Renewable Energy- Thoughts for Hot Days

By: RayH
Published On: 7/16/2006 9:47:13 PM

I'm glad to hear Judy Feder and Al Weed talking about alternative fuels and renewable energy. I would love to see real energy independence within my lifetime. The best spin that I can put on the Republican's failed energy policies is that with oil closing in on $80 per barrel, we now have a greater incentive than ever to push for better conservation, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources.

Imagine a United States that does not rely upon oil. We would have cleaner air and water. The whole dynamic of the Middle East would change dramatically. We would be a more secure country. We would not contribute so much to global warming.

I notice that George Allen's record has been mainly in favor of continued oil dependency. I think that continuing in this direction undermines our security, our economic well-being, our environment and our personal health.

Comments



George Allen's Energy Solution? (Bubby - 7/17/2006 4:08:36 PM)
George thinks we can drill our way out of our oil addiction. He wants to start with the Virginia coastal shelf.  Not a word about energy conservation.

I'm just a dumb country boy, but I know that the first thing you do when you are in a hole - is to stop digging.  What is George Allens excuse?



He doesn't need excuses! Remember "The Buck Stops Here?" (RayH - 7/17/2006 5:11:29 PM)
That ought to be Allen's new motto. Except in his case, the "Buck" that stops is the dollar.


The Middle East dynamic (Eric - 7/18/2006 10:07:39 AM)
would change dramatically.  But I wonder how, and more specifically, would it really make our country and citizens safer?

Right now they've got oil and money, which allows them to further their various agendas through the influence of cash, the purchase of weapons, the threat of withholding oil, and so on.

Suppose the U.S. did break free.  One scenario would involve a dramatic drop in the income for Middle Eastern countries.  The standard wisdom is that the loss of income would deny them many of their more drastic measures (especially the purchase of weapons and military training). 

But if the loss of income is too dramatic it will cause great hardship for many who have come to depend on individual wealth and societal wealth.  And that hardship will foster extremism.  Which will lead to a larger pool of recruits for terrorists.  Which certainly will not make the U.S. safer.

I'm all for losing our dependence on oil and pushing into the new world of domestic, environmentally friendly, sustainable, alternative energy.  But we'll need top notch leaders in Washington to make sure that such changes will not lead to worse international problems.  Anything like the current administration isn't close to capable. 



Oil needed for stabilization (RayH - 7/18/2006 4:38:07 PM)
That's a good question to ponder, but I would say that even if we resolved today to put a monumental effort into alternative energies, there would still be a lengthy ramp up time. My guess would be that Israel and smaller oil producing states would be the biggest losers in the event of western freedom from oil. Just a WAG, though.


plus... (RayH - 7/18/2006 4:40:54 PM)
I need to add that although Israel is not an oil producer, they stand to lose in the event of destabilization of the region's economy because of the proximity and enmity they share with the Arab oil producers.