Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
One of the political issues was the use of unitary executive theory for the public good, instead of the warfare-state industrial complex. Given that hypothetical, it could simply be a matter of an executive order requiring some segments of public sector transport to transition to cleaner fuels and technologies. In that manner, the public sector could provide an impetus for improvements in mass production technologies that could result in lower costs to the private sector consumer.
I am of the opinion, that there is no need to drill within a preserve with modern drilling techniques. It may even be possible that cost savings could accrue if the drilling output is next to a pumping station already connected to a pipeline.
|
A change in the primary fuel used in America will have to come as more than an Executive Order. Congress would need to be involved from the start whether the President would like them to or not.
As for the ANWR issue, there is a much larger component to this that is largely not known about outside of Alaska and DC. There are proposals on the table to build an natural gas pipeline from the north slope to tie into the midwestern network.
There is apparently enough natural gas in the Alaskan arctic to heat the midwest for the next 30 years. Even right now, the difference between ANWR and Prudhoe Bay to the west is a line on a map. Geographically and ecologically they are both the same and the impact from the Prudhoe Bay infastructure has not been nearly as severe as predicted on the wildlife.
ANWR could be developed responsibly. The weak link in the distribution system from getting petroleum from Prudhoe Bay to gas pumps in LA is really dumb people.