Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (25174)	7/31/2006 8:14:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541648

Getting the US off oil, is a little like stopping illegal immigration from Mexico to the US. There is too much economic incentive to use oil. Eventually something will replace oil. But I suppose eventually the US might not be such a draw to Mexicans, so even here you have a parallel of sorts. Either change will take a long time. Edit - Well that's a bit too strong. Oil doesn't consciously seek ways to get around policies to not use it. And many parts of its production require big obvious investments, it can't sneak around restrictions on use very easily. Still while you could get the country of oil, you could only do so through a very slow process, or through a disastrous process. The first path, he wrote, led to ever greater output of coal, oil and nuclear, a capital-intensive strategy dubbed "strength through exhaustion." Its true that uranium is finite as well but there are breeder reactors. The second path relied primarily on greater efficiency as well as the development... The move to greater efficiency has been happening for a long time. It really isn't something radical, and it isn't something that requires political control of energy decisions.