A Page Out of Cheney’s Playbook?

Its obvious that the democrats and more specifically the greenies within the democratic party are ANTI OIL........period.

NO OIL. PERIOD.....no how, no way, not today, not ever.

Oil is bad. Burn Obama at the stake before we accept oil. This is what Barak Obama has to deal with and so he might as well come out swinging against OIL drilling. Even though Obama understands that 1 more bbl of oil we produce ourself is one less we have to buy from OPEC, that does not matter.

He might as well accept the fact that his party will NEVER< EVER< let him drill. PERIOD> End of story.......move along.

Democrats want oil, but only as a bridge to alternatives. After that, oil will be used for production of diesel for large machinery, semis and trucks and for manufacture of plastics and other petrolium-based products.

Need for oil will never disappear. We are however, restructuring its priority within our economic systems, because it makes economic sense....something BigOil should've factored in when they started price-jacking oil to pay for their hostile takeover in Iraq...that and robbing the Public Treasury..

Oil is on it's way out. We don't have its head on the guillitine for one swift chop! God how the GOP loves to trump up stuff to further their cause..

So stockholders be advised: time to sell oil and buy alternative. Specifically, I'd recommend lithium-battery technologies and lithium-based industry. Electric cars will be a reality. Also, if I had a bundle to invest I'd sink in into solar PV production/technologies & geothermal. Who needs radioactive terrorist targets to produce just steam to run turbines when we have steam shooting out of the ground over half the US? It's ludicrous.

You see, democrats object to offshore drilling not on the grounds that we cannot find ways to suck up and use the paltry more oil it will produce in ten years, it's because we're saying a long, slow goodbye to oil altogether. When you're shoving overstayed guest out the front door, you don't open it wider so they can get a fresh toe back in...

Sianara BigOil, adios, au revoir, Ciau!, aufwiedersehen, so-long, ta-ta, time to go, nice to see you, have a nice trip, see you this Fall...

There you go.......sil Im sure speaks for all Democrats and Barak Obama.

"I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal."

What's so outrageous about that? Just like oil, there are dangerous byproducts from using nuclear energy.

Jazz this is actually a very good example of why I believe Barak Obama will not be the moderate, centrist Politician who makes everyone all get along and love each other that the Democrats claim he will be.

This is the perfect example of something important to our society, it has nothing to do with social issues. In other words drilling for oil is not going to make gays less gay, Christians less christian.......it simply is going to allow for the lowering of gasoline at the pump.

YET>>>>.here we go. The democrats say not only NO.....BUT HELL NO and the GOP says.........but why not? Barak Obama says okay I see maybe we could compromise one day and the next day he comes out swinging saying........die drillers..........die.

Obama might want to compromise but the Democrats cant compromise on something as simple as drilling.......how is Barak Obama going to get anything done thru compromise????

Facts are..............hes not.

The first TEST...........here.......right now and Obama and the democrats have failed.

Neocon, I think Sil has a better idea of what your average Dem thinks than you give him credit for. Now granted, this is purely anecdotal, but of the Democrats I know, including myself, his statements about oil pretty much sum up our thoughts on the matter. We don't see the point in investing in more drilling when the end goal we're shooting for here is to use significantly less oil for fuel. It doesn't make sense for the oil companies to sink millions of dollars into building more offshore platforms and pipelines when 10-15 years from now we'll probably all be driving electric or hybrid vehicles. They know this. That's why BP is building solar plants and wind farms all over the place. That's why Exxon is advertising their new battery cell films that improve the efficiency of Lithium Ion batteries.

Neocon, you should stop putting words in other peoples' mouths (typing words on their keyboards?). Or at least be courteous enough to add the context to your nitpicked soundbytes.

Democrats generally oppose further drilling because it makes no sense to drill more now. It'll take years for new pipelines to come online, and by the time they do there'll be a heck of a lot more access to cheap renewable alternatives. And even if we could magically get those pipelines working by January 2009, they can't provide enough fuel to significantly lower the prices on a global market. Maybe if we forced the oil companies to sell domestically drilled oil only in the US there'd be a drop in the price. But I'm not sure if that's legal and if it is I doubt it would go over well with the oil companies.

However, if Obama is elected and the only way the GOP will pass a clean energy bill is if there's a compromise that includes more domestic drilling, then so be it. I imagine most Democrats would rather have to make that concession if it means getting closer to the ultimate goal of energy independence and clean renewables.

The waste problem with nuclear energy is political, not a technical or scientific or engineering problem, Chris, and you should know better. Waste from nuclear energy is nothing compared to what we get out of coal, the cheapest and normal base-load provider of electricity (not only in this country, either).

As for zero-IQ no-drilling obstinacy, that is simply idiocy. McCain deserves to improve his position in the campaign as a result when the Dems are Dims.

What's laughable about Obama most recently is that he babbles the "addition" drivel while insisting on vote-buying with nothing other than an Instant Fix. How consistent!

What I'm waiting to see is if Obama engages in left-wing-Dem nonsense or if he recovers from his current blunders and tries to assuage smarter voters by giving us the impression he is, like McCain, "safe and sane," a "moderate" or "centrist" rather than the liberal Democrat that's disturbing if not alarming people now. (No, he's not going to self-destruct the way Gore did -- is he? Are the Democrats?)

"We're addicted to oil! We need instant alternative solutions, or at least within ten years, as the sage Gore has said!" The answer -- quick, dump oil on the market from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, buying votes of the cheap the way Gore did in 2000!

DLS,
So, in your estimation, Obama's vote buying gimmick is worse than McCain's?

JAZZ: I really want the candidates to debate this issue and for both of them to come to a sensible, productive plan for our nation’s future energy needs. But lately I’m almost wishing Obama would stop talking. I’m getting a headache.

On the contrary, I'm glad Obama has started talking. Both of them need to talk about this more. On a slightly different note, absent the Cheney reference (which was offered for its perceived value in tying McCain to the Bush admin), what exactly do find inaccurate about the statement: “Under Senator McCain’s plan, the oil companies get billions more, we don’t pay any less at the pump, and we stay in the same cycle of dependence on oil that got us into this crisis.” As far as I can tell the statement is completely accurate. Those who are inclined to take exception with it do so on the basis of issues that are left unsaid. Fair enough. So let's see if McCain can make the case forcefully for that which was unsaid. I hope he does. But I suspect it will be an uphill climb.

By the same token McCain says "Senator Obama has said that expanding our nuclear power plants “doesn’t make sense for America.” He also says no to nuclear storage and reprocessing. I couldn’t disagree more. I have proposed a plan to build additional nuclear plants. " Okay fine. But as far as I can tell, that's as much detail as McCain has ever offered. In other words, why does it make sense? McCain has consistently left unsaid the part about how much those nuclear plants are likely to cost, or how much the storage and reprocessing are likely to cost -- and where the money will come from. The fact is, not a single nuclear power plant has ever been built without significant government subsidies. Not here in the US, or anywhere else in the world. IMO, that's a big problem for his supply side/deficit hawk personna. I do so very much wish he'd talk about those things, because those things, to me, are the achilles heel of the nuclear argument. It's even weirder because McCain seems to be against incentivizing renewables. Sure, he thinks they should figure into the future energy mix -- but he wants them to pay for themselves. What's up with that? How can you have it both ways?

And how about the Lexington Project? The only numbers McCain offers in it are (a) a $5000 tax credit for zero emission vehicles, but is less specific about how it extends to low emission vehicles; (b) $4 billion/yr sunk into "clean coal" (CCS) and; (c) a $300 million prize for a battery with characteristics that haven't been adequately specified. Taking them in order: (a) unless we're talking about golf carts or insanely expensive fuel cell vehicles, zero emissions vehicles are a long way off, so it becomes very important to know what he's contemplating for low emission vehicles -- and he has not yet done so; (b) CCS is also a long way off. What happens in between? Cap and free trade on carbon emissions? That's Kyoto; (c) the battery prize is a joke -- whatever the details are likely to be, whoever comes close to it is likely to make several tens of billions in profits. The battery prize is a waste of money.

Now to pick on Obama... Opening the SPR, especially in the middle of hurricane season, is BS. I'm not sure where voters are on the idea, but IMO that's asking for it. That's item 1. Item 2 is: the windfall profits tax idea is likely to suppress drilling. How much is likely to be contingent upon how it's constructed. Apart from the details though, maybe that's the point -- in fact, I've suggested in the past that it probably is. If so, and to the extent that it is, it's disingenuous. But the argument has great political legs. It's hard to defend the profits the oil companies are making when J Q Public is struggling. So if you believe perceptions are more important than facts, you have to admit Obama (and the Dems) have McCain (and the Reps) over a barrel on this one. After all, the major facts are not inconsistent with the perception. You have to add several layers of detail before they start to diverge. And that's politically difficult. Might a compromise be in the making? I guess we'll see. Item 3: how about the "use it or lose it" proposition for drilling leases? It seems to me like Neocon for one is for that (either that or he needs to supply far more nuance than simple perceptions will allow). What do others think?

Item 4 is Obama's suggested tax rebate to low income homeowners to offset heating and electricity bills. Actually, that's not new. It's been on the table for the better part of a year now. What's new is the idea that a windfall profits tax will pay for it, rather than the proceeds from Obama's carbon cap and auction idea. And as I already said, the windfall profits tax has better political legs. That doesn't mean I agree with it, that's just my political analysis.

In conclusion let me say that my analysis is that Obama still has a more robust, coherent, and comprehensive energy plan than does McCain. Details are still wanting from both sides, but I'd say at this point McCain's position is inconsistent and needlessly expensive. I suspect that if and when he fleshes out his call for 100 additional nuclear plants by 2050 and starts detailing of costs, materials, manpower, etc., and where they are likely to come from -- and compare them to other technologies -- the real "grownups" and/or "better people" in the room will stand up and take notice. Then again, that might be just wishful thinking.

"So, in your estimation, Obama's vote buying gimmick is worse than McCain's?"

Yes, if you mean McCain's "gas[oline] tax holiday." Obama should know better.

"In conclusion let me say that my analysis is that Obama still has a more robust, coherent, and comprehensive energy plan than does McCain"

I disagree, but if you add the desperate to the easily fooled, it may be more popular.

DLS: I disagree, but if you add the desperate to the easily fooled, it may be more popular.

Could you explain in some detail why you disagree? And don't give me talking points. Give me details. Come on, I'm offering you a chance to be a "better person".

"So if you believe perceptions are more important than facts, you have to admit Obama (and the Dems) have McCain (and the Reps) over a barrel on this one."

Among intelligent voters and moral voters, no. It's wrong to misuse the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the way the Dems did in 2000 (even though the lost the election, anyway). A windfall profits tax is wrong, obviously. Silliness about conservation (tire inflation and tune-ups, which we know about, already, and about which the feds have no business nagging us Nanny-State-like) is no substitute for a serious energy policy.

McCain's positions on energy are superior toObama's and energy is the first issue about which McCain is making relative gains and Obama relative losses.

Obama should ditch the more left-Dem nonsense and just appeal to emotions (back to standard Dem practice) and note that the oil companies (whom nobody loves) have contributed to McCain's campaign, McCain would lower taxes on them, and does McCain have any oil industry lobbyists with whom he has been associated in the past in Washington (wher ehe has spent _years_) and on his campaign team, by any chance?

Well one thing about it. The antidrilling crowd is consistent. They still believe they are going to be able to attach a 200 foot tower to their Volkswagen and get to work.........we will just have to relocate a couple hundred thousand bridges is all.

"Could you explain in some detail why you disagree?"

Obama wants to misuse the Strategic Petroieum Reserve the same way Gore and Clinton did in 2000. This is wrong.

Obama wants to engineer handouts to people (to buy votes) for home heating, while levying a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This obviously is wrong.

Obama is anti-nuclear. At this time it may just be lip service to the faithful who demonize nukes, but this is wrong. The technology has one flaw -- cost (startup construction). Reduction of this is as merited as an object of federal R&D as anything else, like wind, solar, etc. McCain is pro-nuclear. That puts him on the correct side of the issue.

Obama is silent on coal-to-liquids, the obvious near-term thing to do R&D on and proceed with industrializing to provide additional transportation liquid fuels, for which there are no substitutes currently. McCain supports "clean coal," which may be interpreted to include coal-to-liquids (substitutes for gasoline, Diesel fuel, aviation fuels, etc., which are much more highly purified and which burn more cleanly and may even yield a higher energy density).

Obama is unrealistic with alternative energy sources. You can fault McCain for not being as "progressive" as he could be with these, but it is unrealistic to expect the kind of conversion that so many Obama fans and Dem voters are expecting (let alone Al Gore's ludicrousness).

Obama has indicated a desire to bail out US automakers (in the Blue Nation old industrial belt, i.e., the Big Three) and provide assistance that isn't necessary. McCain is more subdued here.

McCain beats Obama easily on energy, which is why he is rising and Obama falling currently. This is remarkable considering McCain is seen otherwise as having no coherent, substantive policy on anything (as is true generally with the GOP).

Obama needs to correct his mistakes in order to regain the perception by the public as being strongly in the lead. It's time for him to Change his energy stances and admit he made some mistakes and to protect himself on energy.

They still believe they are going to be able to attach a 200 foot tower to their Volkswagen and get to work

Ha... ha... no.

"The antidrilling crowd is consistent."

So far -- just like a two-year-old who hates to hear "no" but loves to repeat that word.

DLS: Silliness about conservation (tire inflation and tune-ups, which we know about, already, and about which the feds have no business nagging us Nanny-State-like) is no substitute for a serious energy policy.

You see, serious adults realize that conservation is not intended to be a substitute for a serious energy policy. Nannys not withstanding, it's only children that think in black/white, either/or terms.

McCain's positions on energy are superior to Obama's

Would you care to elaborate?

and energy is the first issue about which McCain is making relative gains and Obama relative losses.

Perhaps so. But it's a long way to November. One week in August does not a campaign make.

Obama should ditch the more left-Dem nonsense and just appeal to emotions (back to standard Dem practice) and note that the oil companies (whom nobody loves) have contributed to McCain's campaign, McCain would lower taxes on them, and does McCain have any oil industry lobbyists with whom he has been associated in the past in Washington (wher ehe has spent _years_) and on his campaign team, by any chance?

Why should he do either/or? Unless there's a compelling reason to do so, again I would call that an example of black/white thinking. And adults are beyond that.

John McCain is talking about offshore drilling as if it were an immediate solution to the problem of high fuel prices. In fact, it would require years--possibly even a decade or more--before there was any increase in the oil supply. Offshore drilling is not a quick solution. McCain's rhetoric is misleading on that score.

People like me are unhappy with the Democrats because they did so little to oppose the war while the war seemed very popular. I'm surprised that "conservatives" don't feel the same way about the way Republicans went along with the opposition to offshore drilling while that was popular. If they had, maybe Republicans would really be able to benefit from the changing attitudes of the electorate.

But there was no significant willingness of Republicans to expend political capital on this topic.

Instead, the Republicans nominated John McCain. McCain opposed offshore drilling. John McCain has only recently flip-flopped on offshore drilling. It's ridiculous to claim he's providing leadership on this issue. He's just following the opinion polls.

Additionally, oil is owned by the private companies that drill it. It is a globally valuable commodity and as such, is traded on a global scale. Thus, there is no particular benefit to the United States to drilling on our own territory, beyond whatever any other global increase in supply would do. But, again, Republican rhetoric is misleading. It implies that "our" oil will decrease "our " dependence. Not so. It's just as likely that oil drilled 40 miles off Tampa will end up powering vehicles jamming the traffic in Shanghai--in the year 2021.

John McCain was elected to the House in1982, then to the Senate in 1986. If he has done anything substantial to promote the construction of nuke plants, I am unaware of it.

There was an accident at a nuke plant in Pennsylvania in the mid-1970's. There has not been a nuke plant constructed since then. I believe the problem has mainly been local opposition--nobody wants one in their own backyard. That means years of local resentments, local politics, local impediments. Unless there's a practical solution to the NIMBY problem buried in the Lexington Project, McCain is offering nothing but rhetoric. Easy answers. No understanding of the real obstacles.

I am no expert on energy policy. But I keep up with the news. It seems to me that all we've been offered are gimmicks. Like a "gas tax holiday". (McCain in favor, Obama opposed; point to Obama on that one in my opinion.) Or a "windfall profits tax". (I realize Obama favors that.) I'm not sure how you define a "windfall". But under a sensible tax code, much improved profits would mean more taxes paid on the profits. I don't know if that's what actually is happening. But I do know that we are currently so deeply in debt that any additional tax revenue is probably better spent paying down the deficit. Surely, the current Republican leadership bears plenty of blame for that deficit.

We have been lead by Republicans for the last eight years. If they have done anything significant to promote renewables, I'd like to know. Seriously. Because it seems to me that we've reached a crisis without much advance planning in how to deal with it. Is there anything about the recent energy policies of Republicans that should make want to keep them in power?

You know I would take up your challenge Rico but it is obvious that the moderate I can make us all get along Obama simply has no chance at compromising on anything. He will be as paralyzed as any other president when he gets in office. He will be nothing more then a Democratic Yes man.

We have before us right now the opportunity for the Democrats to convince us that they want to get along that they truly want to be the bipartisan champions that they SWEAR on a stack of constitutions that Barak Obama wants to be.

All I hear is reasons why it wont work. Why we wont give in on drilling and why it will be a cold day in hell before Barak Obama will compromise on Drilling.

Thus ends the era of bipartisanship from THE ONE as he cowers to the will of Nanny Pelosi.

DLS: Obama wants to engineer handouts to people (to buy votes) for home heating, while levying a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This obviously is wrong.

I would agree. But let me also add... it depends on your mindset. In other words, you (or more specifically McCain) have to convince enough voters of that. I'm afraid there's quite a few of them that perceive those humongous oil company profits as another form of corporate welfare.

Obama is anti-nuclear. At this time it may just be lip service to the faithful who demonize nukes, but this is wrong. The technology has one flaw -- cost (startup construction). Reduction of this is as merited as an object of federal R&D as anything else, like wind, solar, etc. McCain is pro-nuclear. That puts him on the correct side of the issue.

First of all, cost isn't the only flaw with nuclear. You said in a previous comment that "The waste problem with nuclear energy is political, not a technical or scientific or engineering problem." Well, yes and no. But either way, the BIG problem as I see it is economic. And NOBODY seems to be talking about costs. And that I would characterize as "zero-IQ obstinacy". Those aren't my words, they're yours.

Obama is silent on coal-to-liquids, the obvious near-term thing to do R&D on and proceed with industrializing to provide additional transportation liquid fuels, for which there are no substitutes currently. McCain supports "clean coal," which may be interpreted to include coal-to-liquids...

Taking the last first, I think you're putting words in McCain's mouth. It would surprise me greatly if McCain were, in fact, in favor of coal-to-liquids. But that is an important question to ask him, don't you think? By the way, you're wrong about it being a "cleaner" alternative. That is only so if you don't consider the first step -- i.e., the conversion of coal to liquid. Once it's liquid, I agree. But that doesn't happen by magic.

Obama is unrealistic with alternative energy sources. You can fault McCain for not being as "progressive" as he could be with these, but it is unrealistic to expect the kind of conversion that so many Obama fans and Dem voters are expecting (let alone Al Gore's ludicrousness).

I think you're lapsing into talking points here. But I don't think Obama is at all unrealistic. By the way, this to me, is very much the crux of the issue. Let me say that again... This is a REALLY..BIG..DEAL. Study after study have indicated that renewables, especially in the form of wind, solar thermal, or solar PV, and in certain cases geothermal as well, are not at all unrealistic. In fact, they require far less help than does nuclear. We're talking tens, and when you figure everything in, more likely hundreds of billions less. That's my big problem with McCain. He doesn't seem to get it. He's working in the past, thinking that because existing nuclear plants are cheap now, that's what we should concentrate on. That's a fallacy. Dwelling on the past is stupid. It's juvenile. It's not what "better people" do, lol! Okay, maybe that was a cheap shot. But I'm getting a little tired of you and others trying to minimize and marginalize those that think differently than you -- without any substantial facts.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing but old data. And that old data only looks good in hindsight. Nuclear power facilities that were built 20 or more years ago are very cost-efficient -- now. But they weren't then. Many windmills (e.g., in Tehachapie) and solar thermal plants (e.g. in the Mojave desert) built around the same time were much more expensive -- then. But they aren't now. And they're getting cheaper. Nuclear plants are getting more expensive. I don't know what I need to do to drive this point home. But I'm starting to suspect that intellectual luddites will always base their opinions in the past, rather than analyzing things as they are now -- or (horrors!) projecting into the future. Plants built now will be operating 40-50 years from now. To not project into the future is, to me, the epitome of stupidity.

Neocon: You know I would take up your challenge Rico but it is obvious that the moderate I can make us all get along Obama simply has no chance at compromising on anything. He will be as paralyzed as any other president when he gets in office. He will be nothing more then a Democratic Yes man.

As opposed to what -- a Republican Yes man? Or a No man? I mean seriously... what? What's better? Think about that really, really hard.

There is no alternative. Obama is a weak politician with 3 years of national experience under his belt who is trying to convince us he is going to be a president that can make the two parties come together.

So your assuming I am right in your question. If I am right then Obama is not going to be the moderate bipartisan that he professes because if that were true then the Democrats would already have gone there.

Whats better is someone who will show leadership. Thats why we elect a president. Not a party yes man. Thats where it looks like Obama is taking his party. Yes to rejecting public finance because the DNC wanted more money. No to drilling because the party says so. Whats next. I bet he changes his mind of FISA here shortly too.

think about it real hard.

Neocon, let me rephrase the question... how are you projecting into 2010? On a state level, that's a very important year, because more than any other it determines how districts are redefined. Where do you want to be? And what's the best way to get there? Obviously there's another consideration of perhaps even more lasting significance... supreme court justices. Maybe your answer to the second trumps your answer to the first. Either way though, they both become very interesting strategic questions, no?

Where I want to be in 2010.

I want to see a congress that has a balanced budget.

I don't care about supreme court justices. I believe that no matter who gets put on the court that they are fine upstanding men and women who sincerely want to do what is best for this country in the best way that they know how.

What I care more about is an America that is strong and sound financially so that we have the resources to take care of those in need without wondering how we are going to pay for it.

Give me a balanced Budget and zero national debt and Ill show you a country that has a whole lot less problems then we do now.

Neocon--

How do you get to a balanced budget by 2010?

Very easy George.

You Cut the budget by xxx dollars and raise taxes but dont give them back.

You know thats like what families and businesses all over do to make ends meet. Except companies like GM and FORD and such who are now on the verge of Freakin Bankruptcy because they cant run their ships upright in a storm.

Actually I shouldn't be that hard on GM and Ford, they have been a ping pong ball in politics since 1973

Very easy George.

Very easy to say--but what are you actually going to cut?

We can easily get about 250 billion from the military and Iraq and afghanistan. Just pull the boys out bring them home and cut back on our military budget.

The rest of our government could be asked to cut spending by a whopping 3 percent.............3 percent...........that would translate to around another 75 billion in cuts........

Raise taxes by an amount that equals about 200 billion in increased revenue and voilla you have essentially a balanced budget.

Start a national sales tax program that is dedicated by law to paying off the debt.......once the debt is paid off it must be illiminated. This tax could start out 1 percent year one, 2 percent year 2 and 3 percent year 3 up to 5 percent until the debt is paid off. In addition any budget surpluses would be mandated to paying off the debt.

"You see, serious adults realize that conservation is not intended to be a substitute for a serious energy policy. Nannys not withstanding, it's only children that think in black/white, either/or terms. "

They see government as their parent, too.

* * *

'"McCain's positions on energy are superior to Obama's

Would you care to elaborate?"

No, because this statement of mine only encapusulates and summarizes what I elaborated on _already_. No repetitive (or even recursive) games allowed.

"'First of all, cost isn't the only flaw with nuclear. You said in a previous comment that 'The waste problem with nuclear energy is political, not a technical or scientific or engineering problem.' Well, yes and no.

Well, no. It is as I described.

" But either way, the BIG problem as I see it is economic. And NOBODY seems to be talking about costs. And that I would characterize as 'zero-IQ obstinacy'. Those aren't my words, they're yours."

Oh, yes, same as my _frequent_ words about costs, and words about others' words about costs.

"Except companies like GM and FORD and such who are now on the verge of Freakin Bankruptcy because they cant run their ships upright in a storm."

They didn't run thing sright when things were good, but kept their mishandling and now their management and the UAW (in denial of reality or obstinate in defying it) are paying now that there is crashing on the rocks.

Neocon: I would prefer a VAT over a retail federal sales tax.

"But I'm getting a little tired of you and others trying to minimize and marginalize those that think differently than you -- without any substantial facts."

Even when we provide them? Even when it's obvious that conservation or alternative energy sources cannot replace all our existing conventional sources and won't accomodate the growth we're still bound to need to make in the years to come? It's flat-earth to argue that such a viewpoint. to which the Left appeals and which if otters, isnot unrealistic, or to take issue with the word "unrealistic" at all.

DLS: Even when we provide them? Even when it's obvious that conservation or alternative energy sources cannot replace all our existing conventional sources and won't accomodate the growth we're still bound to need to make in the years to come?

Obviously renewables and energy efficiency measures won't replace conventional sources anytime soon. I am not aware of anyone (including but not limited to Obama) suggesting they will. But I'm pretty well convinced that renewables and energy efficiency measures will not only accommodate growth, but will significantly reduce the consumption of conventional sources. That's particularly true in terms of stationary energy (electricity, heating and cooling, etc.). Transportation energy will occur more slowly, but the same statement applies. It's already starting. People are already moving to more fuel efficient vehicles. People are car-pooling, and using public transportation more than before. The amount of oil consumed this year is already down 3% from the year before. That's the equivalent of about 630 million bbls/day. This is going to continue. People will continue to transition to more fuel efficient vehicles, and the vehicles themselves will continue to get more efficient. So I categorically reject your statement.

It's flat-earth to argue that such a viewpoint. to which the Left appeals and which if otters, isnot unrealistic, or to take issue with the word "unrealistic" at all.

I'm afraid this statement is so fractured that I can't understand it.

To all of you who do not know, Google on fourth and fifth generation nuclear reactors...they produce 1% of the waste our current reactors do, they convert a lot more energy and they are failsafe designs, meaning no Chernobyl incidents.

Nuclear is the only way for us to meet the demands of cap and trade while not paying through the nose. Wind and solar just are WAY too expensive, and used solar cells fill up our landfills while windmills exterminate the birds.

Don't get me started on hyrids...they are a small step forward, but the batteries are worse for the environment than the oil...it turns out they are not as recycleable as once thought. One day we can all go visit Mount Energizer and they can carve Obama's face into it...

Ethanol? A disaster. Starve the children to some not-so-cheap fuel that is carbon positive vs. regular gas?

Come on!