[mcg1969]

I've always been confused by the oil conservation argument. After all, oil is a finite resource. For all practical purposes, it will run out no matter how slowly we use it. We're concerned about our grandchildren? Well, what about our great-great-grandchildren? And their grandchildren? You give me a percentage reduction, and I'll tell you what generation we're gonna be "screwing" by using up all their oil. So what's the point in conserving it?

I can understand the position that conservation can help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But perhaps the people who make these arguments are unaware of the advances in the liquefaction of coal---that is, the conversion of coal to oil. It can now be done for about $30 a barrel! And we have enough coal in this country to supply our energy needs for about 300 years.

So the bottom line to me is, if we really felt the need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, we could do it without conservation.. plus, no matter what we decide to do it's inevitable that we will have to turn to alternative sources of energy in the future anyway. So research on solar, wind, tidal, fusion, etc. power must go on; and by the time we truly need it we'll be ready!

[Rebelbase]

"And we have enough coal in this country to supply our energy needs for about 300 years."

True, but just think about all he holes we're gonna leave beind! :-)

[Howlin]

We're concerned about our grandchildren?

Art Buchwald once gave a graduation speech at Georgetown (I believe) and he basically told them, "Hey, we found ours, find yours."