You're free to not accept the premise that excessive amounts of CO2 are harming the environment. That doesn't make you right about it, but if the overwhelming scientific evidence doesn't convince you, I don't know what I can say that would. I do agree, though, that the government doesn't need to be overly involved in setting up alternative energy sources. The market is already seeing to that. All the major automakers are coming out with hybrid, electric, and/or hydrogen powered vehicles in the next few years. Solar, wind, and geothermal energy is becoming much more prevalent. The idea isn't for the government to manage these resources. But the government itself is a big consumer. The next President could start an initiative to harness renewable energy sources for government buildings. Obviously it would take some time to upgrade each building, but think of what that could do to the market for solar panels and smaller wind turbines. It would create literally thousands of jobs in manufacturing, research & development, sales, maintenance, installation, etc. And that increased demand would allow the manufacturers to lower prices to a level where the average American can afford to buy renewable energy sources for their homes and small businesses.

The one small bit of irony I've noticed about the free market crowd is that they completely ignore the federal involvement with the oil and gas industry. It would be nice if the government also disentangled itself from that. No more tax breaks for fossil fuels, no more federal involvement in where and when companies can drill. Let each state decide for itself whether they want platforms off their coasts or wells within their borders. And let the oil companies figure out if it would be profitable or not to do so. At the moment, there is no incentive for oil companies to drill more. They're making record profits with the level of supply currently available and the investment required to explore new resources, build platforms and pipelines, and bring new oil to the market is huge.

And about that environmentalism bit, that is precisely why I cannot accept the left's point of view on the issue. They believe that if I drive around in my car I am going to doom the whole planet “in ten years!” with that most vile of gasses, CO2. I don't accept that premise. I also don't accept the premise that the government needs to be managing any and all “green” sources of energy. I mean, if there's a market for it people will buy it. If the government runs it, it'll result in waste and a lot of taxpayer being flushed down the drain. Let the market handle it.

See, Obama and the other lefties are trying to trot out this routine maintenance mantra as if it's some amazing revelation. It's not. It's something every responsible car owner already does. It's just a diversionary tactic to achieve their true objective: saving the world from a non-toxic gas whose effects on global climate have been vastly overstated.

Basically, I have heard their arguments but I'm not buying them.

…does anyone also want to consider that overinflated tires are a leading cause of blowouts and traffic fatalities? You get far less road surface contact with overinflated tires, you hydroplane much more easily and vehicle handling is greatly diminished.

I am not sure it is good policy to save a few million gallons of gas at the expense of a few thousand lives…I could be wrong.

Reasonable estimates suggest tire inflation saves only about 80,000 (not 800,000) barrels a day. Underinflated tires cost you a few pennies a week. Overinflated tires can cost you your life.

We need a leader who think BEFORE they speak.

I think we can all agree that conservation and efficiency are going to be a key part of any workable energy plan for the next administration. I think we also have to accept that offshore drilling cannot be the total solution. This does not mean it can't be factored into a comprehensive plan that includes other sources of energy. If we are going to move forward to renewable, domestic energy sources, it's going to require a lot of small changes and a few big ones. The first, and probably most difficult, is to stop framing the debate as two sides, as right and wrong or good and evil. It doesn't have to be conservation OR drilling. We don't have to choose nuclear OR solar. We can in fact have them all. And they can all be a part of a working solution to our energy crisis. So when you've all stopped the blog equivalent of shouting at each other, perhaps you'll take a moment to LISTEN to what the others are saying. You may be surprised to learn that two seemingly-opposed ideas can both be right.

Yeah Rico I've pretty much stopped discussing the drilling program with you because I can see completely thru your veiled I believe we should drill but…………..argument.

The but portion of your argument is pages long, the drill part is 1 sentence long. That pretty much defines Obama's plan. It is nothing more then deflection till November and then flip flop yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_…

http://ezinearticles.com/?Half-of-the-National-…

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf…

Of course, Barack could easily defuse this by admitting he was wrong, but as with the surge he will not. This is why Barack Obama's team is scared to death of any debate format that doesn't rely on teleprompters.

It's disgusting to better people that anyone views the federal government as the kind of parental figure that should be telling people to maintain air pressure in the tires of their motor vehicles.

You trust them to detain people without charge indefinitely, spy on their own citizens without warrants, wage war, set inspection standards, and yet being told that you “should” maintain proper tire pressure is somehow the last straw?

Come back when you're actually upset, instead of just pretending.

That's your illogical response, not something I have said.

I'll be nice and ignore additional illogical statements you wrote.

I don't need to be told what is obvious, and something I have been doing since I got my first automobile, and I also know conservation isn't “the” magic solution to meeting our energy needs, as well as this example being too Carteresque to make more knowledgeable people feel warmer (pun intended) about Obama than prior to this. I also don't view Washington as my parent; those who do are retarded in their personal development and in numerous ways inferior to those of us who know better and view government more objectively and accurately.

But if I suppose, if enough of them are there, well, that's the Dems' advantage, quantity — sheer numbers — as a rule. As opposed to _quality_.

Better people? You feel somehow lessened by additional information? Jeez, I can just imagine how you'll react when the utility company comes to replace your existing meter with a smart-meter. I mean my gawd it'll FORCE you to do without air conditioning for that few minutes before your entire service would have otherwise gone down! Horrors! Of course, by forcing your air conditioning to shut down you'll still have electricity for everything else, but IT'S SO COMMIE!! Yeah, as if hooking yourself up to the grid in the first place isn't, right?

Conservatives, republicans and even centrists who lean right invariably use the “pay less” adjunct to the “drill here drill now” argument, and that's BS. If the adjunct were “use less foreign oil” then I would be more on board. That's factual. “Pay less” isn't.

Even the polls querrying opinions on the topic use the “pay less” fallacy. The question asked is usually of the order, “are you in favor of off-shore drilling if it reduces the price of oil?” The question they should ask is “are you in favor of off-shore drilling even though the evidence indicates it will have essentially no impact on gas prices?” My guess is the results would be very different.

Be that as it may, I am in favor of more domestic drilling — but not on the basis of the price argument. That might sound reasonable, but it isn't. By the same token the windfall profits tax and eliminating tax credits for exploration sounds reasonable to a majority of people too. After all, people get a little sick of hearing how many billions of dollars in profits the oil companies made last year while they're struggling to make ends meet. Why should the oil companies be making money hand over fist on our misfortune? It's a pretty compelling argument. But it is also wrong in its own way — which is to say if you aren't paying close enough attention to the ulterior motive. If you want insight into the ulterior motive ask yourself this: what's the typical effect of a windfall profits tax?

Tell me Obama isn't smart. He's making it sound like he's compromising, when in actuality he's framing the debate in such a way as to appeal to popular sentiment without sacrificing much of anything.

Yes, and Obama also suggested releasing the SPR, which on the scale of ideas; I put up there with McCain's gas tax idea.
30 days supply, and then this country is completely vulnerable to a natural disaster or disruption of the supply of oil through a military attack.

Want to find me a quote where he said he wanted to release ALL of the reserve?

It's funny that you can't find an honest way to attack Obama.

Buying cheap low-IQ, developmentally-retarded votes!

But it is a good idea. Look, for almost no cost, the McCain team has hit Obama and got people talking”

No shit! *** OPEN NET *** Only the dolts fooled by or Fervently Believing In Obama miss the obvious here.

It's disgusting to better people that anyone views the federal government as the kind of parental figure that should be telling people to maintain air pressure in the tires of their motor vehicles. It also illustrates the difference in political behavior because while leftists lie and say McCain is a perpetuation of the Bush Regime, Obama really does look like another idiotic Jimmy “Let Them Wear Sweaters” Carter.

Conservatives, republicans and even centrists who lean right do not oppose vehicle maintenance or proper tire pressure.

We do, however, favor offshore drilling as a way to reduce foreign oil imports.

Obama was trying to substitute the need for offshore drilling with tire pressure and tune-ups. Stupid? You bet. He knows he’s in trouble on this point and he needs to flip flop on yet another position. By the time we get done with him, he will be advocating drilling in Yellowstone National Park and Knob Hill in San Francisco.

Next week we’ll have him building nuclear plants in Malibu and Martha’s Vineyard.