars and plug-in hybrids are here already, and are saving their drivers a ton of money. The cost of charging your electric car from the grid equates to around $.75 a gallon gasoline. That's with current battery technology, and will only improve.
The suggestion that we will need greatly increased generating capacity is specious, especially since most people will charge their cars at night when electricity demand is the lowest. Even using electricity generated 100% from coal, the pollution is far easier to control at a single source powerplant than individual petroleum powered vehicles. Furthermore, the excess generating capacity available at night is terribly wasteful in the absence of a mechanism to store it. Just keeping the grid hot 24/7 wastes energy that could be charging electric cars (and the utilities, I'm guessing, would rather sell that energy than waste it.)
A very important side benefit of plug-in hybrids that is universally ignored by the oil pushers is “vehicle to grid technology” in which plugged-in hybrids can sell power to the grid when it's needed. There is no cheaper way for a utility to install storage capacity than for their utility customers to buy the batteries already attached to gasoline generators that their customers also buy. That would be a plug-in hybrid.
And about that problem with the limited range of electric cars? How little innovation do these people have? No wonder we're becoming a loser economy. In the 1970s, a friend of mine dropped a Honda generator, the kind rock bands use, into the trunk of his electric car (with ordinary lead/acid batteries, which are over 97% recycled) for a road trip (with an air intake and exhaust outlet, of course). Instant hybrid. Those generators run all day on a few gallons of gas. Pure electric car, simple gas charger when needed. Now how difficult is that? Just going around town? Pull out the generator and set it in the garage if you don't want to haul around the extra 40 lbs.
I'm glad to see there is still a civil discussion going on here regarding this important topic, but please also see the update in today's column, “About those oil spills.” Also, I just posted information on our radio show, where we will touch on this topic if anyone cares to call in and discuss it.
hile that may be true, more domestic drilling will not appreciably affect oil prices
We fail to see eye to eye on this issue because the underlying premise is something we cannot even agree upon.
The above is your premise. My premise is that fear is driving the prices. So I disagree with your premise and I assume you disagree with mine.
Until left and right can agree on the premise then its hard to make progress in talks.
Thus I propose that any new drilling has to be in concert with firm money being sent to alternatives. Id vote for huge government incentives for people to install their own wind generators.
For example I live in the country. I have 30 acres. About 4 years ago I installed a wind turbine and 3 solar panels at the cost to me of close to 44,000 dollars. Thats a huge investment. So once the power coop saw this they started begging me to join their grid.
I did and now I provide enough electricity to the grid to light up 22 homes. If people all over the country were to receive assistance in this endeavor then wind would become online very fast. Once you have your own electricity capacity then you could eliminate gas hotwater and stove. Gas heaters could become electric.
Its a long process but unless private enterprise gets involved then it will become difficult to do. However be warned that the Oil and Gas industry will buy off YOUR congressmen………..be they Democrats or Republicans. And nothing will get done and in the meantime we will argue about whose fault it is that this is not being done.
In the state of Florida, souped up street legal golf carts are a mode of transportation. Only problem is the maximum speed is 35 MPH and you can't take the soccer team out for pizza after a game. If gas goes to $8 to $10, Wallyworld and Lincoln Navigators are a thing of the past, due to market forces, not those smelly tree huggers.
Disney World can probably survive. It is everything else that draws from more than 50 miles away by car. Busch Gardens-Williamsburg, Hershey Park, or Cedar Point will feel the inability of Americans to drive much more than Disney World. Places like Branson, MO or the Wisconson Delles could just fold up.
However, since the rich elite consider places like Branson to be for stupid hicks, I guess that they will cheer that the middle class does not get to take vacations while they still get to back pack around the Andes.
If gas goes to $8 to $10, Wallyworld and Lincoln Navigators are a thing of the past, due to market forces, not those smelly tree huggers.
8 Dollar per gallon gasoline does not hurt those who people want to hurt……GOP.
8 Dollar a gallon gas hurts the poor people, the struggling people. Those who live from paycheck to paycheck and dont have public transportation to work.
People are sick to want to inflict this on America and that is precisely what the advertisement about Obama was all about. Those who support Barak obama want this for America and by default HE WANTS THIS FOR AMERICA.
Who inflicted this on America? I think it's those who have fought against the idea of moving away from dependence on oil and those countries that control the supply. Who could that be? Could it be the Republican Party? Could it be the oil executives who are their great and good friends?
And yes, Bush is a liar. I never believe anything he says without hearing the same things from reliable sources that don't include the RNC or blogs like LGF, Powerlines or Hot Air. Don't like it? Maybe he and his friends should have tried the truth a few more times.
Who inflicted this on America? I think it's those who have fought against the idea of moving away from dependence on oil and those countries that control the supply.
I have repeatedly asked what will replace OIL. You want energy independence.
HOW? Come on genius. HOW? The world anxiously awaits the great wisdom of Jim. Other then once again calling Bush Names…..how about some answers.
Move away from dependence on foreign oil? Great…………HOW……..what is going to replace oil?
1.5 percent of our electricity is generated by oil……….How are we going to replace the other 98.5 percent?
What? Come one. WHAT??
I know. Lets call Bush a liar. That will solve our problems.
.
Damn. Neo, did you forget your meds again? Sheesh. j/k, but you seem overwrought. Is this rhetorical, as it seems or are you open to answers?
We won't quickly replace oil completely, but there's nothing so exclusive about petroleum as a source of hydrocarbons. For example, petrochemicals can be used to make pharmaceuticals but these days it's over 80% plant chemicals. Oil is great for plastics, but not always necessary or desirable. Vinyl flooring, remember, was developed as a replacement for linoleum, which is made from linseed oil (flax). Linoleum is experiencing a huge revival right now as a part of the green building boom. Latex paint is being replaced with clay-based wall surfaces (and of course latex too can come from plants).
Conventional builders have seen their businesses dry up, while Green Building is experiencing huge growth. This is because, surprise, buyers are exercising the “green option” which includes solar power and sometimes wind, but also nonpetroleum based treatments for interior surfaces and both interior and exterior coatings, and greatly enhanced increases in insulation and other energy-saving inclusions. Those who formerly slapped up energy hog homes, such as homebuilders Pulte and McStain have plunged full force into green homebuilding.
The biggest challenge for replacing oil is in transportation. But there are new technologies there, which I've pointed out before, including hydrogen from starch technology and biofuels based on non-food sources, for example microalgae, cellulose and jatropha. Conservation works there to, as buyers shift to more fuel-efficient cars. A little government incentive would be very good for business and the environment, and in fact automakers are now asking that the government step in with the very thing they've been fighting all these years, average fuel efficiency standards. Electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and increased commitment to public transportation can all contribute to reducing our reliance on petroleum.
I could go on, but I'm not sure if you really care, or are just making talking points. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you seem entirely dismissive of opinions other than your own. If you want links to serious proposals for reducing petroleum dependence, I am glad to provide them, but if you're just throwing stones, I won't bother.