"We must end the age of oil in our time."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Last week, it seemed Barack Obama spent just about every day on the defensive. If today's speech in Lansing, Mich., is any indication, it's a new week.

"You won't hear me say this too often, but I couldn't agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, 'Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.'

"What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those 30 years, he was in Washington for 26 of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling — a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

"George Bush's own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn't see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide "psychological" relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world's oil reserves. Three percent for a country that uses 25% of the world's oil. Even Texas oilman Boone Pickens, who's calling for major new investments in alternative energy, has said, 'this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.'

"Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy. But it is not the solution. It is a political answer of the sort Washington has given us for three decades."

From a purely political perspective, all of this is pretty important. It reminds voters that McCain has been around for a generation, and he's failed ever test of energy policy miserably. It reinforces the notion that while Obama may be open to compromise, he still knows that increased coastal drilling is an ineffective Republican gimmick. And it also characterizes McCain as being even further to the right than the Bush administration.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[alienlovechild 75]

He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country.

Obama should know better. That when the U.S. imports 75% of its oil imports from abroad, all the proposed alternative energy sources would be drop in the barrel comparatively. No major nation runs on wind or solar power but Obama is against nuclear power and expanded oil drilling (starting to waffle on this). Tax credits for fuel efficient cars aren't needed when the price of gas goes up.

"George Bush's own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn't see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide "psychological" relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world's oil reserves.

Let's close all the schools now since it takes 13 years to educate a child. What a waste of time!

Even to make any alternative fuel or accompanying infrastructure will take years, too, so Obama really has no viable plan either. Obama's windfall profit tax on oil companies is one of the dumbest around because it punishes suppliers and it was discredited during the Carter years. Even a gas tax makes more sense but no one, including the guy billing himself as "new and different", has the guts push for it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country.

Obama should know better. That when the U.S. imports 75% of its oil imports from abroad, all the proposed alternative energy sources would be drop in the barrel comparatively. No major nation runs on wind or solar power but Obama is against nuclear power and expanded oil drilling (starting to waffle on this). Tax credits for fuel efficient cars aren't needed when the price of gas goes up.

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

[Scott & Lai 12]

Let's close all the schools now since it takes 13 years to educate a child. What a waste of time!

Even to make any alternative fuel or accompanying infrastructure will take years, too, so Obama really has no viable plan either. Obama's windfall profit tax on oil companies is one of the dumbest around because it punishes suppliers and it was discredited during the Carter years. Even a gas tax makes more sense but no one, including the guy billing himself as "new and different", has the guts push for it.

Americans are always accused of having an instant gratification mentality. Isn't the argument that it will take years to see the benefit of drilling new areas an example of this?

He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country.

Obama should know better. That when the U.S. imports 75% of its oil imports from abroad, all the proposed alternative energy sources would be drop in the barrel comparatively. No major nation runs on wind or solar power but Obama is against nuclear power and expanded oil drilling (starting to waffle on this). Tax credits for fuel efficient cars aren't needed when the price of gas goes up.

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources.

What is the upper limit to which fuel efficiency standards can realistically be raised? We have to know this before we can determine whether this is better than more drilling.

How much land area is required for solar/wind to replace oil? How much land is actually available for this?

[HAL 9000 96]

Let's close all the schools now since it takes 13 years to educate a child. What a waste of time!

Even to make any alternative fuel or accompanying infrastructure will take years, too, so Obama really has no viable plan either. Obama's windfall profit tax on oil companies is one of the dumbest around because it punishes suppliers and it was discredited during the Carter years. Even a gas tax makes more sense but no one, including the guy billing himself as "new and different", has the guts push for it.

Americans are always accused of having an instant gratification mentality. Isn't the argument that it will take years to see the benefit of drilling new areas an example of this?

He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country.

Obama should know better. That when the U.S. imports 75% of its oil imports from abroad, all the proposed alternative energy sources would be drop in the barrel comparatively. No major nation runs on wind or solar power but Obama is against nuclear power and expanded oil drilling (starting to waffle on this). Tax credits for fuel efficient cars aren't needed when the price of gas goes up.

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources.

What is the upper limit to which fuel efficiency standards can realistically be raised? We have to know this before we can determine whether this is better than more drilling.

How much land area is required for solar/wind to replace oil? How much land is actually available for this?

Now lets be fair and logical in our reasoning. Its not about instant gratification- its about having, using your own concept here: a significant, gratifying effect.

Want to squander resources on drilling? Go ahead. Not only will the yield be minimal in comparison to the current and [worse off] the current projections for demand, but it will be wasted resource in face of potential alternatives that could be developed. Notwithstanding limiting the driving force behind the dependence in the first place: demand.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What is the upper limit to which fuel efficiency standards can realistically be raised? We have to know this before we can determine whether this is better than more drilling.

Increasing the average fuel economy of America's new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry, according to a new analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

....

According to the analysis, nearly $24 billion of the gasoline savings would become new revenue for automakers in 2020—paying for the improved technologies plus some profit. Consumers could then choose how to spend the remaining $37 billion saved on gasoline in that year. Shifting that money from the oil industry to more productive parts of the economy would generate 82,900 new jobs in the service industry; 44,400 jobs in the retail trade industry; 33,100 jobs in the finance, insurance, and real-estate industries; and 17,800 jobs in manufacturing industries outside the auto industry. Thousands of other jobs would be created in agriculture, construction, transportation, utilities, and government. Oil and associated industries would see their job forecasts drop by 21,000, though these jobs would be shifted to other sectors of the economy, yielding a net increase of 241,000 new jobs.

UCS used a macroeconomic model that includes industry-specific data derived from a government designed analysis tool to analyze the job impacts on 528 different economic sectors. Overall, states that use more gasoline and that have more industry will gain the most jobs. Seven states will add at least 10,000 jobs in 2020: California 32,500, Texas 14,700, Florida 14,300, New York 13,100, Michigan 11,000, Ohio 10,500, and Illinois 10,300 jobs.

Consumers are ahead of Congress in demanding more fuel efficient vehicles with lower emissions, consistently demonstrating support for higher fuel economy standards in national polls. Car dealers are already seeing a change in buying patterns.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/r...onomy-0045.html

[Scott & Lai 12]

How expensive will the new cars be? Will a sufficient number of people be able to buy them in order to achieve the projected savings?

[HAL 9000 96]

How expensive will the new cars be? Will a sufficient number of people be able to buy them in order to achieve the projected savings?

Shifting the principal production model from less fuel-efficient cars to more fuel-efficient cars tends to have a negative effect on the market cost of these products.

[alienlovechild 75]

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources

I'll pass on the homework because I've got other things to waste time on. I don't see the point in excluding energy sources. Besides, energy has been an issue in this country for 35 years it won't be solved without problems.

But I can't this gem slide. . .

Want to squander resources on drilling? Go ahead. Not only will the yield be minimal in comparison to the current and [worse off] the current projections for demand, but it will be wasted resource in face of potential alternatives that could be developed. Notwithstanding limiting the driving force behind the dependence in the first place: demand.

Nobody has claimed it would take more energy to drill compared to any oil produced. You're claiming the oil companies would drill without making a profit? Ok, pal try to make your windmills and solar panels without electricity from coal or nuclear power , nor use any transportation derived from fossil fuels and make sure you make enough on the national scale.

[HAL 9000 96]

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources

I'll pass on the homework because I've got other things to waste time on. I don't see the point in excluding energy sources. Besides, energy has been an issue in this country for 35 years it won't be solved without problems.

But I can't this gem slide. . .

Want to squander resources on drilling? Go ahead. Not only will the yield be minimal in comparison to the current and [worse off] the current projections for demand, but it will be wasted resource in face of potential alternatives that could be developed. Notwithstanding limiting the driving force behind the dependence in the first place: demand.

Nobody has claimed it would take more energy to drill compared to any oil produced. You're claiming the oil companies would drill without making a profit? Ok, pal try to make your windmills and solar panels without electricity from coal or nuclear power , nor use any transportation derived from fossil fuels and make sure you make enough on the national scale.

Nor am I claiming a squandering of energy resources for drilling- nonetheless to make that point stick you could argue that it does take energy to drill... but, I think any logical reader could see the 'resource squander' as an economical argument. And in that its your claim, not mine.

As to the rest of your gemological interpretation... wel, pal... it is your right to interpret with a typical ruse.

[SMOKE 1,426]

How expensive will the new cars be? Will a sufficient number of people be able to buy them in order to achieve the projected savings?

Shifting the principal production model from less fuel-efficient cars to more fuel-efficient cars tends to have a negative effect on the market cost of these products.

we have found Obamas running mate.

nobody knows the answers to those questions yet scott. not only do we need to move towards more fuel efficient vehicles but also towards alternative fuels. considering we also need to include the mass transit, trucking & shipping industries among others in the estimates...i'm only guessing here...15-30 years before we can all afford more fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicles.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources

I'll pass on the homework because I've got other things to waste time on. I don't see the point in excluding energy sources. Besides, energy has been an issue in this country for 35 years it won't be solved without problems.

What is the point right? That we're all up in arms over high gases prices or we're now upset because we're so dependent on Foreign Oil? It's important to clarify just what it is that's got Republicans like McCain talking about drilling....and that is the gas prices. It's a red herring because it won't address the price at the pump and they know it, so then they play a bait and switch by saying that we need to reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil, all the while, more practical and immediate solutions have been offered to them and they turned their backs in favor of Big Oil and the auto industry. They've said higher fuel efficiency standards would hurt the auto makers...etc. The heart of this whole argument is a dishonest approach by those in Washington who have for so long looked out for industry before the interests of Americans and our economy. What we need here is an honest debate and that requires fessing up to the fact that for the last 30 years, American interests have taken a back seat to the interests of Big Oil and the auto industry.

[HAL 9000 96]

How expensive will the new cars be? Will a sufficient number of people be able to buy them in order to achieve the projected savings?

Shifting the principal production model from less fuel-efficient cars to more fuel-efficient cars tends to have a negative effect on the market cost of these products.

we have found Obamas running mate.

nobody knows the answers to those questions yet scott. not only do we need to move towards more fuel efficient vehicles but also towards alternative fuels. considering we also need to include the mass transit, trucking & shipping industries among others in the estimates...i'm only guessing here...15-30 years before we can all afford more fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicles.

No thanks!

I prefer to think of economics 101 when the topic is pretty much a clear cut example of very linear, simple, production vs demand logic.

I do agree though... there is no such thing as instant gratification, but do we really understand that betting on there being a significant effect from drilling offshore, vis-a-vis there being a significant effect on the consumer level in that time frame?

At least from what I've read... no. There won't be any significant effect. Hence, believing otherwise really IS a futile attempt at lying to oneselves into thinking we can drill ourselves out of the problem.

Let's talk percentages....how much of a percentage of our current oil consumption would be reduced by:

* Raising fuel efficiency standards

* Drilling in ANWR

* Solar and Wind power on a large scale

* Offshore Drilling

...and cite your sources

I'll pass on the homework because I've got other things to waste time on. I don't see the point in excluding energy sources. Besides, energy has been an issue in this country for 35 years it won't be solved without problems.

What is the point right? That we're all up in arms over high gases prices or we're now upset because we're so dependent on Foreign Oil? It's important to clarify just what it is that's got Republicans like McCain talking about drilling....and that is the gas prices. It's a red herring because it won't address the price at the pump and they know it, so then they play a bait and switch by saying that we need to reduce our dependency on Foreign Oil, all the while, more practical and immediate solutions have been offered to them and they turned their backs in favor of Big Oil and the auto industry. They've said higher fuel efficiency standards would hurt the auto makers...etc. The heart of this whole argument is a dishonest approach by those in Washington who have for so long looked out for industry before the interests of Americans and our economy. What we need here is an honest debate and that requires fessing up to the fact that for the last 30 years, American interests have taken a back seat to the interests of Big Oil and the auto industry.

Oh but Steven... they'll trickle down the profits to the consumers!!