>>I agree... and we've made an attempt to begin oil drilling in Alaska and elsewhere in the U.S., but the liberals just recently shot it down and would rather continue getting screwed by the Saudi's.....<<
GZ -
Well, that's a different subject. Please consider the following:
Even the best estimates for oil output from the Alaskan wildlife preserve tell us that it might provide for five percent (yes, that's 5%) of our current daily oil needs. It would take ten years to get even to that point, by which time chances are we would be consuming 5% more oil than we are now. Thus, the drilling wouldn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil one whit.
On the other hand, consider this idea. In 1961 President John Kennedy gave a speech, billed as a Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs. In it he asked Congress to provide funds for a program committed to landing a man on the moon by the end of that decade.
President Bush could initiate a program designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by developing alternative fuels and energy technologies in an all-out national effort, with the goal of reducing our consumption of oil by 80% within a decade. That would put us into a range where our own oil production, even without despoiling the wilderness, would satisfy the demand.
Do you doubt that the best technical minds of our country are up to the challenge? I say they are. Fuel Cells, vegetable-based fuels, solar and wind power could provide abundant, renewable energy that no other nation could take from us and no other nation would control.
The oil companies could still make a buck by providing hydrogen and the infrastructure for its distribution, for use in fuel-cell powered cars and trucks.
I object to drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge mostly because it won't do any good. It's a backward-looking solution that keeps us tied to dead-end technology. Eventually, there just won't be any oil left in the world. Wouldn't we be better off if we figured out how to live without it before it runs out?
- Allen |
