Was that not the system that oversaw such a dramatic increase in the price of oil over the last decade? What would change the next time oil prices rise this high so that a smooth transition could be made to alternatives?

Prices did not rise slowly and predictably. They have increased rapidly, in part I believe because of this country's deliberate policies to increase reliance on foreign oil.

 

Over the long term, we do not have enough oil reserves to prevent prices from rising but we do have adequate reserves to help moderate the pace of increases. We also have abundant coal, natural gas, and oil shale reserves. No economic energy source should be excluded from development. Obama is advocating restricting oil supplies and I have not heard him advocate increased production of other fossil fuels. Not only does Obama advocate restricting supplies of fossil fuels, he also supports a windfall profits tax that will result in further gasoline price increases.

 

Restricting supplies of proven energy sources while planning a switch to energy sources that are not currently viable is a gamble that this country cannot afford to take.

Maybe Obama's campaign should have been more direct on their claim of Sen. McCain being tied to big oil and Cheney.

 

In May Sen. McCain said:

 

"[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said when asked about offshore drilling. "We are going to have to go to alternative energy, and the exploitation of existing reserves of oil, natural gas, even coal, and we can develop clean coal technology, are all great things. But we also have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html

 

A few weeks later:

 

"I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use," he said on Tuesday, "as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production."

 

What happened in those weeks to make him change his mind?

 

A cynic would say that he knew that such a change would result in this:

 

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php

 

"The Washington Post reported last week that campaign contributions from oil industry execs rose in a big way in the last half of June, after McCain drew a huge amount of attention by reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling."

 

$285k and counting for his reversal.

 

Hmmm...

 

Talk about an expensive flip flop! :lol:

Restricting supplies of proven energy sources while planning a switch to energy sources that are not currently viable is a gamble that this country cannot afford to take.

 

Sure, I agree. But, increasing domestic oil production to lower the price, if anything, will reduce the incentive or desire to produce viable alternatives. In a few years we will essentially be in the same situation as now, or worse, with no more oil to fall back on. I do not consider that a hand worth playing.

Sure, I agree. But, increasing domestic oil production to lower the price, if anything, will reduce the incentive or desire to produce viable alternatives. In a few years we will essentially be in the same situation as now, or worse, with no more oil to fall back on. I do not consider that a hand worth playing.

I don't believe that we can produce enough oil domestically to decrease prices significantly over the long term. The best we can do is stabilize the prices and reduce the long term rate of increase.

 

Nobody that I know is opposed to developing alternative energy sources. I would love to have an affordable roof-size solar panel that would take me off of the power grid but that is not likely to be an option in the 10-year time frame that Obama discusses.

 

The next big breakthrough in energy is just as likely to come out of left field as it is from one of the technologies being promoted by today's politicians.

Desperate times call for desperate acts I suppose and Obama is looking pretty desperate to me.

 

Your constant need to describe Senator Obama as desperate strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to denigrate the Obama campaign. Keep trrying. There is a chance that with the 4,287,491 anti Obama threads you've started (I may be a little off in my count. There have been a lot.)you may find something real. Blind pigs and acorns you know.

I don't believe that we can produce enough oil domestically to decrease prices significantly over the long term. The best we can do is stabilize the prices and reduce the long term rate of increase.

 

Nobody that I know is opposed to developing alternative energy sources. I would love to have an affordable roof-size solar panel that would take me off of the power grid but that is not likely to be an option in the 10-year time frame that Obama discusses.

 

The next big breakthrough in energy is just as likely to come out of left field as it is from one of the technologies being promoted by today's politicians.

 

 

 

PepRock is just going to mention something here:

 

 

 

PEBBLE BED REACTORS!

 

Actually I know many people on here are on my side there.

 

I feel as though if we re-invested in pebble bed reactors and used the excess coal that is saved by no longer needing it for powerstation to liquify into fuel we would be doing better across the board for right now.

 

All the while use further research into something to power our future for cars and the like.

PepRock is just going to mention something here:

 

 

 

PEBBLE BED REACTORS!

 

Actually I know many people on here are on my side there.

 

I feel as though if we re-invested in pebble bed reactors and used the excess coal that is saved by no longer needing it for powerstation to liquify into fuel we would be doing better across the board for right now.

 

All the while use further research into something to power our future for cars and the like.

:thumb: You have sold me on the pebble bed reactors and I agree with you 100% on coal liquifaction. The only potential downside of tapping coal for gasoline is that we might be drive oil prices below the cost of liquifying the coal. I think that fear is holding back the development of clean coal technology.

Your constant need to describe Senator Obama as desperate strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to denigrate the Obama campaign. Keep trrying. There is a chance that with the 4,287,491 anti Obama threads you've started (I may be a little off in my count. There have been a lot.)you may find something real. Blind pigs and acorns you know.

People resort to personal attacks when they know that the merits of their position will not withstand close scrutiny.

People resort to personal attacks when they know that the merits of their position will not withstand close scrutiny.

 

At least now we have an explanation for your constant personal attacks on Senator Obama.

At least now we have an explanation for your constant personal attacks on Senator Obama.

:lol: Pretty clever - but I have made no attacks on Obama that have not been backed with facts, which is more than one can say about Obama's energy plan. And unlike the Obama pep section (included the "undecided" voters), I have often been very critical of the candidate for whom I will be voting in November.

A windfall profits tax will drive energy prices upward just like it did the last time such a tax was imposed. A sensible policy is one that increases domestic supplies of oil to keep prices stable and allows technology to provide alternatives as oil prices rise with increased demand.

 

:

 

We agree on the effects of windfall profits tax. However, Sen. McCain isn't convinced as we hear from June 2008.

 

McCain's reversal could have nothing to do with polls showing Americans overwhelmingly in support of offshore drilling could it? Nah, of course not. He is a Republican - there has to be some conspiracy afoot involving evil American corporations. :lol:

 

Desperate times call for desperate acts I suppose and Obama is looking pretty desperate to me.

 

Raise your hands, folks, if you think the first person screaming about payola would be AcesFull if this had been Obama getting a windfall in donations from a big oil company instead of Sen. McCain.

Raise your hands, folks, if you think the first person screaming about payola would be AcesFull if this had been Obama getting a windfall in donations from a big oil company instead of Sen. McCain.

Obama has been getting large contributions from the oil industry, albeit not as large as McCain's, and Obama's position has been "evolving." Is their a link between Obama's shifting position and oil money or only in McCain's case? I really want to hear opinions from the perspective of an undecided voter. :lol:

We agree on the effects of windfall profits tax. However, Sen. McCain isn't convinced as we hear from June 2008.

 

 

Aces, no comment on this one?

Obama has been getting large contributions from the oil industry, albeit not as large as McCain's, and Obama's position has been "evolving." Is their a link between Obama's shifting position and oil money or only in McCain's case? I really want to hear opinions from the perspective of an undecided voter. :lol:

 

You're the one that said Obama shifts with the voting wind. I'm simply pointing out that, unfortunately, its politics and its played very well by the one for change and the Maverick.