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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10687)	7/6/2009 1:58:23 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

The real problem is that all of you guys say you are for an "all of the above" approach, but then you limit yourselves to incentives for oil, coal, and nukes. That's not all of the above. It excludes incentives for all the renewable energy sources, which is basically dooming the US to the past instead of investing in the future. Also, providing incentives to oil companies to drill off shore and in ANWR is simply stupid. They don't need incentives. A better approach would be to lease them the land at market rates and let them drill if they think they can make a profit. But incentives for oil? Not necessary and a waste of money. A true all of the above approach is to include oil, coal, nukes, solar, wind, natural gas, hydro, and everything else that might work, with investment and incentives in the renewables. The Dems are closer to an all of the above approach than the GOP is. The Dems are for oil, but only on existing leased lands. I'd like them to expand that to anywhere they want to drill, but that's the key flaw in their "all of the above" approach, versus the GOP which simply does not have an all of the above approach.