http://lesbimovies1730.forum5.com/?mforum=lesbimovies1730

Fareed: I am waiting for you to post a correction since your statement:

"The country [UK] is already the largest generator of wind power (with mostly off-shore turbines)..."

is incorrect.
Almost any semblance of research would lead you to find that UK ranks 9th in wind power. The state of Texas by itself produces three times the wind power of the UK. The US ranks 2nd in the world in wind power and the US is increasing its wind power capacity at a more rapid rate than any other country.

Do you have the integrity to correct this article?

Fareed: I am waiting for you to post a correction since your statement:

"The country [UK] is already the largest generator of wind power (with mostly off-shore turbines)..."

is incorrect.
Almost any semblance of research would lead you to find that UK ranks 9th in wind power. The state of Texas by itself produces three times the wind power of the UK. The US ranks 2nd in the world in wind power and the US is increasing its wind power capacity at a more rapid rate than any other country.

Do you have the integrity to correct this article?

Fareed, tell us what your policy is on deciding not to post comments. Or, tell us what your policy is on abandoning commentary.

You call it "leadership" when the government selects the winners. I call it "centralized planning". We know that doesn't work. I want alternative energy to work. I think it's important.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Leadership is not about selecting the "winners" nor should it be about protecting the status quo. NASA and the space race is a good example of leadership and government involvement in achieving goals.
If you can recall, we were slightly behind the Soviets for years and then Kennedy announced an over-ambituous (and technically impossible in 1963) goal to put a man on the moon before 1970. Nasa merely coordinated the project and the lowest bidders (corporations) produced the hardware.
There was never any particular corporation that could get the funding to pull this off but the government could. So you are bizzarely wrong.

Wow, Mike! What a clever European solution:

(1) Blame a bunch of outsiders who work in the financial sector for your economic problems,
(2) kill them and render their fat.

Gee, there's something vaguely familiar about this idea ... it almost reminds me of something that the clever Europeans have tried before. Can't put my finger on it, though ... hmmm ... "not-me-ism?" ... nah, gimme a minute, I'll figure it out.

In the meantime, keep up the good work perusing the European press for clever solutions to finally solving our energy problems for the next 1,000 years!

Actually we could reduce the cost of oil. If we killed every commodity trader and rendered their bodies for fat and used that as fuel, the price of oil would be reduced by half. This Swiftian notion, is only half in jest. The European press has been widely reporting that **US based commodity traders** have doubled the price of oil by manipulating price and availablity in a revisit of the Enron electricity scam. If these blood sucking parasites were prevented from doing this (and this is born out by testimony before Congress and various EU commissions) the cost of gasoline would fall to it's real market value..around $2 a gallon.

Fate says: "If you think nothing needs to be done ... you must be a Republican! "

Actually I'm not a member of either Party. My point was that if we are already experiencing a blizzard of activity - due mostly to very generous tax incentives - then the government is already doing something about it.

If the government got actively involved in the alternative energy marketplace through madates or directed incentives then we would experience what happens when the government - any government - picks winners and losers in the marketplace. Corruption. Even worse than we have now. The alternative energy solutions that got supported wouldn't be the most economical ones, only the ones with the most politically connected CEO's. Whitness the biofuels debacle.

I much prefer that the government provide tax incentives that benefit all forms of alternative energy equally because that allows the winners to be picked by the marketplace. Which is a good thing.

You call it "leadership" when the government selects the winners. I call it "centralized planning". We know that doesn't work. I want alternative energy to work. I think it's important.

PS - I like Gisela's post. Wind energy and tidal power might be good investments. In the meantime, more oil exploration, nuclear power and coal tar look promising as well.

America doesn't have enough oil from all possible sources to significantly lower the price of oil.

What we can do is shift to green energy sources (wind, solar, etc.) and push the price of oil up to $500 or more a barrel. China and India won't be able to afford to destroy the atmosphere if we're buying all the oil for plastics. As soon as green energy sources become cheaper than oil, many of our current problems just go away.

BUSH NEVER, EVER WILL DO ANYTHING TO CONFRONT THE OIL INDUSTRY. HIS ONLY LOYALTY IS TO PEOPLE THAT MADE HIM RICH AND PUT HIM IN POSITION OF POWER REGARDLESS HIS IGNORANCE AND INCOMPETENCE .DON YOU GET IT, YET?

This statement:

"The country is already the largest generator of wind power (with mostly off-shore turbines)..."

is incorrect.

The UK ranks 9th in wind power. The state of Texas by itself produces three times the wind power of the UK. The US ranks 2nd in the world and the US is increasing its wind power capacity at a more rapid rate than any other country.

Jeff Crocket wrote: "The almighty host of the left and the environmental movement Al Gore was in office for 8 years and did even less than the Bush Administration has done."

You mean those 8 years when the republicans controlled the house and senate during the republican congress' contract with America? Just what did you expect Gore to get done in that environment? More importantly, what did the republican controlled congress do during its 12 year monopoly of power in Congress? Did they raise fuel efficiency standards? Did they do anything as our dependence on foreign oil rose? Did they do anything except cut taxes to the point where the surplus was wiped out? Did they do anything about global warming except hide the evidence and silence those trying to report scientific results?

So, I guess what you really mean is that had Gore had a democratically controlled house and senate during those years, we would not be in the pickle we are now in thanks to the republican obstruction and lack of leadership. If that is what you mean, I agree.

Hey Fareed, what happened to your "We are not at war" article?

Fareed is from India and his mother was the Editor of Sunday Times of India. He is not middle eastern. Grow up ignoramous, looks are not what one should reckon with at a site such as this, rather how an author thinks in articulating his views.

"U. S. operable crude oil distillation capacity has increased by about 2 million barrels a day since 1985, with most of the increase coming since 2000."

True but U.S. refineries are not producing enough to satisfy daily usage of 21 millions barrels which keeps supply tight and prices high.

The almighty host of the left and the environmental movement Al Gore was in office for 8 years and did even less than the Bush Administration has done.

In fact, Gore was president of the U.S Senate during the worst drop in gas mileage because of the SUV explosion in the 90's. Sen. Levy (D)of Michigan has
protected this car industry as well and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy actually stopped off shore wind power project in their playpen.

Fareed, let your next rant attack the lazy left!

ZZim wrote: "OK, so if the private sector is a blizzard of activity, why does the Federal Government need to do something about it? Taxpayers already subsidize this industry with billions and billions of dollars in tax credits. I don't see wht GWB (or the next President) needs to do anything at all."

If you think nothing needs to be done ... you must be a Republican!

Not everything should be determined by the marketplace. For example, if we had listened to Carter and use government mandates and incentives to wean ourselves off of foreign oil these past 30 years, we might not have gone to war in Iraq, we might not need to threaten Iran which in turn threatens our oil supplies, we might not need to maintain a fleet in the straits of Hormuz, and we would not be seeing billions of our dollars go to build ski resorts in Dubai's desert and other toys for the extremely wealthy, like oil company execs.

Its called leadership. Its a government function so I do not expect a republican to understand it, but it is seriously needed and no republican today is capable of providing it, unless leading this nation toward ruin counts.

The number of refineries build or closed is a favorite canard of the let's-drill-some-more crowd. The inefficient, obsolescent refineries have been closed; the newer ones have been expanded. U. S. operable crude oil distillation capacity has increased by about 2 million barrels a day since 1985, with most of the increase coming since 2000.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mocleus2m.htm

Fact is, we're vastly extravagant users of petroleum. We lack the leadership and will to ease the problem tremendously just by conserving.

OK, so if the private sector is a blizzard of activity, why does the Federal Government need to do something about it? Taxpayers already subsidize this industry with billions and billions of dollars in tax credits. I don't see wht GWB (or the next President) needs to do anything at all.

Expecting the Bush Administration to do anything about energy, healthcare, regulation, etc., etc., etc. is like asking the Mafia to give up trafficking in drugs, prostitution and racketeering. You are dealing aith a lawless Administatration; basically a collection of thugs, war criminals, social vampires and worse in business suits. Forget your expectations; their objectives are the detriment of us all. Instead, bring them to justice and put them where they belong--in prison.

When I saw the picture of the author, I couldn't help but think of the movie "Mars Attacks!".

Don't expect anything from Bush, he's simply incompetent.

Breaking news - July 8, 2008 - Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment Committee, leveled the attack today, accusing the vice president and other administration officials of "recklessly" seeking to censor testimony about the dangers of global warming and working behind the scenes to block new regulation.

"This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," she said

A couple of subjects rarely mentioned;
Lack of refining capacity and the effect on supply.
Oil companies have not built a NEW refinery since 1976.
Oil companies have CLOSED 175 refineries since 1981.
Oil Companies import 10% of the gasoline used in the USA.
Most if not all Alaskan oil is sold to China and Japan.
Oil companies have thousands of leased tracks not currently in production. See(Business Week Article June 16 – Big Oil).

Lastly, lack of modern transmission grid.

The bottom line the USA still operates as if the population was a third of what is today.
It's time to develop a national energy strategy. As long as conservatives continue to filibusterer meaningful proposals and the Democrats lack a majority in the senate the USA is over an energy barrel.

Poster brian posts GOP statistics slamming Democrats without any supporting material.
Anyone can use statistics to support their argument as long as there isn't supporting facts.
I'm sure the numbers do not show the reason Democrats did not support the votes.
cheney/bush gave the farm away to energy companies , why give them more.

And please do not rant about liberals preventing refinery construction! Oil companies could easily re-open any number of their closed sites.

James Hansen, NASA's top scientist, has called for a moratorium on buring coal. Burning coal might be described as an 18th century innovation, and has a free ride. There is no cost assigned to depleting natural resources, and there is no cost assigned to pollution. What good is cheap energy, if people can't drink the water nor breath the air? Ranchers and farmers have long known land, water, and air must be protected from manufactured pollution.

It is funny that all of the sudden it is the do-nothing Democratic Congress that is at fault. No mention of the blank check Republicans rubber stamping Bush policies for 6 years. Both parties are to blame as is the American public. We have coasted too long on a good thing, cheap gas. Now that it is coming around to bite us, we just want to complain and point fingers at who is to blame rather than do something constructive about it.

No one seems to get that it is going to be a combination of conservation, exploration and renewables to ween our dependence on foreign oil.

Oh yeah, it's great that the Bush Administration had an Energy Policy in 2001 (we all remember those wonderful secret meetings Buckshot Cheney had) but policies aren't much good if you do nothing to implement them.

Dude, you need to change that picture. Seriously. It is scary. Kind of like you're trying to hypnotize people...

Bush should have gotten serious about energy policy a few years ago. Today, bush should lie low and keep out of policy formulation of any kind. Anything he can think up now will bring nothing but woe on this country.

The answer to the energy connundrum is under your nose. The technologies ALL exist TODAY. The business concepts required exist TODAY.

What needs changing are the DINASAUR minds of those in a position to effect change.

Concept:
Distributed solarand wind power on rooftops replaces centralized power from coal.

Current Technology:
Ocean Wave energy generation
Solar concentrators
Wind turbines
COMPRESSED AIR POWERED AUTOMOBILES

India has them - Tata motors makes them. The US version hits the market in 2010:

$2 FILL-UPS
95mph
800 mile range
Seats 6
$18,000
www.zeropollutionmotors.us

IT SHOULD BE A NATIONAL SECURITY REQUIREMENT FOR FORD AND GM TO LICENSE THIS TECHNOLOGY AND BUILD NOTHING BUT COMPRESSED AIR POWERED CARS!

Service stations would be FAR more profitable with air cars because of lower costs. There is no insurance costs for scroll-type air compressors... Unlike storing 100,000 gallons of explosive gasoline requires. Servicestations make their profit from convenience sales of soda, snacks, and dry goods today, anyway.

Oil will still be used - but for plastics and lubrication, pharmacuticals, and fertilizer.

Burning oil is the lowest value-added use of the resource.

Mr. Zakaria:

On November 8, 1977, President Carter gave an address to the nation regarding energy, and made specific recommendations. It is too long to reproduce here. Please review it and make some comments.

I think we could cut back 3.8% of our demand simply by conserving - don't you?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the next 5-10 years there will be an ever increasing selection of Plug-in hybrids and EV that will generally run in battery/electric mode because that is the within the commute range for more than 90% of our transportation needs. In full electric mode a EV 300% more efficient than a internal combustion engine (uses 1/3 the energy to go the same distance). Why concern ourselves with petty conservation measures, ANWR and cafe standards (3.8? vs. 300!). Considering that much of the electrical energy could also come from clean renewables in most of our backyards. This is technically feasible.

President Bush had 8 years to focus on energy, and he waits until now to start thinking about it? I guess now that all his oil buddies have gotten everything out of his presidency that they wanted, he's deciding to speak up.

For Bush, it's way too late. He needs to just shut up and go away, and clear the path for whoever is next. I do have to say, however, that I have been extremely disappointed in both candidates' utterings on energy so far. Neither Obama nor McCain seems to have any real grasp on what we need to accomplish to turn our energy situation around.

Judas Gutenberg Posted July 8, 2008 10:56 AM
"What if we discover there is no technological solution to this pickle we've put our planet in?"

We know there is a technological solution; it's called solar, wind, tidal and conservation!

An Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax on all forms of energy including speculation, used to build energy infrastructure would be a good first step to breaking our oil habit.

wow, Fareed looks like a middle-eastern version of Willem Dafoe!

in all seriousness, i completely agree with you, Fareed! i've wondered why the energy crisis is so conspicuously lacking in public conversation, and the answer is obvious: the current administration has nothing to gain by developing alternative energy. more to the point, the current administration has everything to gain by maintaining status quo, and driving this old machine that is the USA into the ground.
after bush leaves office, you think he's gonna worry about energy prices? he will be among the super rich who care not.
mccain -best interests aside- will have little impact because he will essentially be pupetted by the same republican powers that are driving us today.
our hopes rest on the desperate notion that Obama is NOT more of the same, and that he DOES intend to make a difference. for my childrens' sake, i hope Obama makes the necessary changes.

"George Bush still has not made a serious speech, announced a serious plan or presented Congress with a serious set of laws to move the country toward new energy sources."

Bogus.

George Bush new this was a critical priority when he first came into office.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

Democrats in Congress didn't (don't) see it that way. They want to play around child's toys (renewable sources.) For America's sake they (and Mr. Zakaria) need to grow up.

Alot of people seem to be in favor of drilling for oil off the coasts of the US and in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR). I think that people are being suckered by politicians and oil executives offering magic bullet solutions to our oil problem.

Take ANWAR for example, I saw a recent poll that said 52% of Americans support drilling there. I also read that the people of Alaska seem to support drilling there, at least according to the polls I saw.

The question for me, however, still centers on just how much oil is under ANWAR, and how much would it really lower the price of oil. According to the Dept. of Energy's 2008 report on ANWAR's oil:

"The opening of ANWAR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

This is a report crafted by a Bush-led Dept. of Energy and perhaps politicized. Yet even it states that even at ANWAR's peak production value (in 2027), it would only lead to a drop of $1.44 per barrel - by its most optimistic estimate. Consider that yesterday oil fell $3.92. Doesn't feel like much does it? That's because it's not much when oil costs over $100 a barrel, which many of the experts I've read say is probably going to be about the floor price for the next few decades.

Further, consider that peak production from ANWAR, according to the same report, would only be 780,000 barrels a day in 2027. In 2006, the DoD consumed over 380,000 barrels a day. In other words, the DoD by itself in 2006 consumed what would amount to half of ANWAR's potential peak production. Then consider that the US as a whole consumes 20,700,000 barrels a day! That means that if consumption rates stayed the same ANWAR would contribute to about 3.8% of US demand.

I think we could cut back 3.8% of our demand simply by conserving - don't you?

The bottom line for me is that the easy to find oil is running out, and it's not helping the atmosphere when burned either. The longer we buy oil, the longer we have to worry about OPEC, the Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, Chinese and Indian demand, etc.

The sooner we cure our "oil addiction" the better for everyone in the long run. We might as well sacrifice now so that our grandkids won't have an even bigger problem later. I think the "oil crisis" has more to do with our unwillingness to sacrifice our present standard of living than any supply issue. Sacrificing for our children, however, used to be a guiding principle for progressive societies. I guess we forgot that somewhere along the way.

Brian wrote:
As to the other, more productive energy (non-hatred), we do need new programs. All of them. Nuclear (I know, you’re choking--good) liquification of coal (choke, choke), solar, maybe some wind, but it is so far a joke.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am sure that the DOE has spent hundreds of billions on Nuclear, fusiuon, and clean fossil fuel schemes during the past 60 years. I think they have also spent a few million on solar and wind. The big lie is that Solar, electric vehicles, wind are not viable. Even in the embryonic state of development, solar, wind, EVs are promising technologies that DO NOT require scarce and geo-politically problematic resources like uranium or fossil fuels and are quickly becoming cost effective even when wars and climate change costs are not factored in.
I did read your rant about democrats etc. If you have a problem with the overblown culture war remnants from the sixties please get over it. The next generation is clueless about it.

"Imagine if President Bush were to announce at the G-8 summit that the United States would institute a cap on emissions. We would instantly have the world's largest carbon market and it would, instantly, change the price of clean energy. It would unleash a tsunami of economic activity in renewables that could, over time, give American productivity the next big boost it needs. It would, of course, also quickly send a signal to the market about future demand for oil, which would in turn affect the price."

It would also make it even more impossible to compete with Chinese and Indian manufacturing. But who cares about that, right?

Thankfully your writing of this piece, Mr. Zakaria, was for our benefit one assumes. Because if you were really seeking to influence Mr. Bush, you might as well have written it on toilet paper and flushed it immediately thereafter for all of the difference it will make in his or any of his advisers' 'thinking' regarding energy policy. Thankfully, the great and ongoing calamity befalling our nation will finally cease next January.

Judas Gutenberg:
What if we discover there is no technological solution to this pickle we've put our planet in?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Judas, the problem is the collection, distribution and use of the energy it takes to make things happen.
Currently we have doing ok with fossil fuels but with new circumstances: carbon pollution/climate change, dwindling/finite supplies of fossil fuels, and hyper-increased demand from Asia has forced the realization that fossil fuels must be replaced. Fortunately the earth is supplied, by the sun, with more energy than we could ever use. There are a few artificial obstacles to harvesting this energy. There really isn't any technical obstacles other than the cost of up-front investment. Currently most of the industrialized world is fueled by fossil fuels so there would need to be a deliberate, planned transition. A free market approach has not worked (history) because it is not planned and destroys wealth. Much, if not most of our wealth is tied to the production, distribution of fossil fuels and the dependent industries like automobiles etc.
Sure new wealth will be created but there is no reason to assign the proceeds of new energy to the portfolios of old energy so old energy protests change with any and every delay or misinformation possible. The H2 economy was a good example of deliberate delay instead of deliberate action.

Barack Obama said the problem illustrated the “failed economic policies of the past eight years.” He should have gone back further. The problem began 25 years ago – or even further back. Americans got the idea that if we called ourselves ‘free,’ we would be free...and if we called our economy a ‘free enterprise economy’ it would make us rich – no matter what we did.
What makes people rich is not free enterprise, but what we do with it. Here is the secret, if you want to get wealthy, work hard...and make sure your expenses are LESS than your income. Yes, LESS. That’s the way it works.

Dwight wrote: "I expect every voter to ask their representives what they have done to lower energy costs, which bills did they submit, after all isn't this why they have been in control for the last few years?
would you vote for someone in charge who has not done their job and has let down their country and you?"

Are you talking about the democrats who have been in control for just one and a half years or the republicans who were in control the fourteen years before that? Maybe you could explain what the republicans did during their 14 years of control to increase energy supplies other than give big oil more tax breaks? Did they EVER talk about alternatives to oil?

As for voting for people that did not do their job and let the country down, it seems the republican electorate did that quite well in 2004. Thanks for nothing republicans.

What, starting a war in Iraq to secure oil is not serious enough? McCain wants to have permanent military bases in that country, even if it means permanent Iraqi resistance to our occupation, continuous loss of thousands of American soldiers and an eternal threat of terrorist attacks here. That is not serious enough? looks like Bush is going to attack Iran for more oil and get us into another war. Still not enough?

The American Empire shall prosper for ten thousand more years. You liberals know nothing about world dominance. Renewable energy? tell me, how will we control the supply of renewable energy? how do we stop the sun from shining and the wind from blowing? how do you suggest we control the rest of the world if we can't control their energy source?

Wow! Are there only one or two people of reasonable sense on the comments section? Maybe you have to have been a Kool-Aid drinker to post at the Post. Certainly you guys don’t understand economics of tax reduction to stimulate the economy, while you make no mention of the drunken-sailor-spending-Congress that actually creates the problem. And do you ever check the voting records of those you want to return to Congress? Your buddy Democrats overwhelmingly vote against any new sources of petroleum or practical energy in every case. Just don’t return them to Congress. Send a new “No” vote, but not the same “No” vote. Take some action against this do-nothing Congress by electing a different one. Then blame their inaction against the Presidency. Which will be your man, most likely, as stupidity seems to know no bounds, especially in the perverted air near the Capitol. And if you are going to challenge the IQ of the electorate, at least spell the words in that sentence correctly, so you will have the street cred to attempt to discredit your target.

Obviously, it is your blind hatred that has you blaming everything against the wrong people. Wasn’t it cute when the DNC disenfranchised the state of Florida in the primaries? Did it mitigate your anger over what Gore started in Florida by taking the vote to the courts? Oh, you forgot he started what you are in flames of anger over? Who would have guessed the facts would be forgotten, and the irony would be missed? Then you probably missed Clinton’s blockage of drilling in ugly parts of ANWR in 1995, stating it would be 10 years before we would see anything from it. (Do the math, Mr. high IQ.)

As to the other, more productive energy (non-hatred), we do need new programs. All of them. Nuclear (I know, you’re choking--good) liquification of coal (choke, choke), solar, maybe some wind, but it is so far a joke. You guys just remember the beanie caps with the propeller on top that energized you in your youth and created this fawning fondness. Put one on your car and drive with that. Easy to install, hard to make it work, like the big ones.

Watch out for the cap and trade scam, as bad as the global warming scam. You probably intentionally do not read articles that state that global warming is a no-show. Has not been seen since 1998. Are you sure you want to downsize, degrade for something that has abandoned you? Pretty heartless of GW. You love one GW but passionately hate the other. Just turn around, and you’ll be facing the correct direction.

Now go take a drive in your Demo. Congress-approved electric cars that won’t have any charge, because there will be no electricity in the wall when you go to plug them in. Surprise! But we have CAFÉ standards for 2021, thanks to Pelosi. Drive those for the next 13 years. Pelosi is. Oh? She is flying home every weekend? Impossible! The propellers must be powering the jet engines, since wind is her favored energy source, like it is for Kennedy, but not in his backyard. No props on a jet? How can that be for the Dear Energy Leader?

(By the way, I am as geen as any of you: bike, windsurf, recycle everything, save water, keep the heat low and the AC high, just not stupid about trying to bring down the greatest country in the history of Earth. And I don't like everything Bush has done, but love that he has protected you from harm.)

Get the facts, and you may get a life. Or maybe you won’t, which is why you still hate. If you haters weren’t so sad, you’d be funny.

Don’t know the length limit on posts, but if allowed, here is some edumacation for you’se guise:

Where parties stand on Oil,

Historically, this is where the two political parties stand on how we got into this mess. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas, and 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against the same.

Also from Blunt’s office are the two sides of an energy plan.

(Link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/GasChart51.jpg)

Bush needs to get serious, period. Like a rock, and just as dumb.

If renewables cannot yet stand on their own feet why should consumers be forced to pay more to artificially make them viable energy sources? You seem to lament the distorting effects that nationalization and subsidization have had in the food and energy markets; yet you support the creation of a commodity out of thin air
(quite literally) that serves only to artificially inflate the price of one of our most essential needs.

The efficacy of this approach is also seriously in doubt. It is widely recognized that the effect of these policies on CO2 levels will be negligible. You hit upon the only sound but extremely speculative argument that the commoditization of CO2 throughout the industrialized world will send a clear signal to the market that fossil dependency will decrease,,, sometime.

The problem is that market signal has already been sent. The billions upon billions of dollars that private industry is investing in renewables and petrol alternatives have signaled that the days of reliance on fossil fuels are numbered.

We will one day have viable alternatives to the fossil economy. Massive amounts of dollars and talent have been applied towards that goal. That day is not hastened by making current renewable technologies that cannot naturally compete with fossil technologies artificially viable. If anything the massive renewable subsidies that our federal and state governments now dole out, combined with the commoditization of CO2 (another, much more massive renewal subsidy) will serve as a potent disincentive towards innovation by propping up substandard alternatives. Innovation will continue of course, but it will have come at an immeasurably higher price to us then what would have been necessary.

These measures represent a horribly inefficient way to arrive at viable, renewable alternatives to the status quo. It might make all of us with secure financial situations feel better about ourselves, but we should kid ourselves that we will have an adverse impact on those at the margin of security. The choice between heating and eating will be brought home to many more households thanks to these schemes.

liberals are behind the rising price of oil in order to use it in this election bacause they feel the people will not blame the do nothing congress, well they are wrong, I expect every voter to ask their representives what they have done to lower energy costs, which bills did they submit, after all isn't this why they have been in control for the last few years?
would you vote for someone in charge who has not done their job and has let down their country and you?

Everyone agrees, including Pres. Bush, that we are "addicted" to oil. The treatment for an addiction is not to lower the price of the drug, or to increase the supply. I just bought a hybrid Escape SUV. It has about as much room inside as my old S-10 Blazer. I more than doubled my gas milage without changing my lifestyle. The problem with hybrids is that the automobile companies do not want to make them! Mazda inroduced their Tribute SUV hybvrid to great fanfare. The made 300 in 2008, and plan to make another 300 in 2009 (all of which will only be sold in California). Its just a clone of the Escape, which dealerships can't keep in stock. To put this in perspective, 1000 Tesla all-elecric spoort cars will be produced this year! Dealerships are required to purchase 10 non-hybrids for every hybrid they receive. Absolute madness. Imagine going to a restaurant where you had to order ten chicken dinners before you could order a steak. That's our current situation.

Fareed, where have you been the last 8 years? Smoking pot and contributing to greenhouse gases??? Your article is EIGHT years too late and too little AND it ignores this country's well-established energy and environmental policies. The energy policy is to attack non-white-non-christian countries and take what is rightfully ours - THEIR oil. The Greenhouse policy is to deny it exists and, failing that delusion, to tell the rest of the world we have a plan to cut emissions in the next 50 years to some as-yet-to-be-determined level. It's all about smoke and mirrors and the media's support of both policies and practices.

The fault of our current disaster lies with only one group—American electorate.

We elected an intellectually second rate President -- twice. We were happy with ‘Start a war and party’ policy. We cheered ‘shock and awe’ show in comforts of our homes. We did not question slogans like ‘Family Values’ and ‘We are number one’. We were easily manipulated by machinations of Rove et al.

Now the mess will be the responsibility of the next leader of the free world.

Gisela,
I liked your comment about 55mph. I would go further and suggest 40mph. Why? Because there are already electric cars on the market that can go 40mph, but unless they get you there as fast as anything else, no one will by them. And because if you bring the speed down, you can get a broader mix of vehicles on the road that will not fear for their lives as much (scooters, mopeds, bikes, etc.) And because when driving time increases, people will take shorter trips, embrace Smart Growth strategies, investments in public transportation, telecommuting, etc. We need policy to spur new behavior, like h.o.v. lanes spawned the 'slug'.
Bert, I agree with your home-grown approach, but again, it needs a little policy kick-start. On the supply side, I would propose carbon credits that are sold. This would ensure that we were on track with our climate change goals, at least minimally.
On the demand side, I would have a carbon tax. This would be rebated directly to the populace on a per-capita basis. Voters could put pressure to raise this tax, as it would be subsidizing their retirement. Everyone would be racing to get below average consumption.
On the production side of the new renewables, I would do what Germany did with feed-in tarrifs. If you build your own home-grown solution and can feed the grid with renewable energy, you should get a price that supports your investment.
Once there are clear, unambiguous market signals that we are in a new paradigm, behavior will shift swiftly and dramatically. People will have so much fun inventing a new society where they spend more time producing their own energy and food, enjoying their time playing harmonica (or Violin and Guitar like I do) that they will wonder why they ever got caught up in the madness of 'economic growth' to the detriment of their own organic growth as living beings. Just my two-cents worth.

Adrian,

Are you saying that if we opened ANWAR the price of oil would drop? I know of no sane person saying that. And there are much easier places to get the oil, off shore, but even reepublican states like Florida do not want that. Bushs own brother would not allow it.

So don't go blaming environmentalists for the price of oil. Its high not because it is scarce. Have you had trouble finding a gas station with gasoline to sell? Have you heard of any states rationing gas? Its plentiful, yet its price has doubled in just 2 years. Now think, what makes the price of a commodity that is plentiful double in price in just two years?

Fareed,

Are you aware that we are close to getting a new president elected, and that Bush's days are numbered, and that he is a dead duck as we speak!

What do you mean "Bush should get serious"?

The guy is a clown, at best. He is looking forward to going to China and lead the US Cheerleading squad over there for the Olympics. That is one area where he has some experience.

The carbon market is a liberal ponzi scheme to take money from one group, so they may give to another. The key word is give. With give, as in the money, they grow in power. So, in the end, it has nothing to do with anything but a power grab.

"The quality of a democracy is directly proportional to the IQ of the elctorate."

Do not forget that spelling is essential to any comment here on this post. If the writer is to be taken seriously, or viewed intelligently.

I am part of the electorate and I find it extremely amusing how this paper and the hacks who write for it want to rewrite history. President Bush ran on the notion of reducing dependence on foreign - middle east - oil. He asked for companies to develop new technology regarding new forms of energy. Does anyone remember that he called for hydrogen fuel cell run vehicles to be manufactured? Does anyone recall that he felt that off shore drilling and drilling in ANWR were essential to the well-being of this country as far as oil independence was concerned? Does anyone remember how Obama and McCain voted against drilling in ANWR? As far as renewable energy sources are concerned, yes there has been great strides made because companies that have developed the technology for this were given TAX BREAKS, which they sorely needed. Does anyone understand that it is the car companies and gas companies, along with liberal idiot environ"mental" groups who are responsible for much of the woes about high gas prices? Don't blame Bush, seek the truth about all of his energy proposals. I know this writer did not.

With only a few months left in office, you NOW want Bush to get serious about energy policy? Are you kidding us? Did Rove write this for you so he could display yet another act of contempt for us?

Bush has had a VERY serious set of energy policies since he took office:
1. Soak the working class and poor with high prices.
2. Rip off the U.S. Treasury with unending tax breaks, loopholes and giveaways to big oil.
3. Ignore global warming and the Kyoto Treaty.
4. Close the NERL in Colorado (he failed on this one).
5. Expand tax loopholes in 2003 to subsidize sales of jumbo gas guzzling SUV's over 6000 pounds.
6. Beg the Saudi's for more oil in a cheap attempt to lower prices during an election year.
7. Make no efforts and provide no funds for alternatives.
8. Make no efforts (beyond meaningless sound bites) to expand nuclear energy.
9. Implement a ridiculous ethanol program that is a waste of tax dollars, causes horrendous inflation in the price of food commodities, provides almost zero net energy gain, but get him the votes of farmers.

Oh yes, our idiot president has a VERY serious energy program, known generally as hooray for big oil and the rest of you can shut up and bend over.

What if we discover there is no technological solution to this pickle we've put our planet in? What if, like yeast in a vat, we've packed six billion people into this place and then used up the sweet sweet energy supply that led us to reach such incredible numbers? Then what? So far, it seems like there is no technology available to save us yet, and we're very very late in the game, judging from the rapidly rising price of fuel. Oopsie! Hope that Jesus dude and His cloud of glory are coming soon!

The American people have represented themselves as a child and thus deserve exactly what they get. As the infrastructure continues to fold inward, energy problems increasing daily, the American people should remind themselves that they turned their backs on solutions when they bought the snake oil of the present administration. What's the matter, not happy with the 'tax cuts'?

The quality of a democracy is directly proportional to the IQ of the elctorate.

America deserves exactly what it gets. Turnabout begins with accountability - first in the mirror, and then with impeachement. If we were smart enough, that is.

Seven years ago:

In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) with Dick Cheney as chairman. This group was supposed to “develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, State and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future."

Another failure by the Bush/Cheney team.

Fareed,

You make too much sense. That's what the problem is.

For Bush, this isn't about what is the wisest policy. It's about which policy will continue to make the people who support me the most money...

Fareed Zakaria has no credibility. This guy goes on Sean Hannity's show. He is just another FOX News hack.