[Sarastro]

On human terms, as far as turning on your Air Conditioner, or reducing the amount of oil this nation buys from foriegn sources, the amount is significant.

It's interesting that this whole thread ignores the elephant in the room: there is plenty of fossil fuel to sustain economic development, even with China and India coming on-line. The rub is that, through an accident of history and geography, a major fraction of the oil is underneath people practicing Islam. If those people were Christian, the issue of U.S. energy independence would go away. Then the discussion would be focused where it should be: alternatives to fossil fuels, the main one being nuclear, which has nearly inexhaustible potential without creating any greenhouse gasses.

[mission9]

The elephant in this room on this thread is ocean current energy, which by an accident of history and geography happens to be found in the largest quantity three miles from Miami, the largest metropolis in Fla. The question before us is will we insist that our "leaders" tap this benign but powerful resource for the good of the people?
As to the plenitude of petroleum and other hydro-carbons - granted. But coal, oil shale, natural gas, etc. come with additional penalties not the least of which is carbon dioxide. As for nuclear, I heartily support, but the Pandora's box of complications for nuclear is frightful when compared to ocean current. Do not misunderstand, I ain't skeered. But the cost of Ocean Current is one third what nuclear costs, and the permitting.... we could turn on the juice in one year.