Comments on: Obama: We Can’t “Hit The Snooze Button” When Gas Prices Fall Again

By: Blackie

Blackie — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:59:57 +0000

Well the lack of understanding of this problem is shocking.
I am from Tx. (big oil is King) and I have worked in the Oil and Gas industry.
We cannot drill our way out of this the DEMAND IS LARGER THAN OUR RESERVES.
*STATES RIGHTS COME IN TO PLAY WITH THIS ISSUE..MANY COSTAL STATES INCLUDING; FLORIDA(Jeb Bush said no off shore drilling)
*New job opportunities will be huge if we go full speed ahead on Wind, Solar, Geothermal, SORRY NUCLEAR(NUK-YA-LER for some of ya)and battery technology.
I was starting to think Nuclear would be OK, until the Japanese Tsunami..
We have Nuck power stations that are the exact same design as the ones that
went critical…we cannot afford the risk..just to make GENERAL ELECTRIC MORE MONEY.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:37:59 +0000

Drilling here will increase global supply and drive prices down, Lydia.
Since vegetables are sold in a national market, does that mean there is no impact on your household if you grow your own?

By: Lydia

Lydia — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:39:47 +0000

Drilling here will not lower our dependence on foreign oil, as all oil is sold on the world market to the highest bidder.
Renewables and greater effiency is the way to lower our need for foreign oil.

By: Noz

Noz — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:05:51 +0000

Barry, you are still snoozing, for more than 2 years now.
Wake Up and let’s Drill Baby Drill!

By: Freedom

Freedom — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:56:23 +0000

He keeps trying to take credit for what other Presidents did, his administration has done nothing for production but shut it down. He will not open up for drilling where there is lots of oil, only places there is not enough to merit the expense of drilling.
Look at all the money he spent on Volt and it wouldn’t even start the other day, plus now we’re finding out it really isn’t totally electric ever. More money wasted.

By: Lydia

Lydia — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:02:55 +0000

I’d like to know if all the commenters here that are fans of big oil and against renewables are profitting from our current oil dependent economy. Oil stock perhaps?

By: Lydia

Lydia — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:56:42 +0000

Tom Anderson, you seem to be ignoring the fact we have only 2% of oil reserves. We aren’t going to affect the price of oil when oil speculators know that fact.
As for shale oil, the extraction process is a nightmare of environmental problems, from lowering water tables, to contaminated waste water, air pollution, and more.
It makes much more sense for us to conserve and build products and homes to be more efficient, in light of the fact that the U.S. uses 25% of oil produced worldwide. We can affect the price of oil in this way and with the addition of developing renewables, we can wean ourselves off of a lot of foreign oil. (There is a lot of research now on the use of switchgrass as a biofuel, as it yields much more energy per acre than corn and uses less fertilizer to grow.)

By: gk

gk — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:26:42 +0000

green.goddess wrote:”My vote is another Manhattan Style government funded project to develop alternative liquid fuels, refinement, and distribution methods – then, just like NASA funded technologies, we turn them over to the free market and sell everything to the world.”
.
Seems that was the original basis for the Department of Energy. How have all those billions worked out for reducing your dependency on foreign oil.

By: gk

gk — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:20:37 +0000

green.goddess wrote:”Initially, we cannot rely only on the Invisible Hand of the Free Market to quickly shift an economy founded on oil.”
.
No, but it looks like that Invisible Hand of the oBama adminstration has been sticking money into the pockets of well connected oBama supporters.

By: green.goddess

green.goddess — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0000

@Tom Anderson:
According to the Brookings Institute, the WWII Manhattan Project, run by the federal government’s National Defense Research Council and the Office of Scientific Research and Development took 3 years at a cost of $20 Billion (in 1996 dollars).
In this case, our nation needed new technology fast, and the free market could not make it happen.
So today, should we simply wait for the free market to find the answers short term AND long term? Do we dismiss Peak Oil as “not passing the smell test”, knowing the risk, and without serious consideration?
The Peak Oil story is definitely bad news, and yes, there have been differing projections for decades. SHELL OIL predicts it will hit around 2025 and the World Energy Council says after 2010; Oxford University forecasts 2015. We won’t know until after it’s happened, however, all these and many other sources agree oil is a finite resource, and global peaking will happen soon. Btw, the Peak Oil “debunked” sites you suggested are pretty shallow on credibility for someone so attached to the Scientific Method.
For decades Republican and Democratic administrations have avoided dealing with Peak Oil. There’s just no way to make it a politically happy event. I suppose they are hoping by 2050 we’ll have made it through a Peak Oil transition, including a very deep economic mess.
Don’t know about you, but for most Americans, it would be nice to avoid a worse recession.
My vote is another Manhattan Style government funded project to develop alternative liquid fuels, refinement, and distribution methods – then, just like NASA funded technologies, we turn them over to the free market and sell everything to the world. Don’t you think America can focus and afford something akin to a $20 Billion Manhattan Project? The goal would be to grow a new industry, free our nation from oil producing states in the Middle East, and mitigate an extremely damaging problem to US and world economies.