Fixing California: Drill, baby, drill!

[DEDixon 39]

The obvious answer: When the economic pain gets bad enough, environmental considerations get flushed down the sewer.

Don't ever forget that by the way.

Leading the nation in addressing climate change would actually be a boost to our economy. The problem is convincing the minority in the legislature.

Drilling doesn't mean anyone has forgotten about alt energy, it just means that drilling offers jobs today, right now where as alt energy does not (really!).

And please, don't suggest that gov't, should offer up any incentive money. Budgets are already strained. There is no gov't payback from these programs and given the current crisis, CA and the Feds have no money to give away.

Alt energy should be moved forward by private enterprise, not gov't giveaway programs.

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

Oh, and nice back track on the pissy mood thing, after all, it's not the first time you have tossed that one at me, now is it?

you two get a room for your weird sex stuff.

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

The obvious answer: When the economic pain gets bad enough, environmental considerations get flushed down the sewer.

Don't ever forget that by the way.

Leading the nation in addressing climate change would actually be a boost to our economy. The problem is convincing the minority in the legislature.

Drilling doesn't mean anyone has forgotten about alt energy, it just means that drilling offers jobs today, right now where as alt energy does not (really!).

And please, don't suggest that gov't, should offer up any incentive money. Budgets are already strained. There is no gov't payback from these programs and given the current crisis, CA and the Feds have no money to give away.

Alt energy should be moved forward by private enterprise, not gov't giveaway programs.

Do you say knowing that oil and nuclear energy development have long relied on governmental handouts?

As for jobs - do you have any numbers? I'd like to see just how many jobs would be gained by drilling vs. alternative energy.

[G&R 0]

Just who is projecting Steven? You are the one ascribing moods to me, not vice versa. You don't agree with things I post, that's fine, but to try to suggest that somehow if I post something you don't agree with, there is something wrong with me is puerile - that's all I am pointing out. Sarcastic smile.gif

Oh, and nice back track on the pissy mood thing, after all, it's not the first time you have tossed that one at me, now is it?

How cute, the liberals are fighting.

[DEDixon 39]

The obvious answer: When the economic pain gets bad enough, environmental considerations get flushed down the sewer.

Don't ever forget that by the way.

Leading the nation in addressing climate change would actually be a boost to our economy. The problem is convincing the minority in the legislature.

Drilling doesn't mean anyone has forgotten about alt energy, it just means that drilling offers jobs today, right now where as alt energy does not (really!).

And please, don't suggest that gov't, should offer up any incentive money. Budgets are already strained. There is no gov't payback from these programs and given the current crisis, CA and the Feds have no money to give away.

Alt energy should be moved forward by private enterprise, not gov't giveaway programs.

Do you say knowing that oil and nuclear energy development have long relied on governmental handouts?

As for jobs - do you have any numbers? I'd like to see just how many jobs would be gained by drilling vs. alternative energy.

I'm not saying alt energy is dead and that gov't shouldn't ever attempt to advance it. In a better economy, I'm sure the gov't will throw money at it. The money isn't available today. I don't think most of America is sold on alt energy to the point that the pols willing to make it a campaign issue. If it can't be a positive during a campaign, it ain't happening.

And like alt-energy needs gov't help/incentives today, oil and nuclear perhaps did early on, but I don't know of any oil and nuclear programs today except those that make land or sea available.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The obvious answer: When the economic pain gets bad enough, environmental considerations get flushed down the sewer.

Don't ever forget that by the way.

Leading the nation in addressing climate change would actually be a boost to our economy. The problem is convincing the minority in the legislature.

Drilling doesn't mean anyone has forgotten about alt energy, it just means that drilling offers jobs today, right now where as alt energy does not (really!).

And please, don't suggest that gov't, should offer up any incentive money. Budgets are already strained. There is no gov't payback from these programs and given the current crisis, CA and the Feds have no money to give away.

Alt energy should be moved forward by private enterprise, not gov't giveaway programs.

Do you say knowing that oil and nuclear energy development have long relied on governmental handouts?

As for jobs - do you have any numbers? I'd like to see just how many jobs would be gained by drilling vs. alternative energy.

I'm not saying alt energy is dead and that gov't shouldn't ever attempt to advance it. In a better economy, I'm sure the gov't will throw money at it. The money isn't available today. I don't think most of America is sold on alt energy to the point that the pols willing to make it a campaign issue. If it can't be a positive during a campaign, it ain't happening.

And like alt-energy needs gov't help/incentives today, oil and nuclear perhaps did early on, but I don't know of any oil and nuclear programs today except those that make land or sea available.

Just to put some numbers to the discussion - about 3/4 of all federal energy incentives have been going to fossil fuels. Seeing the adverse impact the increased consumption of those fuels has, seeing that their supplies are limited, seeing that they create dependecies that we surely shouldn't cement - in short, seeing that the future of energy is not in fossil fuels, isn't it time to re-focus?

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

Just to put some numbers to the discussion - about 3/4 of all federal energy incentives have been going to fossil fuels. Seeing the adverse impact the increased consumption of those fuels has, seeing that their supplies are limited, seeing that they create dependecies that we surely shouldn't cement - in short, seeing that the future of energy is not in fossil fuels, isn't it time to re-focus?

Thanks, Reinhard, for the info. I notice how every time the issue of alternative energy is brought up, the naysayers keep saying it costs too much and we don't need to be giving government handouts. These people are either ignorant about the facts or they just don't give a damn.