Posted on 11/24/2006 8:57:28 PM PST by FairOpinion
Energy Policy: Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to put energy independence at the top of next year's agenda, but his party is pushing the same solutions that have failed for decades to make a dent in oil imports.
Energy independence can hardly be described as a new idea. In 1973 President Nixon created Project Independence, predicting that by 1980 the U.S. would "not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need." In the late 1970s President Carter launched the National Energy Plan, calling independence "the moral equivalent of war."
Today, Washington spends more than $3 billion a year on renewable and alternative energy programs, clean coal technology, energy research and the like, according to the Government Accountability Office. Yet all these Big Government efforts have failed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
In fact, the opposite has occurred. In 1970, imports accounted for about 20% of the country's oil supply; today, they account for 60%.
So what do Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats offer to turn the country's dependency around? More of the same.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
In parallel, we should build lots and lots of nuclear reactors to generate energy. France fills 80% of their energy need with nuclear energy, so why can't we? Are the French smarter than we are?
I'd like to see more development in the area of oil shale.
It's frightening. We are an enormous superpower with 300 million people, importing most of our energy from volatile regions, and they are pretending we don't need more oil and hey, we'll just "conserve". I am so tired of watching half this nation try to commit suicide in plain sight.
"oil shale."
I agree. At the current oil prices, exploring that would definitely make sense.
The Dems want to push us to "conserve" ourselves into an economic depression.
Meanwhile, nuclear power is staring at us right in the face like a hot chick at a bar.
Yes, I agree 100%!
But the Democrat answer will be to tax the consumer into less consumption. You watch, the far left in this party will propose this. They too apply supply side economics, only in reverse.
Otherwise known as MEOW.
If I wanted an answer for anything, I sure wouldn't go to a Democrat. They are totally responsible for our dependence on foreign oil!
I am so tired of watching half this nation try to commit suicide in plain sight.
I wouldn't mind if they would keep the rest of us out of it. Maybe a two state solution wouldn't be so bad.
I'm retiring to Guam!
Ditto that. Seems pretty simple to me. We drilled the snot out of Beaumont, TX and Long Beach, CA 100 years ago. Today the enviros and libs are against anything related to energy other than ethanol, Which has proven to be impractical. The Swimmer is even against wind power. And I'm sure Gore would be against solar power because it would draw more of the sun's rays towards Earth.
Don't faint, but for the first time... I completely agree with you on this!!! (don't get too used to it, however)
Snake oil? Bogus Bill is a snake oil archetype right out of the midwest 150 years ago, with tamborine-pounding wife hillary, usually just one step ahead of the local sheriff. The real answer here guys is SELF RELIANCE, letting OTHERS solve your energy problems always leads to disaster, the best helping hand you've got is right there at the end of your own arm...
How come the MSM does not perform its fundamental job and inform the public about certain recurring policy issues, with a perspective? (Of course I know why.)
The NY and L.A. Times and their sisters-in-arms frequently produce a beautiful color spread of a complicated item, like a submarine, but they won't ever print supply a simple list of the percentage that the top 1%, 10% and 50% of tax payers pay.
How come we never hear that this "racist country" now has had more Africans immigrate here AFTER slavery than were brought here originally. Why is that?
That's why the first thing out of people when you mention nuclear power is, "What about the dangers...what about the deaths at Three Mile Island?"
Of course there have been only about 50 deaths due to nuclear power, most from older Russian plants and none at Three Mile Island.
Plus, the amount of deaths by wind mills will soon EXCEED those caused by nuclear! (Bet we won't hear about that stat.) Not to mention the thousands of deaths attributed to hydro and coal and oil, etc.
Wrong quote. :) The 101 yr old in the parade.
If you would actually read my posts, you'd find to your total amazement that you agree with me on a lot of things -- even CA related ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.