Slice

I agree we need to get off fossil fuels and that hopefully is the future. Actual drilling and the prospect of doing so will decrease speculation and increase leverage against OPEC as well. If we simply want alternative fuels without helping the shorter term problem over the next decade or two, we'll be looking at european pricing levels very soon. We need to be active on both fronts, fossil and alternative until alternative is available widely and at realistic prices! Doing nothing today is foolish. Had we started after the last gas crisis we'd be independent and possibly avoided a war or two along the way.

FDXLAG

Nothing like an unsupported opinion to back up your non-political claim. If there is no oil there why are the environmentalists afraid to look?

Winged Wheeler

...then you should get it right.

"...The Oil Consumption in Brazil per day amounts to more than 2 million barrels which is more than the daily oil production of the country. As a result of this a large amount of Brazil oil consumption is supported by the oil import in Brazil."
Oil consuming countries, Oil Consumption in Brazil

Also, why is drilling offshore like "trying to kill an elephant with a bee bee gun"? Are you suggesting that it is impossible? That is demonstrably wrong.

Can you justify saying that "less than .5% of the population" benefits from the "system"? I benefit from it and I paid for the privelege of filling my car yesterday. I think your figure may be off by several orders of magnitude.

Feeling strongly about something is very different than being right--you should put together a better argument if you want to convince others.

WW

III Corps

TNSTAFL...

There is a lot of people pointing to Brazil as the model and it does have some valuable lessons. But nothing comes free..

Working conditions are terrible and most workers are paid paltry sums. This would not happen in the US and that would increase costs and prices.

The economy of Brazil is minuscule compared to the US economy. Brazil would have to produce 5 times the ethanol to feed only 10% of the US consumption. And Brazil's economy is less than 1/10th the size of the US. That means a direct scale-up may not be possible.

And already there is considerable concern about the deforestation of Brazil. Some suggest the model is unsustainable and the deforestation is the source of 80% of Brazil's carbon dioxide.

There is no magic, no silver bullet, no perfect solution although we are being told it is either or by the political parties. Worse, it seems the public is satisfied swallowing this stuff.


Brazil's biofuel plan is unsustainable - SciDev.Net

TomPaine.com - Burdening Brazil With Biofuels

List of countries by GDP (nominal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Bond

Not trying to convince anyone, nor am I an environmentalist of any sort. But I am sick and tired of giving my money away to the oil companies and primarily the royal family. They along with opec are a cancer to this society. Less than .5% of our population profit from energy exchange and sales, again you guys can do what you want, I was simply stating an opinion.

Here's the irony for you guys, over 70% of vehicles in Brazil operate on 85/15 sugar cane ethanol. Over 50% of the cars are made by ford and Chevrolet........mmmmmmmmm? Whether or not the model has flaws, at least they are actively trying to get away from fossil fuels. What are we doing?

and please keep the politics, I'm not interested..........

weirdbiz

We need to build more refineries and more nuclear power plants, but the whole rush to drill for more oil is pure political gamesmanship in an election year.

FDXLAG

Well since not drilling for more oil has been political gamesmanship for the last 20 years I say turn about is fair play.

weirdbiz

well it's just a bunch of stubborn babies on both sides. The repubs want to drill for oil, and for the last few decades have just dismissed any alternatives as apparently not masculine enough. When they couldn't drill they said 'we're taking our ball and going home'. The dems got carried away with blocking new refineries and preventing incentives for oil companies to care about having a low price of oil (they certainly don't mind $140/barrel), and when things wouldn't go their way they would take their ball and go home. Both sides are so obsessed with seeing the other side 'lose' that they actually both want bad things to happen to the country to prove the failure of the other sides' policies. Because people, in effect, are just overgrown children whose core psychology never changes from the playground. And that's why I've lost all faith in humanity.

FDXLAG

I could care less if you run your car on bat guano or cow f@rts. One side opposes known science and technology and counts on unproven miracles to keep the economy running. The other side says do what works and if you want to stick a propeller on your car and hope for wind great, just stay out of the fast lane.

There is a big difference in opposing what works and being neutral on alternatives.

CPOonfinal

Just a few of the things this "take the ball home Republican President" has done.

Hydrogen: President Bush launched his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in his 2003 State of the Union Address. The goal is to work closely with the private sector to accelerate our transition to a hydrogen economy, on both the technology of hydrogen fuel cells and a fueling infrastructure. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership launched in 2002 will provide $1.7 billion through 2008 to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen production and infrastructure technologies, and advanced automotive technologies, allowing for commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles by 2020. Through its International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy (see international section below), the United States is pursuing international cooperation to effect a more rapid, coordinated advance for this technology that could lead to the reduction of air pollutants and a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector worldwide. For more information on this initiative, please visit http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...nitiative.html.

“FutureGen” -- Coal-Fired, Zero-Emissions Electricity Generation: In February 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would sponsor, with international and private-sector partners, a $1 billion, 10-year project to create the world’s first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant. This project is designed to dramatically reduce air pollution and capture and store carbon dioxide emissions. For more information, please visit DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's FutureGen Initiative.

Fusion Energy: In January 2003, President Bush committed the United States to participate in the largest and most technologically sophisticated research project in the world to harness the promise of fusion energy, the same form of energy that powers the sun. If successful, this $5 billion, internationally supported research project will advance progress toward producing clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy by the middle of the century. Participants include the European Union, Russia, Japan, China, and South Korea. To read the President’s statement, please visit ITER: International Research Project Statement.