However if the Dems had not blocked all access to that oil it would now be available and it is pureley speculation to say it would have had no effect. We are now paying for the shortsightedness of the Clinton administration in regards to this.

 

One could just as easily say that we are now paying for the shortsightedness of the Bush White House, which made absolutely no attempt to develop alternative energy technologies to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil following 9/11. Even if the trickle of oil from ANWR were now flowing (and it would be a trickle), we'd still be paying through the nose to line the pockets of people all over the Middle East who hate us.

It's not just ANWR, it's off shore and in the Rocky Mountains.

 

I also very firmly believe that if there were other VIABLE alternatives to oil they would have been found by now.

 

The bottom line is that we as a society are very dependent on oil and we need to develop our own supply.

It's not just ANWR, it's off shore and in the Rocky Mountains.

 

How much oil is off shore and in the Rocky Mountains (first time I've heard that one)? Does any recognized energy expert believe the sum of those potential sources would make a dent in our imports from the Middle East?

 

 

I also very firmly believe that if there were other VIABLE alternatives to oil they would have been found by now.

 

That's a little like saying, in 1960, that if it was viable to put a man on the moon it would have been done by now.

 

 

The bottom line is that we as a society are very dependent on oil and we need to develop our own supply.

 

If supplies run out and we haven't developed alternatives, do we just say "oops" and then start riding horses?

No becaue that would cheese PETA off.

 

I don't know how much of a dent developing domistic supplies would make but I do know that sitting in the ground they are making none and as you so astutely poined out, the Dems have done such a good job of stopping their production that even if they suddenly come to their senses it will be years before we know how much of an impact they will have. I would rather see a small dent then none at all.

ANWR is estimated to provide 5% of our daily need. That doesn't sound like much until you consider that 67% of our oil is imported. The Dakota shale-oil find could also be huge. But that could be years down the road.

You've been one of the most vocal on lack of governmental action. What would you want to see the government do?

It doesn't matter what I say they should do you, or another will say why that can't be done but noone else seems to think anything can or should be done.

One could just as easily say that we are now paying for the shortsightedness of the Bush White House, which made absolutely no attempt to develop alternative energy technologies to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil following 9/11. Even if the trickle of oil from ANWR were now flowing (and it would be a trickle), we'd still be paying through the nose to line the pockets of people all over the Middle East who hate us.

I agree with you very much on this issue, but I find a difference here.

 

I am a big proponent of the free market. The free market wanted to drill but government did not allow it- where we find fault with the Dems. On the other hand, the free market was obviously NOT ready for alternative fuels (because the price of gasoline had not outrisen the price of the alternative's) but you are saying that it is to blame on shortsightedness. I honestly believe that with less government intervention we'd be in much better shape right now.

Honda announces hybrid models that will cost only $1900 more than standard (non-hybrid) versions. Honda is rolling out a dedicated hybrid to compete with the Prius early next year.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24763128/