Bush's inaguration 1/20/05.

Drilling for Oil in Alaska wildlife refuge 1/21/05

as far as im concerned, as long as the the government can ensure that damage to the enviroment will be minimized (which shouldnt be a problem, its just settling on a dollar figure, which is usually fairly large) this is a good thing.

let me get my tools

It's madness that we are so dependent on oil when we have twisty-elastic-band technology!

More reason to hate Bush. I thought it was cool when Richard Branson was on the Daily Show and they were talking about the 10 million dollar prize for the first commercial space flight, Jon Stewart asked Richard Branson if he would sponsor a similar prize to come up with an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Branson just looked at him like "why the hell would I want to do that."

I agree with this - it is our fault, not the greed of the oil companies or Bush's disregard for the environment that creates the need for new oil sources. Have you stopped buying things made of plastic (or via a process that requires petroleum energy for that matter)? Do you ride your bike or walk instead of driving whenever you can? Plan ahead so that you don't have to use your car?

It took years to get this through, and I'm guessing that if they had enough oil in non-protected fields to satisfy the world's (it's not just America, and it's not just Bush) thirst for oil, they would have used that. It's quite likely that if measures like this weren't taken, the accompanying economic collapse would come sooner rather than later. And then what would we say about Bush? "I'm glad the caribou are okay"?

And invoking alternative energy sources is a trick of the underinformed. Which is the most viable? Which one would you like to put the research money into? Most likely, even the best alternatives will not come anywhere close to replacing oil within the next 50 years.

I'm not happy about the situation, but you and I are the ones creating the market. And it's a pretty lame answer to say "the government should do something" if you haven't done anything yourself.

The main argument is that the amount of oil for the damage ain't worth it.

And Haq, I've mentioned this before, but if I were any kind of Democratic leader, anyone thinking or saying that we cannot come up with an oil alternative does not believe in America. Are you seriously telling me that a country that in 66 years went from 1 minute of flight to landing on the moon can't muster a fuel alternative? What's the alternative, Mr. Bush, hide your head in the sand and perpetual war in the middle east.

Sorry, I believe in this country, and I believe we can solve any problem.

Well, who's to say we haven't done something ourselves. And even if we haven't, I don't think it's lame to say the government should do something even if we haven't. That's what government regulations do, force people to do stuff. Lincoln forced white slave owners to stop having slaves. Was that unjustified, just because many citizens weren't willing to do it themselves. Your logic doesn't work.

And in terms of which alternative energies should we invest in: all of them.

I agree that we can't completely avoid an oil crisis, no matter what we do at this point. But that doesn't mean our government shouldn't do everything it can to avoid. And that includes not using Oil Reserves until you absolutely have to.

viable alternatives already exist, it's distribution and public awareness that are lacking. for example, any deisel car engine can run (just as efficiently as standard deisel fuel) on bio-deisel, which is pretty much corn oil. a co-worker of mine spent $1500 to convert his 1980 mercedez coup to run on straight-up vegetable oil. he now gets "gas" for free from the fryers of local bars and restaurants.

The problem seems insurmountable now, but it's that way with everything until innovation takes place. We can't solve these problems by sitting on our hands and leaving it to the next generation. You work to solve problems and sometimes the payoff is a long way off. But to get to that payoff you've got to freakin' START somewhere.

Right now, unfortunately, it looks like this drilling is necessary

There ARE government regulations. There are tax incentives to switch to alternative-fuel vehicles and emissions standards to encourage manufacturers to switch to more efficient systems.

And how do you know this is something we can avoid? Oil reserves have been very low (lower than predicted), and they generally don't exist in the US outside of territories like the Alaska one. If you're in the hotseat, what do you do? Buy oil from the middle east and you're accused of warmongering. Buy it from Africa and you're exploiting a third-world country (notwithstanding the atrocities caused by a lack of laws keeping companies operating internationally in line). We're consuming enough oil that we need more soon. Where should we get it?

And I strongly disagree with the Senator about 'merica's gumption. We can't solve just any problem. There are simply physical limits to how much you can squeeze out of a resource. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that comes close to packing the oomph that gasoline does, and we're already farming all the land we can in this country for food. Where are we going to get the crops? The world economic and population problem is, by definition, a larger one than humanity has ever faced. Everything has its limit, and we've got more necessity than I think invention is prepared to handle.

Great point, nacho. I know someone who does this as well.

Luckily, hybrids are becoming more commonplace now, and I think with big American manufacturers like Ford jumping on board so quickly, people may consider them. I also know that Lexus is going to come out with a hybrid vehicle too.

I also agree with Haq that we as individuals need to set our own priorities. Let's face it-- people in Atlanta and LA and other car-centric towns aren't going to drop their cars to walk or use a bike, mostly because most of those towns don't have bike- or pedestrian-friendly streets. So in that respect, if the local planning agencies could be more proactive, it would certainly help individuals make the more logical decisions. Wow, maybe we could *finally* tackle that growing obesity problem we seem to have here too!

But then again, there are people like my redneck brother-in-law that couldn't give a shit about the environment and will continue to drive his gas-guzzling Suburban no matter what (and it's not because he needs it for work-- it's because he likes having a big car).

btw, I'm averaging 42 mpg on my Prius with fill-ups occurring once every 2 weeks.

And I'm expecting a hefty tax incentive check from the government this year too!

I think I got a little contrarian there, especially to you, el_scorcho... I mostly agree with you, but my main problem is immediately blaming political opponents for an unfortunate situation that may have been inevitable.

let me explain myself further. i agree. we are too dependant on oil, president bush should take a stand on the enviroment and that the system needs to be changed. but you dont understand the state of the north, in canada and the united states. the northern territories have the greatest rates of suicide in the country. there is more poverty in the northern territories than anywhere else in canada. as far as i know, northern alaska and northern canada are quite similar, especially in the smaller communities. there are no jobs. there is no future. the only jobs and future the north has is through natural resources, whether its gold, diamonds, or in this case, oil. the only jobs the north can ever create at this point are jobs created through this type of thing because our economies are not diverse. and, although im still young, ive worked at the department of indian and northern affairs, the department that gives permits for this sort of thing and who ensures the state of the enviroment afterwards. deals like this are commonplace and ensure that the government is not left with the bill afterwards and can keep companies responsible for their conduct. i would be sure that alaska has some sort of department that deals with this sort of thing.

So we just give up? Put up oil derricks wherever we can and fuck everything else? Damn Haq, I used to think you were smart...

There are VAST swaths of land that could be used for crops, and if there were no point to bio-alternatives why the fuck do Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley support so much $$ for ethanol -- it may be a boondoggle, but its THEIR boondoggle.

I refuse to believe that this problem is unsolvable, the trick is making it economically viable, and that's why you give it 50-75 years to phase in. Am I the only one that thinks this? Is this so farfetched?

i don't think there's a shortage of crops. as part of farm subsidies, don''t we actually pay farmers not to grow certain crops, to keep the price up? the US produces enough food to end world hunger if it so desired, but poor countries can't pay for it. but that's another discussion. the reason alternative fuels haven't taken off yet is b/c oil is still the cheapest and most heavily-invested in of all the fuels. the big companies that run the country would lose too much money over the short term if a sudden major shift to alt fuels happened. which is why nothing will really happen until another fuel becomes cheaper than oil.

It's not unsolvable. It just takes time. I can still remember specifying "Unleaded" at the gas station, even though the Federal Clean Air Act went in before I was born. Hybrids, once the performance catches up and the cost comes down, will catch on. But it's gonna take a while.

There's lots of 10 plus year old cars on the road (and in some cases 41 year old cars) because lots of people keep their cars for more than ten years. Even if everyone bought a hybrid the next time out, it would take over a decade to a sizeable impact.

We're married to gasoline for a long time, but not forever.

As for huge tracts of land, we already over-produce and have to set production quotas.

Where are the vast swaths? Certainly we're not growing at absolute full capacity, but part of the reason for that is that doing so would lead to massive erosion, overconsumption of water, and decreased pest control. And I think you know it's some damned fallacious reasoning to say that if someone spends money on something, it must be worthwhile. Look how much Perot spent on his campaign. Look how much KERRY spent on his campaign!

I don't think we should roll over and take it (EDIT: I've mixed a metaphor into something darker than either progenitor), but I do think that the power to end our reliance on oil does not lie entirely or even mostly with the government. And I believe that even if we switched entirely to bio-fuels, we would not be able to support the kind of consumption that oil currently allows. It takes a lot of soybeans to make a gallon of biodiesel.

Or maybe we could stop over-subsidizing corporate farms, drop our tariffs and import food from developing countries at a cheaper price, thereby helping their economies. Economic prosperity should in turn lead to smaller family structures and less strain on environmental resources. (although development itself cause a spike in environmental harm this soon drops again after societies reach a point of development where they can afford cleaner technologies and have more time to devote to environmental issues)

Yes, outsourcing has been so beneficial to date, I can see no reason not to continue.

It would be nice to get Dr. Pepper made from sugar instead of corn syrup. I'm all for it.

But what about our small farms? how could they compete?

oh wait...

There are still a lot of jobs that depend on the farming industry in America. I'm not saying the current system is working well, but if we started buying everyone else's food, we'd harm as many people here as would be helped by the lower prices.

Can't we just break out the dilithium crystals already?