How do the liberals or Democrats on this board view oil prices?

[MenInTights]

Originally Posted by fleinn

..you are so getting negative rep for that one. (*no! Nasty imagination! Away!)

..................................

oops..Lennon should be saying imagine not image...he has trouble spelling since he died

[Kazmarov]

I view oil prices as high. I think it's the punishment we get for our outrageous urban sprawl, total lack of public transportation, and inability after the 1973 oil embargo to realize that domestic renewable energy was the way to go.

We have vacant, sunny states, thrashing tides, a ****load of arable land, windy hills, and geothermal vents, and people say what we need is more oil? The benefits of domestic drilling would take years to kick in, making it no more sensible than simply cranking up solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, or cellulostic ethanol production tenfold. We dug ourselves into a hole. Let's fix the problem rather than delay the inevitable.

[Hi_Im_Tim]

We have vacant, sunny states, thrashing tides, a ****load of arable land, windy hills, and geothermal vents, and people say what we need is more oil? The benefits of domestic drilling would take years to kick in, making it no more sensible than simply cranking up solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, or cellulostic ethanol production tenfold. We dug ourselves into a hole. Let's fix the problem rather than delay the inevitable.

The problem is that the environmentalist won't let us put up solar panels because it effects the lizards and snakes. We can't do tidal energy because it messes up the fish. Here is the environmentalists problem with wind power. Here is the environmentalists problem with geothermal energy. Here is the environmentalists problem with cellulosic ethanol.

So what kind of power is left to use. I view environmentalism like I view Nazism and Communism....BAD!

[Kazmarov]

The problem is that the environmentalist won't let us put up solar panels because it effects the lizards and snakes. We can't do tidal energy because it

messes up the fish. Here is the environmentalists problem with wind power. Here is the environmentalists problem with geothermal energy. Here is the environmentalists problem with cellulosic ethanol.

You cited different enviromentalist organizations for each one. These are fringe elements, not a consensus.

Enviromentalism is great, I love it. However, to say that 'heartland.org' is somehow synonymous with the contemporary enviromentalist movement is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represents Protestantism. There will be no serous issues with putting up alternative energy sources. A handful of complaining enviromentalists haven't done much for social change in most cases--only a large popular movement is of merit in effecting national policy.

My point still stands.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by Hi_Im_Tim

The problem is that the environmentalist won't let us put up solar panels because it effects the lizards and snakes. We can't do tidal energy because it messes up the fish. Here is the environmentalists problem with wind power. Here is the environmentalists problem with geothermal energy. Here is the environmentalists problem with cellulosic ethanol.

There are drawbacks and upsides to everything. To say that environmentalists oppose something, you should really have evidence that the majority of people who care about the enviroment oppose it. Otherwise, it would be equally fair to say that conservatives are bigots, because some conservatives are bigots. Furthermore, almost everyone becomes an environmentalist when someone wants to stick some power-generating thing in their backyard, and thus even most Republicans vote against e.g. offshore drilling when it negatively effects their constituency.

[MenInTights]

Its strange all this energy talk is really making some strange bed fellows. I was riding around today and heard 2 psa's. Legendary oil man T. Boon Pickens has an energy solution that he is pushing and Al Gore has a solution he is pushing. Pickens is really behind wind (PickensPlan) and Gore is more-so into solar. They're not teaming up or anything, but its funny seeing Gore and Pickens running similar campaigns being they are polar opposites on so many things.

I have always been on the solar bandwagon. But, I really like the PickensPlan because it makes use of infrastructure that is already in place. Pickens' plan is to shift the natural gas away from power generation and use it for automobiles.

Competition in alt energy - gotta love it! May the best energy win. Or better yet, both energies win.

Hopefully politics will stay out of the way and both campaigns can progress without being undercut because their 'leaders' are also political figures.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by Kazmarov

[url="http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0806-cellulosic.html"]

You cited different enviromentalist organizations for each one. These are fringe elements, not a consensus.

Enviromentalism is great, I love it. However, to say that 'heartland.org' is somehow synonymous with the contemporary enviromentalist movement is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represents Protestantism. There will be no serous issues with putting up alternative energy sources. A handful of complaining enviromentalists haven't done much for social change in most cases--only a large popular movement is of merit in effecting national policy.

My point still stands.

Please see Oregon.

Kulongoski wanted to go green for power. Get rid of all those nasty hydro dams because it hurts the salmon.

In ever single alternative, he was rejected. Flatly rejected. By enviro-radicals.

In any event...

Back to the topic...

The dems are now reversing their earlier view about a temporary exemption from the federal gas tax, and instead are considering a hike of another 10cents/gallon.