No, you didn't. You wrote about what 'you think' mindmeld thinks. And on that topic you seem to be wrong most of the time.
Roadkill, I posted that summation because it's EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING since I first started participating on this thread. The IMMEDIATE ANSWER is to secure and exploit ALL ECONOMICALLY VIABLE domestic reserves of oil and natural gas for the purpose of national security. It's proven, the infrastructure already exists to handle it, there's a CRAP-LOAD of proven reserves of it lurking on government owned lands, and none of the alternatives to oil/gas fueled transportation has a long-enough track record (yet):
Message 25086766
So why does Mindmelt believe that I, or anyone else on this thread is supporting or encouraging the continued importation of oil? He posted an article that we all can pretty much agree with:
Message 25302788
And then he attempts to justify completely "getting off oil" when the article is focused upon "getting totally off imported oil".. (which we all agree with).
Now the author makes some crazy arguments about "flex fuels" which I believe, IMO, are already heavily discredited due to pressure on food prices as well as lack of proper distribution infrastructure for ethanol. But I'm totally cool with using synthetic fuels from coal, if commercially viable, as well as with domestic electricity generation. But the bulk of that article leads us to only one conclusion.. FOCUS FIRST ON CONVERTING TO PLENTIFUL NATURAL GAS, CHANTING "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!!"
In sum, Mindmelt can't really seem to grasp the clearly stated positions of people like myself and others. We're shouldn't be in any conflict about reducing our imports, but where we CAN DEBATE is the best immediate and long-term response to alternatives.
Hawk |
