SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53315)10/20/2002 12:38:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<...Well, you know, if lowering the price of oil is your goal, applying modern technology to the oil fields of Iraq and expanding the supply is a great step towards achieving that goal...>>

Lets save the $100 Billion++ that an invasion and occupation of Iraq might require...Contain Saddam and spend the money more intelligently on conservation and alternate fuel sources...We can and should reduce our dependence on ALL sources of MidEast oil...Read Friedman's new column carefully -- in Sunday's New York Times.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53315)10/20/2002 9:07:37 AM
From: John Carragher  Respond to of 281500
 
"through conservation and alternative energies". Wonder how this will be accomplished... Trucks sales still going through the roof...alternative energies are still too expensive. Who is going to conserve. not the american driver. do we see anyone in congress who wants to vote to continue a surcharge for large engines .. or low mileage vehicles. I think the last of the surcharge for these vehicles expired this year . If the conservation folks are serious they can propose a $1. or more increase in tax on gasoline.. Let's see who will be in control of congress when that one goes through if it ever makes it out of committee. We are not ready to conserve fuel.. and we are not ready to pay extra for alternative energies.