flaav8r

Look at the positive here:
More offshore helo pilot jobs!
If you're into that!

weirdbiz

That adds up to $7.7 billion spread out over 5-10 years on alternative fuels. About $1 billion a year. I know that's not a complete list of initiatives, but that's a drop in the bucket, and I'd say that anybody with foresight could have seen that this kind of thing would become pretty important. You're gonna hate me for saying this, but the Iraq war has cost almost $2 trillion. I'm not making a political point about the war, just trying to show that the priority level of alternative fuels was too low.
I'm in favor of new drilling (although I think offshore needs to be carefully considered and not just 'yee-ha, we're goin in'), and I'm all in favor of more refineries, so you don't have to argue those points with me. What I'm saying is, we as a country dropped the ball big-time on alternative fuels, because foresight was actively discouraged and dismissed.

FDXLAG

Have you heard of ethanol? It is the political alternative fuel for the last generation. Thats what you get when you have politicians throughing someone elses money; around everbody gets a cut, we get the bill and food and fuel cost more. I don't want congress investing in windmills or surf generation or cow flatulence. When it works let the utility companies invest in those ideas. If you have money and know what works knock yourself out.

weirdbiz

Ethanol was and is a bone thrown to the farm lobby.

Anyway, what you're arguing in that last post is that you don't think government money is the answer and that capitalistic forces will work things out. That's fine. But the forces of market capitalism are reactive--they respond to the future when the future comes. If you want it that way, then why are you complaining about the painful transition? You can't have it both ways. Even if we'd been drilling every ounce of oil within our territory, this day would still eventually come, because there would be no market incentive to change things up until oil demand started outdoing supply. I think it's the role of the government to have a little foresight and provide incentive, at least in situations where it's painfully clear that it's going to be necessary.

CPOonfinal

weird,
I don't think there is any amount of money that would make a true alternative fuel come to market any faster. Money isn't the issue when private individuals, corporations, governments worldwide are working to solve the perceived problem of a "global shortage" of oil. I tend to believe there is more oil/coal/shale etc... available than we know what to do with. We have simply failed to grow exploration, pumping, and refining to meet GLOBAL demand.

The Chow

You guys are also forgetting that the AirForce will run on synthetic fuel by 2016. In fact, they are going to buy 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel by 2011 to run their tests. By 2012 the AirForce believes that the airlines will start investing and hedging into synthetic fuel as well. It's expected to bring the price of this fuel in at the equivalent of $55-$65 per barrell. So with my vacation coming up.....some light at the end of the tunnel.

BTW: the AirForce has stated that by 2016 all air assets will run on the same sythetic fuel and the Army believes it will also have all of its diezel assets doing the same shortly after.

FWIW

FDXLAG

Got me, I am not complaining about a painful transition. I am expecting a great deal on a new Tahoe this month. I am complaining about the government getting in the way of shale oil, coal oil, more drilling, nuclear power, more refining, and even wind farms. Particularly (not completely) one side of the isle. You think government is the answer, I think government is the problem.

preludespeeder

PickensPlan

You guys are ill thought in thinking we can drill our way out of this mess. More oil 20 years from now is not the answer to this problem. The good news is that people with an education and understanding of the problem (not Bush and his cronies) are making the decisions and finding a real plan to solve the problem.

weirdbiz

I think a balance of intelligent government and market capitalism is more effective than either/or. I think they can compliment each other.
I'll give you an example of what ticks me off. My parents have a solar array on their roof which, in most months out of the year, brings the power bill to exactly $0 for a big air-conditioned house, and even puts the excess back into the grid. Even with only nominal power bills, it will still take about 10 years to pay for itself, because it was so expensive in the first place. Most people can't afford to wait a decade to recoup the expense. If the government put a real effort into providing tax incentives for people who buy and for businesses who provide this, it would very quickly become worth it. We could have a huge number of houses, even businesses, putting more power into the grid than they take out, and this could and should be the reality RIGHT NOW. But nobody has done JACK, because the government has been owned by lobbyists and idiots. This isn't some unrealistic, 30-years down the road alternative, it's what is and has been available.

FDXLAG

Too bad we didn't try it 20 years ago. By the way your man pickens says drill everywhere.