http://www.americansolutions.com/

I couldn't resist.  Ownership has it's privileges. 

The oil companies presently have hundreds of thousands of acres of leased property that are sitting unused for drilling. If we were to open up all our shorelines and protected areas, it would be five to ten years before any of this oil would make its way to our economy. It would not ease our present pain at all. In fact, it is estimated that those reserves would last less than 2 1/2 years at our present rate of consumption.

We need to develop alternative fuels and not just corn. Nuclear, wind, solar etc. We need energy efficient vehicles, and less dependence on oil. The world's demand for oil grows every day, because it's a relatively inexpensive source of energy. But it's a finite product, and while we may not see the end of the well, our children might.

Our days of cheap gas are over. Many parts of the world have experienced this reality for some time. Only when it hits our pocket books do we look up and take notice. We have ignored the warnings of experts for some time now. Now we can no longer do so.

Gard

Okay, I have to start by saying that I am quite ignorant about a lot of this.  I have been reading a lot lately about drilling in the ANWR where it is said that there is enough oil to fuel America for the next 400 years.  And they would only need to drill on about 1/10 of .01% of the ANWR. 

I am all for environmental responsibility, but what about our government's fiscal responsibility to it's citizens?  We are throwing trillions of dollars at foreign countries when we could be spending that money and creating jobs right here at home.

In the coal mining regions of KY, the companies are allowed to mine for X-number of years and then must "replenish" the site with soil and indigenous trees and plants.  They have even PLANTED thistles (I have a few hundred I'd like to donate from my fence rows) and other plants to attract birds.

Maybe I am naive about all of this, but couldn't something like that work in the ANWR?

gard -you are totally wrong here.  If we had been drilling in ANWR since Bill Clinton vetoed it in 1994-'95, since 2003 -- had we begun drilling back in the mid-nineties -- one million barrels of oil would have been on the market for use by us but instead that and 85% of the coastline is off limits to oil exploration. There is no truth to the assertion that oil reserves would be depleated within a few years. Far, far from it. In the name of the environment we haven't bulit a new refinery in some 30 years,capacity is down,demand is up...the only long term solution is MORE energy, not less.

Alternative engery is myth and a huge bust. Wind and solar is extremely inefficent. Ethenol is a inferior fuel that has a lower MPG and higher polluatnts than fossil fuels.

Your arguement that drilling now won't have an immediate impact is hog wash. its that attitude that has gotten us to this point in the first place.Instead of looking toward the future and the obvious needs to of a growing ecomony and mantaining our standard of living,stupid polticians and voters sacrificed this country in the name of the enivroment. Drill now...and keep on drilling right here, right now.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2008/06/12/do_the_right_thing_start_drilling!

Much of the current rise in gas is due from speculation buyers and the knowledge from oil countries that we are "captive" markets.  Simply agreeing to increased drilling sends a message to the speculators that their prices from the current speculation will not continue, and that supply and demand will not hold up in future markets.  As many of you know, speculators buy and sell based on futures. 

It also sends a strong message to those with oil that the "golden goose" will not be around forever for them to fleece.

And yes, we CANNOT drill our way out of this, and we need alternatives so we're not captive to one form of energy like we've become accustomed.

But you have to start somewhere . . . you have to move in several directions . . . and you can't wait for perfect solutions. 

 And we can agree to disagree on this thread . . no problem.  If the powers to be had an answer, we wouldn't be in this situation.  We're all trying to find answers - and I, for one, just want to have my discontent heard - and make a positive suggestion on what we might do while we wait.

Drilling on the North Slope is a con...If you are interested check where most of the oil from Alaska actually goes...It does NOT come to US refineries...

And for what an oil company pays for an offshore lease is a JOKE...I could pay for some on my credit card and not dent my credit limit...

And when it comes to paying their fair share...Check out to see what if anything MOBIL/EXXON has ever paid for the Exxon Valdez Spill...

Hey...It worked for Hugo Chavez...

I agree with Paul. 

I believe that we will have to find a safe way to utilize more nuclear, wind, and hydro-electric power.  The europeans are way ahead of us.

Farmbabe

And a great hog wash to you. I guess our nuclear fueled power plants don't exist? Neither do the wind farms? And the solar fields are strictly our imagination? You might want to check the latest senate sub committee's report on available fuel sources. Please have a nice day.

Gard

Wind mills and solar do exist.  That's not the point.  These alternatives have a long way to go to make an immediate impact, that's all we're saying.  I can generate electricity with a hand crank, they exist too - but I don't think hand cranked generators are going to have a big impact on the U.S. energy needs anytime soon.

And when was the last nuclear plant built in the U.S.?

Dave you are right- so called alternatives do exist but its a myth they can't even start replacing our engery needs.

This from-

Junk Science: A Green Sings the Renewable Energy Blues

Monday, July 30, 2007

By Steven Milloy

'..........If you could collect the average annual rainfall of the 900,000-square-kilometer Canadian province of Ontario — about 680,000 billion liters of water — and store it behind a dam 60 meters tall, you would produce about 11,000 Megawatts of electricity — which is only about 80 percent of the output of Canada’s 25 nuclear power stations, Ausubel says.

In other words, this works out to a power production rate of 0.012 watts per square meter of land. It would take 1 square kilometer of land to provide enough electricity for about 12 Canadians, according to Ausubel, who says this inefficiency is a key reason for the reduced demand for hydroelectric power.

Biomass is an even worse renewable source of energy than hydroelectric power in terms of ecological harm.

Large-scale power generation from biomass would require that “vast areas be shaved or harvested annually,” Ausubel says. It would take 2,500 square kilometers of prime Iowa farmland to produce as much electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant.

“Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal,” Ausubel stated in a media release. “Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares.” He added.

Wind power? While it’s much less land intensive than biomass, that’s not saying much. A 770-square-kilometer area would only produce as much electricity as a single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant.

A wind farm the size of Texas would be required to extract, store and transport annual U.S. energy needs. “Every square meter of Connecticut” would have to be turned into a wind farm to provide all of New York City’s electricity demands.

Solar power is also quite a land hog. As photovoltaic cells are only 10 percent efficient and have seen no breakthroughs in 30 years, U.S. electric consumption would require a 150,000-square kilometer area of photovoltaics, plus additional land for electricity storage and retrieval.

The photovoltaic industry would have to step up its production by 600,000 times to produce the same amount of power as that generated by single 1,000 Megawatt nuclear plant...."

Drill now...

Before any more chest pounding is contemplated, please read the following link: 

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html?referer=sphere_related_content&referer=sphere_related_content

Gard

That story was tilted as far left as you can tilt a story about drilling in ANWAR, but seeing as how it came from the same folks that disrespected the Veterans of Iwo Jima, by having them hoist a tree in the air a couple months ago I can understand how they have this so wrong also. You all keep living under a tree and we will all be speaking Chinese before you know it.

Some of the post have hinted at the solution I see...

It is NOT More drilling, It is not Wind power, It is Not Nuclear, It is Not Biomass, It is Not waste fryer oil, It is not conservation, ....

It (the energy solution for us) is .....

All the above and More.  Our society needs allot of energy to provide the life style that we have become accustomed to.  The waste oil burners that crow about driving their diesel for less than a $1/ gal will cry a river if all diesel fuel was sourced from McDonald's.  There is just not enough of any single source to keep our country operating.  We should not lock away any energy source unless we want to go back to the 8th century lifestyle.  Expensive energy will create jobs and opportunities along with great pain.  Not using any of our resources will prolong the pain.

Drill more, Drill here, Drill Now!

Build nuclear plants, build them well, build them in my town. (I'd even live next to one, if they let me ride my horse around the plant)

On tonight's news was a piece about ANWR. It stated that if Congress, which is now in session  considering this proposal, approved drilling within the oil reserves today, it would take 10 (ten) years before any resulting production could be available for consumption.

How is this is going to immediately lessen our present costs?

Living near a nuclear power plant is no big deal. Because "the not in my backyard folks" have objected to any new construction, the industry's growth has stalled. I wonder if energy starved people will now reconsider.

Gard

Drill here, drill now.  Build nuke plants. Mine tar sands.  Gasify Coal.  Build wind farms off the coast of NE,  Research other energy.  Let the risk takers take the risks in hopes of getting rich.  Gov't has a terrible record of failure.  Do we want to repeat the Russian experiance? 

Do it all now!

#1 If Clinton hadn't stop them from drilling 11 years ago we would be seeing that oil now.

#2 The price of oil is not based on what's coming out of the ground today, it's speculative price based on what's going to be available in the "future" that's why it's called a "futures" market. 

Hey!! Ya can't drill just yet, UAE hasn't finished their new islands!! This is where some of your gas dollars are going. Enjoy!!

http://uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?ID=230

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lXclgws7n8

http://www.youtube.com/user/uaememories

Racing, anyone?  http://www.dubaiworldcup.com/

Watch this last one, if you don't watch anything else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3smclK8u6k

The only reason the futures market, yes those nasty speculators, is trending upward is that they feel uncomfortable about future supply.

Same effect the futures market is having with corn at this very minute.

It will be very interesting to see, if in fact Congress does reverse the ban on drilling in ANWR, how much the cost of gas drops. I'm willing to bet, that the futures market not withstanding, it will do little to effect the long term cost at the pump after the announcement. There may be a temporary spike, but our cost of gas will never be again, even close to its previous price.

We cannot drill ourselves out of more expensive energy costs, or expect them to magically go away, by trying to change the minds of speculators. We are in for some irrevocable, long term changes in our lifestyles, and all the protests to the contrary will have little affect.

Gard

Just the threat of drilling will affect prices. And for those that say it will not hit the market for 10 years....what alternative can make the needed impact much sooner? The major oil companies are meeting in Iraq for the possibility of being able to go into Iraq again...prices come down. OPEC meets...reports say demand is down...they are going to increase production...prices come down. It is all just a political game that we are having to be a spectator in. In the mean time the Democrats and Republicans argue and accomplish....NOTHING!

As far as alternatives...we are years away on those also. There is not an alternative that will have an impact now. Every available option needs to be pursued relentlessly and that includes drilling.

We are the greatest country in the world, and the most that we can get done is argue about it. So far...we are still arguing and doing nothing. And we will continue to argue and any solution is still 10 years away.

Open up the leases and drill now, build nuclear energy plants, use clean burning coal technology, build wind farms on the coasts and in the plains, more hydro, more natural gas, more everything, but DO IT NOW!

I want the car manufacturers to make cars that get better gas mileage.  I had an early Civic hatchback and then later, a MX6 sports car that both got over 40 MPG on the highway and now I can't find anything except a hybrid that gets that.  There's something wrong with this.  I've been saying for several years that I would wait until there was a car I wanted and then buy it.  I'm still waiting.  Volvo and others are bringing over the car styles that they sell in Europe (I really like the C30 but the mileage is still low) so maybe there will be a change on that front in the next few years. 

Also, China finally raised the price of fuel over there which should lessen their demand some. 

Homework work done, read it and weep...........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

You really need to quit reading that George Zoros left wing babble.

KSF ... The only thing that keeps Ford, GM et al, from selling great small cars in America is US.  WE would rather buy the SUV.  The big three have competed in Europe's small car market for generations.  But WE BUY massive gas guzzlers.  The Japanese have an advantage as their markets are totally small cars.  They had to adapt their designs to our want.  Meaning that Toyota builds a larger car for the US market.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368221,00.html

Try this one HW - and you should stop believing everything that Rush and Shawn blast out over the airwaves.

Of course we can drill ourselves out of this just as well go ourselves into this by NOT drilling!! We are America for gosh sakes- we invented higher standards of living by doing what other nations didn't,couldn't or wouldn't. We bulit the dams,highways,cities,airports,schools,hospitals..you name it-we are who we are because we took a long term approach to raising the standard of living for everyone. Now we have a serious problem brought on by people who don't want the problem solved- namely gutless, cowardly liberals ( and far too many republicans) who love a crisis since it gives them power- to tax and regulate but not to solve a problem.

Enivornmentalist have gotten it wrong everytime they proclaim yet another impending disaster, their track record is terrible yet there are some who still buy into their crap.

Lets review-1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Ok- do you get it yet? We are not running out of oil...we need to go get it. We can solve this problem, we just have get started....

Interesting reading about oil companies profits....8.5 to 9.3 cents per dollar profit...Microsoft was 27 cents per dollar profit.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/

One thing people have forgotten about is this. There is a cost of regulation.

Think about our beloved diesel fuel. EPA has mandated that diesel have no more than 15 parts per million of sulfur.

Why was the standard lowered? Because of fine particulate pollution.....soot. As somebody referenced on this site previously, it doesn't cost too awful much to get diesel below 500ppm, not much to get to 100ppm....but it costs $$$ to get below 15ppm.

They are mining coal tar in Canada...the break-even price is over $44/bbl...i.e. is oil sells for less than that it is not economical to do it...

Nuclear power has never recovered from Three Mile Island...Everyone now says go nuclear...right up until they discover they want to build the plan in their area...

Air emissions from IGCC gasification plants are far below U.S. Clean Air Standards. Sulfur removal and emissions of sulfur dioxide, NOX and carbon monoxide are far below normal coal fired power plants, incinerators, combustors and most other gasifiers. However, they still contribute significantly to the "greenhouse effect" because all the gases they emit are new greenhouse gases.

I have heard elsewhere that people want a "Manhatten Project" effort on this problem...The very people who ask for this have NO CLUE as to what the TOTAL COST of the ORIGINAL MAHATTEN PROJECT WAS!!!...$5.00/gallon gas is cheap in comparison......The SUPERFUND SITES in WA and CO are still being paid for by the US Government and will be for QUITE A LONG TIME

Unfortunately, The only legitimate short term solution is CONSERVATION...

 For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

absolutely correct!!!

Soooo...what difference does that make?...

 For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

Unfortunately, The only legitimate short term solution is CONSERVATION.

Paul, you're exactly correct.  Conservation is the answer, not just finding more and more to whet the appetites of those who want cheap fossil fuels to consume in their Hummer so they can high roll.

Conservation is the answer............. and $4.00 a gallon gas is encouraging the conservation, it's a shame that we overweight, rude, entitled Americans are forced into conservation by the price of gas, but it's true.

Maybe the friggin dumba*ses that we sent to DC can come up with an energy plan that will force us to conserve without a payment plan, but Osama-Bama is just going to tax us until we can't pay for gas anymore, and that in turn will cause us to conserve.

What about ANWR - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? The controversy rages. As of today, there is no known oil in ANWR - it can't be known until the rocks are drilled. The U.S. Geological Survey, using sophisticated estimation techniques that factor in the geology and other "knowns," gives a best guess for the amount of oil that MAY be in ANWR at 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That sounds like a lot, but it's less than Prudhoe Bay contained. At about 13 billion barrels, Prudhoe was the largest oil field in North America, but most of its oil has been produced. In contrast, the world's largest oil field, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, contained about 85 billion barrels, with much remaining.

That guesstimate of 10.4 billion barrels in ANWR works out to 520 days' supply at our current rate of consumption. But in reality, even if it's there, it won't be produced in a whoosh. Any oil will take years to come on-stream, and will be produced over a period of perhaps 20 years. A reasonable production rate over that time would be one million barrels per day - just 5% of today's 20 Mb/d consumption. Given that our rate of consumption is increasing by 4% to 5% each year, all the possible oil in ANWR would do nothing but help keep pace with demand growth. Helpful, but no panacea.

Paul I agree with most of what you say, but how about we take another look at this "helpful" idea.

If there was an older gentleman who had his arms full of supplies and he was trying to go inside of a building and you happened to be standing there, would you just stand there and watch him struggle with the door? Or would you try and be "helpful" and open it for him?

The higher cost will make us think about conservation. It does me!  And at the higher cost it makes the oil companies think about the alternatives. At some point some of our other energy resource become viable. The Oil Shale and Tar sands in the Green River Formation of Utah/Colorado are said to hold 1.2 to 1.8 Trillion Barrels of oil. They just need to spend the money to develop an economical  recovery method to get it.

Just out of college 30 years ago, I worked for a company that developed a jet engine that ran on powdered coal. Basically coal that was pulverized in a form similar to graphite powder.  The jet engine ran just fine on that fuel. It is not practical to fly a plane on coal because of the weight. But it had other viable uses. The turbine shaft produced electricity and the exhaust produced heat which was used to make steam. One small engine could produce the electrial and heating needs for remote manufacturing plant.

As resources become scares or econmomically out of reach, people will find and perfect other solutions.

A million extra barrels a day WITHOUT Conservation would be status quo...the price of oil will NOT go down, because OIL is NOT a DOMESTIC COMMODITY, but a WORLD COMMODITY, and WORLD DEMAND is/WAS(?) increasing...(This could be under review as currently ALL Indian Airlines are about to go broke, due to RAPIDLY INCREASING fuel costs, high level meeting are going on as we speak...)

If you look at the multi-national oil companies...there are NOT many that are purely U.S. corporations anymore...they sell to the highest bidder...whether that be the U.S., China, India, whoever...

Short of a massive recession or worse a depression Gasoline will never go below $3.00/gallon...

The real sad end to this story would be to do the exploratory drillings and then discover there is less oil there than originally anticipated...

Why would that be so sad?...........To use 2,000 of 19million acres in an effort to find and capture a resource that is so desperately needed is not "SAD" it's "SMART".

An unfolded newspaper represents the 19million acres, A Capital "O", in the type, on the paper represents the 2000 acres. The friggin moose will go find another place to romance his gals.

Regardless of every conservation measure we incorporate, or every drilling we conduct, the price of energy and the durable goods it effects, will never again be at the low rates we once had. Because energy is sold in a global market, and we are only one of its purchasers, we have to pay the going price as dictated by the various countries all vying for the same product.

Any financial relief and lowering of the costs by new drilling. will not be measured in dollars, it will be in cents per gallon. By then, the additional costs of the goods we consume, will have exceeded any energy savings.

We are at the beginning of a new era in the costs of living. Personal conservation is one of the most affective means to save money. Many new sources of energy involve more energy to produce than they offer in benefits. A new, cheap resource is not yet available. We have to adapt or we will fail.

Gard

Probably what they think when the IH4400 comes by because we left late and we are running 80.

Here's some interesting technology that may have merit. Don't know how big a GN it would tow or the pin weight on the rear axle. Don't think it comes in a dually, and forget the aroma of diesel.

   http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

Gard

Even with this oil prices went up...which reinforces the fact that world demand has INCREASED!!!

Oil minister: Saudi willing to increase crude output

This makes for interesting reading...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/24/enron-loophole-keeps-oil-speculation-unleashed/

  With all due respect to the different opinions that have been expressed here....as one who's been around quite a while(I'm nearly 67), I believe gard has it pretty well pegged. I do not believe that energy prices will ever go 'back down' by much, and that the only thing that *might* really help is to learn to be much more conservative. Of course, that would mean that Americans, many of whom, in my observation, feel very 'entitled' and are very 'spoiled' to doing whatever they please, would actually have to think of someone besides themselves on an ongoing basis. I'd be very pleasantly surprised to see that happen, but am not going to hold my breath! Example: try driving at around 55-60 on the interstate...it is WELL documented that that speed gives the best gas mileage, but... clearly, most drivers are just too damned important for it to take THEM a bit longer to get where they are going....it would just be too much of a 'sacrifice' to allow more time to get there, I guess. One wonders how we EVER survived in previous times?? (If I sound disgusted, it is because I AM...) I have been around long enough to be QUITE sure that the world wouldn't screech to a halt if the pace slowed down a bit...but I am in a distinct minority, I guess...a driver passed me on a double yellow line yesterday, after I had the audacity to pull onto the highway from my side road when (it turned out to be a 'she'!)was less than a mile away, and I didn't 'stomp' on my accelerator for a 'jackrabbit' takeoff(as do most drivers nowadays; can you say "WORSE gas mileage?")...then when we got up to the shiney new 4 lane section,I  could see her flailing her hands and posturing because she got behind a VERY cautious driver in a section where ongoing 'construction' had traffic down to a single lane per side....and where was she headed in such an all-consuming hurry? Why, to the new WALMART, of course!

I agree about ethanol--what a boondoggle, with the gov't, in usual manner, 'falling for' an 'answer to our problems' that just 'ain't so'. No, I suppose I don't blame the farmers who are getting much bigger prices for their crop, but.....

I believe we DO, as a society, need to GET WITH IT in development of a VARIETY of alternatives! Some will work one place, others, better in another situation--but NONE will work if we don't get busy and 'make' them do so!

(Ironic that the last link cited concerned yet another wonderful 'gift' to our society from the CROOKS at ENRON....)

Flame away if you must; I've spent long hours outdoors in my life, and my ole hide is tough!

Margo in New Mexico(again, burning...we need RAIN!)

This may have been posted here already, some scary stuff...More info on population growth....

http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm

I think that was well written, and very informative. Without a political tilt.

Great read. Very informative.

Conservation is key. No question about it. We should be concerned about the enviroment. Although I can remember everyone saying that we were starting into our next ice age when I was a kid. 20-30 years later we have global warming. I guess what I am getting at is this...I don't believe that the warming is only being caused by us. That being said... Alternative fuels of some kind are going to break through. But fossil fuels are still around to stay for quite a while longer. If we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 1% or 99% why don't we do it? Drill here. Create jobs. That boosts our economy. That will bring the value of our dollar back up. And that will bring oil prices back down. And while doing that...work on alternative fuels and other types of power. But realize...even once alternatives are perfected, it isn't an overnight change. We are still years and years away from being indepedent from oil.

Actually the saying goes like this.  "Two of the best times to plant a tree are 20 years ago . . and today."

But your point is well taken.  We can't keep pondering our options . .. we have to start doing something.

Just got back from a week long family reunion in Florida and am absorbing all the information in this particular post.

First comment/thought/opinion: biggest lesson learned from my years as a journalist (before going to law school so i could earn a decent 'wage') was that every article, every newscast, etc may rely on facts, but those facts get so very skewed even when the writer diligently tries to stick "to the facts".  which is to say: all those articles and information cited should not be blindly accepted as 'the truth'.  each article may have some good points to consider, but don't bet your life on any of those articles being totally on point.  (my years as an attorney have taught me not to believe anything anyone says...almost!)

Second thought: i agree that conservation is one answer that we can all take part in and we can all start TODAY.  we used our old diesel ford excursion to drive the 14 hour trip to Florida.  but there were six of us (and at times i felt like a jumbo jet wouldn't have been big enough to keep the peace between the kids!).  but now that we are home, the driver's in our family swallow our "coolness" and share our VW jetta (diesel) which gets 45 mpg...seriously.  it has taken us awhile to get used to driving that small vehicle, esp since most of our driving is on I10, getting passed by numerous 18 wheelers, esp when we were all used to driving trucks.  WE WOULD NEVER HAVE BOUGHT THIS SMALL 'BORING' CAR until the high fuel prices forced us to find a way to conserve...our money.    the only way americans are going to actually get anything accomplished or change their habits is when they are affected directly, which usually means the pocketbook. 

so, we can argue all day about how much fuel is laying beneath us, which political party did or didn't do something they should or shouldn't have, etc and by the end of the day, it is very doubtful any of us is any closer to getting 100% of our facts correct.  but everyone of us can do a little bit toward conserving what we do have, not wasting our resources. so when i finish my bottle of merlot, i will recycle that glass container....

The issue isn't a lack of oil. There is PLENTY of it. Environmentalist have been predicting we'd run out since the 70's. These people have been proven wrong time and time again yet people still buy into them. There is NO Global Warming. None. Period.NADA. The earth has been in cooling and warming cylces from the start....mankind and our presence has had no effect, ill or otherwise, on this planet. In fact- one of the last warming periods came before the industrial revolution. Before AC,areisol cans,CFC's, internal combustion engines. We have no control over hurricans,tornadas,blizzards and yet somehow our daily lives as amercians can warm the earth just like that? Silliness.

Back to oil- face it, its the lifeblood of our ecomony and I for one am not ashamed if it.There is nothing wrong with it. Its just a fact of life and if we like having nice cars,warm homes,cooked food and a job to make it happen, then we have to get over this idea that somehow we can live without oil or live with less. We don't have to develope other sources. The problem can be solved in a snap ( figuratively speaking since I know its a long term outlook) if we wanted to. Another fact- this is a political problem. As long as we have politicans making the laws that reatrd the development of oil feilds, both on and off shore, we will have a dependence on where ever the oil comes from ( right now our biggest source of oil comes from canada and mexico) As long as we have politicans beholden to the wacky environmental left we won't have cheap and plentiful fuels even if we manage to develope alternative fuels ( oh and look where that has gotten us)

Wow. I guess the fact that the north pole will be water instead of ice this summer is incorrect. And since the industrial revolution, the co2 we're producing has no affect on the environment, the overpopulation of some areas doesn't contribute to pollution, the clear cutting of forests in some countries doesn't actually affect the weather patterns, that the large masses of corral that has died won't affect the sea life, that the species we've driven to extinction won't affect mankind? Love Canal didn't exist, superfund sites are fabrications, China doesn't have the worse pollution of the developed nations which is causing major health concerns. There was no Chernobyl, and the radiation didn't really kill thousands, The Exxon Valdez was really a schooner sailed by Ted Kennedy, and all the lawyers and courts are just making things up.

How many more paragraphs of examples to you have time to read?

mankind and our presence has had no effect, ill or otherwise, on this planet.

Please. Where can I buy the rose coloured glasses that you wear?

Gard

Once again ole Gard tries to convince someone of something with a bunch of "babble",

1. What does Chernobyl have to do with global warming?

2. What does the Exxon Valdez have to do with global warming?

3. By the way big guy, China's trash doesn't have anything to do with global warming.

But as usual, the facts don't matter if your a left wing tree hugging wackjob does it? Have you ever heard of sun spots? Did you know there are a lack of them now? How about the sun not sitting on a true axis(wobble), ever heard of that? Probley not............wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your "babble" would we. Now as far as the Artic Seas melting I guess all those people on the coast should run to higher ground because you wackjobs said/believe that the melting of the Artic seas is going to flood the coastlines.

This earth has went through incredible changes in the last million or so years, the Grand Canyon used to be a lake. The Rocky Mountains were formed beneath a glacier. The fertile soils of the heartland were deposited when the waters recided from the melting of the last ice age. We have been able to see some "changes" to this earth in our lifetimes, but nothing as incredible as what has "truely" happened in the history of the earth.

The last decade has seen the earth's average temperature drop .6 of a degree, that erases the last 110 years of warming that had been happening, but that's OK, the wackjobs can't let the truth mess up their story. By the way the CO emmissions you all always want to talk about........... the largest offenders of CO emmissions is cattle, and when they release it, it smells about as bad as your story on "global warming".

lets be clear- the so called sciencists only predicted the ice will melt over the pole. Its hasn't melted at all- yet another silly prediction from people known to be wrong- FACT-according to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and Dr. Spencer said, "I saw that story.  There's a 50% chance the North Pole would be ice-free this summer?  I'd like to take those odds.  If anybody would bet me a thousand dollars, I would take those odds." And then he said, "Let me show you this.  The latest chart shows the Arctic has more sea ice right now than this time last year.  You can compare the beginning and end of the one-year plots because they got the chart here.  The black curve would have to go all the way to the zero line in order for this to happen, and it ain't going to happen." "...The ice area here is measured in million square kilometers, and at its least last summer in September and October of 2007, it was at about three million square kilometers.  As we speak, in June of 2008, it is at about ten million square kilometers."

Read this Gard and understand- environmentalist have a really bad track record in the prediction department.

Show me eveidence that clear cutting tress has affected the weather patterns- please...ok I'll save you the trouble. It hasn't. There is no globla warming- there is no science to prove it, there are not facts to back it up. Its all a myth,a lie,a hoax. All based on a computer model and has been proven wrong by real science.

If you really want to learn something read this-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192544,00.html

Now I will state some things I feel strongly about,

We do need to find an alternative fuel source..........soon.

The stuff we put in the air is not good for us............

I enjoy flowers and fruit bearing trees, and I own both.

I drive the most fuel effiencient car I own for most of the miles I drive.......... I will not buy(spend) more on another car that will only marginally increase my miles per gallon.

I think that the carbon offset deal is a hoax/scam for someone/politician, just follow the cash.

It's all about supply and demand, just like the horse business right now. With oil/fuel we need to use less and drill for more. With Horses we need to produce less and expand the market. It is really that simple, no matter how complicated everyone wants to make it.

"Global Warming" is nothing other than a "Climate Change" this earth has been experiencing since the begining of time. Liberals/Treehuggers just hate the things that they are unable to "control or tax".

I would clarify this statement as Anthropologically caused global warming.

(Otherwise known as human caused global warming.)

There has been global warming and cooling cycles for longer than we humans have had industrial processes.  Our current use of fossil fuel is merely releasing solar energy captured by the Earth over a millennia.  Its release is like burning a candle in a room.  There is some heat input to the room, but it is insignificant to the wood stove input, also known as the Sun

Once again HW casts his lot, opening his mouth without reading the facts . The statement I was referring to was "mankind and his presence has had no effect, ill or other wise on this planet." Then HW comes out with these gems:

Those glasses are even better than I thought.

 Here's some ideas to consider:   http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0103-

pollution.html

Another one:  http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2010

HW Bar Gard ... Please refrain from personal attacks.  That's a sure way to get a discussion thread locked. (and deservingly so) 

I would like to use this forum for a civil discussion.  Some of the comments have merit and I would amplify on some of them. 

Let's keep to the facts as we know them and provide sources for further info.

Hosspuller

When someone continually jumps on my back because he has a lack of manners, it gets a little annoying. I will turn the other cheek as I previously have done so,so many times. But I will not roll over and play dead. HW's  ignorance and actions are overwhelming and greatly reduces the enjoyment that this forum has to offer.

I sincerely hope that Dave finally does do something to alleviate this continual problem. It is now many months old, and until now, I have said nothing of HW in spite of his many outbursts and personal attacks against me. I notice that until I retaliated, no mention was made of his continual bad behavior.

You and everyone else who is as fed up with this situation as I am, can do something about it. Whenever a posting is made, in which aspersions are made and it is a blatant violation of the forum rules, click on the "report to moderator" box at the end of the thread. Voice your objection to the thread that offends you. If enough people did this, perhaps Dave will take charge and the people who continually hijack these threads with their foul language and personal attacks will stop acting like idiots.

In the mean time, I don't feel like being the personal punching bag for this idiot, and I will say whatever is necessary to alleviate the problem. I hope Dave does shut this down, it certainly has gone on far too long.

Gard

Gard:  You will notice I addressed both of parties.  One handed clapping is just a lot of wasted motion.  When two hands are involved, noise is generated.

Back to the discussion...  Is CO2 a product of global warming or is it the cause of global warming??

The answer is critical for our future direction and economy (Way of life too)

Yada/Babble...............Yada/Babble................Yada/Babble.............

Of course you have done nothing wrong, you are always so polite in your attacks, I'm sorry O' great one. Just go back and read who started the personal attacks please.

Well............weather patterns are in a cooling stage now, and we are still emitting CO2 so it's not causing "climate change" and CO2 has been around for millions of years, so I don't see how it can be a product of "climate change". I think if you look towards the sun you will find the answer to the "climate change" phenom.

Tx ... I can't remember who was the first, but the oil production decline in the USA has been well documented as "Peak oil"  The new question is "has peak oil been reached globally"?.

I think not. (I have no professional credibility in this field)  The only reason I have is the increase in oil price.  As the price of oil increases, the amount of Economically recoverable oil also increases.  Countering this trend is the increased conservation.  Somewhere in between is the steady state rate of recovery.

Witness the tar sands of Canada.  When a barrel of oil could be pumped from Saudi Arabia for $3, the Tar sands were worthless.  At $140 per barrel, there's a boom in Alberta.

High Prices makes the impossible merely difficult.

I would bet the oil produced in Tx stays in Texas refineries.  Then,  it goes to the world markets.  More importantly, the money paid for the Texas oil goes to Texans not Saudis.  (unless the Saudis have bought Texas oil land)

The person was making their own statement, Gard, and voicing their opinion.  Which is what this thread was about until you said "WOW" and drew conclusionary statements of fact that no one had mention before - just so you could then have a stronger position to claim she was wearing rose colored glasses.

If you disagree that is fine . . . but please, if you single out a poster, set the stage with statements that were not made - then . . cast the first stone - don't be surprised if you get some backlash.

I for one, will NOT less this turn into a Sunday night brawl, and I'm sorry.  It was a good thread till the personal attacks.