>>
<< 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.>>
Seems to me it would reduct that extra 5% by 100%.<<
lsh -
Yes, that's correct. Which would leave us exactly as dependent on foreign oil as we are now. Hence my statement.
>>80% in a decade is a bit out of reach. However if you had read the Bush energy policy, Clinton never had one, that Bush has called for the development of hydrogen burning vehicles, more use of soy diesel and ethanol to replace gasoline and burn cleaner and for more use of coal and burning it much cleaner. <<
Yes, Bush did present an energy policy. The energy policy he proposed, however, did not come close to making an urgent national commitment to ensuring our energy independence for the future. There's a big difference between mentioning the development of hydrogen burning vehicles, soy diesel, etc., and actually asking Congress for the funds to make them a reality.
Perhaps 80% is out of reach, but as JFK said in proposing we go to the moon:
"I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
... For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last."
Even if we could not reduce our consumption of oil by 80%, we would be far better off after ten years of concerted efforts directed toward that goal.
Lastly, any energy policy that proposes that we rely more on coal is one which belongs in the nineteenth century. No matter how cleanly you can get it to burn it's still a horrific job getting it out of the ground and there's a finite supply of it.
- Allen |
