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.

Originally Posted by agoodfella

i want to know what the candidates are going to do about the ROOT problem that links islamic terrorism, our domestic economy and foreign relations. in a word: OIL.

the long term solution to a lot of our problems is simply independence from ARAB OIL. period. let's face it, if the leading Arab economic states didn't have oil, they'd be running around in a huge sand pit trying to keep their people from starving. they would have no economic, political, cultural power. ZERO. they'd effectively be an extension of North Africa -- with warlords fighting over one another for political power -- and guess what? they would pose absolutely no threat to the West.

when was the last time you worried about a terrorist threat from native Africans? you haven't. they're too busy killing one another to worry about anything beyond their own borders. Think about it for a second and step back: an organization like Al Queda takes money. A lot of money. Recruiting. Training. Communication. Equipment. Weapons. That takes deniro. as well as political and cultural power. If it weren't for OIL, Osama Bin Laden would have been some nobody looking for his next meal in the desert.

Iraq was about OIL plain and simple. There are plenty of other nations that could pose a direct threat to American interests and who were further along the Nuclear timetable than Iraq. Places like North Korea. But you don't see us going in there. Why? THERE'S NO FREAKING OIL THERE.

Iran is also about OIL. Saudi is all about OIL. If we could just cut our damn dependence on Arab OIL, we could disengage, and we could really take the gloves off. But we keep pissing around because we need that OIL.

Frankly, the US Government should have seen this coming after the first OIL embargo in the early 70s brought the US economy to its knees. We should have had a "Manhattan Project" like mentality to get independent from Arab OIL. But we didn't do squat. Or more to the point, the greedy corrupt US OIL companies kept all of the major policy makers in their pockets. Fast forward 30 years later and the situation has only gotten worse.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the US is held hostage to Arab OIL. It continues to play a critical role in our foreign policy and economic policy and we still have no solution to this problem. We have thrown billions of dollars down this hole with no end in sight. Billions that could have been spent turning this nation around.

To me, there is no single issue more important that the next President's plan to get us headed down the road of independence from Arab OIL.

Originally Posted by Richard J

In this response you are mixing two different problems. I take it from your reply that you feel we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of stable oil prices. If you look at our oil imports you will find that we import most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

US Oil Imports (2006) Thousands of Bbls, pct
Saudi Arabia 534,143 10.68%
Venezuela 517,947 10.35%
Nigeria 406,662 8.13%
Algeria 239,959 4.80%
Iraq 201,866 4.03%

Canada 858,839 17.17%
Mexico 622,408 12.44%
Russia 134,646 2.69%

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I am not saying the US went in there for the oil itself. I am not sure we would have our current president if there were no interests in the Middle East. The Middle East does have historical, strategic significance and there happens to be oil over there. To answer your question, though, we would also have had more stability in oil prices if we hadn't gone to the Middle East, at all. Why didn't we simply buy the oil, and perhaps, even help some of those countries upgrade their infrastructure to provide us with even cheaper fuel? The point, however, is that we could also have spent as much money on other things, such as technology development in cleaner fuels and technology instead of continuing emphasis on a known finite resource that can only get more expensive as it becomes more scarce.

I am not advocating retreating to the Dark Ages concerning cleaner fuels and technologies. Many newer technologies for cleaner fuels simply need more impetus from the public sector in order to make it more feasible for the private sector. Consider a hypothetical scenario where technology improvements enable energy recovery from tidal harnesses or geothermal sources.

Environmental concerns are not always present with sufficient technology available (as in the case with the solar power example you mentioned or other renewable energy sources. In the case of a preserve, there is little environmental impact to oblique drilling techniques that could offset some of the costs by having the output of the drilling next to a pumping station.

Our current political situation has already given us higher oil prices, without any corresponding improvement in our standard of living. Simple economics can make alternative fuels more competitive even without public sector interference in the markets. However, public sector interference, as is currently the case with oil, could speed development of cleaner fuels and technologies that could result in less harm to our environment and provide a more permanent solution to our energy needs.

With more abundant and cleaner energy sources, hydrogen production becomes more feasible. In that same manner, newer technologies could render more cost effective solutions than can otherwise be the case with current technologies.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Here are a few issues that I would like to discuss, and would have introduced them in other threads, but I don't want to hijack those discussions already in progress. Feel free to add any more issues you want to discuss. For my part, I will try to use logic and reason in our discussion.

Domestic policy: I would like to see some discussion on hydrogen or electric or a combination of both forms of public transportation implemented by the public sector. With all the emphasis on a unitary executive theory (that seems to be mostly serving a very limited objective) I would think that making the 'switch' over to those alternative technologies could be accomplished via executive orders at both the federal and state levels.

Foreign policy: Why are we wasting taxpayer money in the Middle East if it is not contributing the general Welfare of the US? From my perspective, formal recognition of another state in historic Palestine could be accomplish by any president and congress now assembled.

Originally Posted by Bunz

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.

Originally Posted by Richard J

I think you've put your finger on the problem. We have too many uninformed people who will believe only what they want to. As I said, good luck to future generations.

RJ

Originally Posted by .3dontVoteParty

If public funding for a transition to alternative fuels costs the global economy one penny it would be too much, especially when the stock market is down and many banks have negative net assets. Its just not the debate we need to be having. Instead, oil and coal companies need to recognize that eventually the switch will occur, and that it is in their interest to upgrade the existing technology to meet ever advancing standards of cleanliness. The public sector has in fact transitioned in as much as one would hope. But the transportation sector is not the only source of global greenhouse gas emissions. The ball is in the corporations court now.

Originally Posted by Bunz

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.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

You still don't get it.

It is not about about money, or profits, it is about control.

Originally Posted by flyingnurse6

From my perspective looking at the big picture in the middle east it is far too early to actually see the affects of our efforts in the middle east... it will be years or perhaps decades before I conclude.

Originally Posted by Richard J

I think you've put your finger on the problem. We have too many uninformed people who will believe only what they want to. As I said, good luck to future generations.

RJ