Agreed. I love the free market. Guess what? Those Democrats sure love tariffs, quotas, and other things that hinder free trade. You think those Japanese cars, bought for the efficiency, would have made it to the market with some big time taxes on imports? No way.

 

Say it with me. In the Free Market we trust. I'm telling you, alternative fuels will come when alternative fuels are practical. I want more drilling and I want tax credits for alternative fuel research. I want both sides to make concessions.

 

:thumb:

:thumb:

 

How about fair market? Those tariffs are to protect the American workers and to attempt to get some foreign governments to have a better approach to human rights.

 

Back to the original point, if everything is based on a "free market" approach, if we drill in the US and oil prices drop then we have eliminated the incentive to have more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy.

 

Detroit isn't making more fuel efficient cars b/c Japan is, they are making more fuel efficient cars b/c the American people have quit buying the F150. They may instead by a Taurus. There is no "good red-blooded American" who is going to drive a sissy Prius.

As long as Americans are comfortable with the price of oil there will be no incentive to go after alternative fuel sources. It is only when it becomes uncomfortable that we do something about it.

 

This is very true. The folks who are saying "why can't we have cheap oil/gas AND research into alternative fuels?" seem to be forgetting that research costs money and replacing an entire energy infrastructure with another isn't free either. Without either a market-based incentive (i.e. high gas prices) -or- heavy government funding (an idea which gets routinely blasted around here), this research will never happen and replacement of our current energy infrastructure will certainly never happen.

 

We will be forever dependent on the middle east for energy.

This from another thread:

 

Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.

 

Let's see - the Dems won't allow drilling in coastal waters; while the Republicans won't extend tax breaks to those developing alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

Looks like there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

:thumb:

We will be forever dependent on the middle east for energy.

 

As long as we don't expand our own production, you are correct.

Agreed. I love the free market. Guess what? Those Democrats sure love tariffs, quotas, and other things that hinder free trade. You think those Japanese cars, bought for the efficiency, would have made it to the market with some big time taxes on imports? No way.

 

Say it with me. In the Free Market we trust. I'm telling you, alternative fuels will come when alternative fuels are practical. I want more drilling and I want tax credits for alternative fuel research. I want both sides to make concessions.

 

 

I can live with this. :thumb:

The more you feed it, the bigger it grows.

 

Because of rising gas prices, FINALLY the Ford F150 is no longer the best selling American vehicle. People have moved away from SUVs that they don't need but that bring status. Why do rich soccer moms need an H2?

 

I have an Odyssey and I am looking at a hybrid Highlander with the 3rd row seat b/c I haul a bunch of kids around. Without the soaring prices I would not be bothered by my 20 mpg.

 

As long as Americans are comfortable with the price of oil there will be no incentive to go after alternative fuel sources. It is only when it becomes uncomfortable that we do something about it.

The F150 may have been the best selling full size truck but I'm pretty sure it isn't the best selling vehicle.

How about fair market? Those tariffs are to protect the American workers and to attempt to get some foreign governments to have a better approach to human rights.

 

Back to the original point, if everything is based on a "free market" approach, if we drill in the US and oil prices drop then we have eliminated the incentive to have more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy.

 

Detroit isn't making more fuel efficient cars b/c Japan is, they are making more fuel efficient cars b/c the American people have quit buying the F150. They may instead by a Taurus. There is no "good red-blooded American" who is going to drive a sissy Prius.

That just isn't true. GM had an electric car on the market like 9 years ago.

That just isn't true. GM had an electric car on the market like 9 years ago.

 

It is not an effective/efficient means of transportation, the Prius is.

It is not an effective/efficient means of transportation, the Prius is.

My post was more in response to you saying Detriot is only looking at alternatives because no one is buying the F150. Had nothing to do with what you assumed about the Prius. And actually the electric car I am talking about was an effective means of transportation. It was just too expense as it was.

I take it from some of the responses that there are some of you who agree that the current gas prices are O.K. because they are forcing us to make lifestyle changes. You also feel it is O.K. that the legislature is doing nothing about alternative fuel technologies becuase you believe we need to make lifestyle changes before we begin to look at alternative fuel technologies. Have I fairly stated it?

My thoughts are we need to do everything possible to become energy independent. That means start sinking wells now, give the tax credits for alternative research, build refinerys and/or nuclear plants.

I take it from some of the responses that there are some of you who agree that the current gas prices are O.K. because they are forcing us to make lifestyle changes. You also feel it is O.K. that the legislature is doing nothing about alternative fuel technologies becuase you believe we need to make lifestyle changes before we begin to look at alternative fuel technologies. Have I fairly stated it?

 

you are parially correct. I feel the legislature should be doing something since they are the "leaders". I do feel that we need to make some lifestyle changes as well.

you are parially correct. I feel the legislature should be doing something since they are the "leaders". I do feel that we need to make some lifestyle changes as well.

 

Maybe the "leaders" should step in and tell us what we can and can't do in more aspects of our lives? After all they are our leaders?

I take it from some of the responses that there are some of you who agree that the current gas prices are O.K. because they are forcing us to make lifestyle changes. You also feel it is O.K. that the legislature is doing nothing about alternative fuel technologies becuase you believe we need to make lifestyle changes before we begin to look at alternative fuel technologies. Have I fairly stated it?

 

 

I think current gas prices are a bitter pill to swallow, but in the end will help to cure the disease. This is about energy security, and therefore national security. We can drill in ANWR or offshore all we want and we're not going to find enough to break our dependency on Middle Eastern oil. There just isn't enough oil there to make a dent in our reliance on Saudia Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria et al. That is just the cold hard truth. Unless we want to be fighting wars over oil supplies for the next 50 years (the cost of which will make an $80 tank of gas seem like chicken feed), we should take bold steps to ensure that we aren't at the mercy of the oil countries. Drilling here is not going to solve the problem--it may just put off the reckoning for another day and if it does, it will surely undercut the market forces supporting the development and implementation of non-oil alternatives.

 

My motivation is very selfish--I have two young sons and I don't want them fighting in a war 15 years from now because we lacked the fortitude to develop a long-term solution.