No, lets really do more of the same, depend on a hostile foreign government for our energy independence.

You Luddites thwart any meaningful change at every turn. No no no. Its the only word in your vocabulary. Oh, that and lets do something really far out because the Sprit of Gaia wants us to.

Now, that is truly insane

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

The only sane approach is to develop energy strategies based on regional availability....multiple avenues. Lately it has been tagged the silver buckshot approach. Oil will be a part of it for the foreseeable future, but it's role should be reduced not maintained, for many reasons. Us Luddites actually want new and better technology.

There are better uses for oil than burning it.

You knuckle draggers really out to start engaging in some independent thought. Hint: the answer is not in your (edited) thousand year old book of superstitions and dogma.

We are not against change, but against meaningless, undoable, change. By shutting off any other avenues of new and better technology you are resigning us to a reduced standard of living in the future. What change do you want to see? What change would you absolutely be opposed to? I am for any change that actually works but ethanol does not, it has proven to be a fiasco, yet it is continued to be pushed as the fuel of the future. I am against those mercury lamps because, while they use less electricity they create a disposal problem that will far surpass dealing with nuclear waste. Solar power is certainly an option but not for another 20 years or more. You guys seem to want the unobtainable NOW with no regard to its feasibility or future risk just because some "environmental guru" tells you its the best thing since incantations.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

What has to be proven? It's already been proven that any type of energy will result in some kind of pollution and depletion of resources.

Obama wants to take $15 Billion a year from the taxpayers for an energy trust fund? It has been proven politicians can not develop energy. This is a fact.

Democrats offer no alternative fuels and have no expertise in developing energy. This is a fact.

Obama and Democrats want to block alternative fuels as an excuse to steal $15 Billion each year from the taxpayers.

Environmental profiteering is the greatest threat to the American people.

__________________
The United States of Indentured Servants

Its fairly obvious that your posts are a contamination to this board. Also, contamination relaeased that gets into ground water is a problem you incredibly stupid assbag. I have a suggestion for you, start thinking!

Your reading comprehension is amazingly low.

You completely ignored my words clarifying that the oil be deep enough. You also ignored my asking if the present oil is called a contaminate before it's drilled. You also ignored my words about putting oil back to the exact same place it was previously taken which nobody called a contaminate before it was removed....

What went so wrong in your life that prevents you from discussing issues and always revert to name calling?

Why does something have to be wrong with my life if I enjoy calling you names? What a stupid fucking notion. You are a moron and I like pointing that out? I don't see a problem there

Just out of curiousity, why did mercury in lamps suddenly become something dangerous? Why weren't you objecting to lamps that contain mercury in 1990, or 1980, or 1970, or 1950, or 1930? Why are you objecting now when the amount of mercury in lamps is much lower than a quarter century ago?

Off hand, you seem to be objecting to the mercury in CFLs now only because you don't like them, not because of the mercury.

And more important, if you are so opposed to mercury being released in the atmosphere, why haven't you been putting a lot more energy in booting Republcans out of Washington? They have been promoting the release of mercury by burning coal by fighting the laws mandating capture of mercury from power plant effluents.

It seems to me that CFLs are a critical stopgap to reduce mercury release into the environment until Democrats have the power to enforce the laws signed by Nixon mandating the EPA prevent release of toxic chemicals. Why do you seek to keep mercury pollution rate at the current high rates?

President Bush Signs 2007 Energy Bill
After passing both House and Senate by wide margins, President Bush has signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The act includes a number of important provisions, including the production of at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels annually, 15 billion gallons of conventional ethanol by 2015, and 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and cellulosic-derived fuels by 2022. See a summary of the production schedule for the various fuel types, from the Governor's Ethanol Coalition.

The act also establishes an innovative higher-blend ethanol retail infrastructure program with many elements of the governor's recommended City-to-Region approach.

In addition, the act establishes higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, and strengthens efficiency requirements for appliances and for government buildings. It includes a goal to completely phase out incandescent light bulbs over the next decade.

This raises many questions about Obama's energy trust fund that will take $15 Billion each year from the taxpayers. Oil companies have record profits, they can pay for their own development of alternative fuels and politicians can regulate it through legislation.

__________________
The United States of Indentured Servants

You don't see a problem with leaving it up to the oil companies to find an alternative to oil? You have got to be kidding me