The two positions are not mutually inconsistent. Literally speaking, you can only have one priority, but colloquially speaking, you can favor different methods towards the same goal of developing new energy technologies.
I favor new domestic drilling, and I favor developing new energy technologies (though I don’t think it should be heavily subsidized by the feds).
It’s not doublespeak at all. It makes perfect sense to do both. I don’t get the climate at FR, now and then.
You're absolutely correct. What's puzzling is why people think a windfall profits tax would be beneficial to anyone other than the government.
I would love the major oil companies do an ad campaign tell people their profits versus the taxes they are already paying. Show people their profit margins versus that of the likes of Google, IBM or Apple. The American public needs to have their eyes opened with a bit of reality.
Let's ask the obvious question: why? If new sources of energy were actually economically competitive, they would already be on-line. Since they are not, they are not competitive, and there is no reason to assume they would actually save energy. Energy alternatives which are not economically competitive must borrow dollars from somewhere more productive within the economy to finance them; as such, they are also draining lower entropy money (and energy) from other sectors of the economy. I doubt that a serious examination of, say, wind power, would show that it actually produces any net energy at all. In effect, like ethanol, it hides what is a larger dependence on oil because its additional net requirements are ultimately hidden inside energy demand growth.
Brazil is almost completely switched to running vehicles on Ethanol, but they have a good system that is not counterproductive like ours is.
The hybrid and electric cars are subsidized also, and are touted as being pollution free.
In reality they are coal burning cars. Not that that is a bad thing, clean coal is a good way to produce electricity.
The thing is that the alternatives are set up by those in power to slow down production of oil based fuels.
Most of those that support alternative and oil, coal etc don't want more oil production IMO.
Plus the scare tactics that are used to push the alternatives (we are running out of oil etc) are bogus and politically driven.
The best alternative at this time is to produce more of our OWN oil and as fast as possible.
And start adding Nuclear plants.
Leave the other alternatives to the private sector, like T-Bone Pickins (yea I know what his name is, I like T-Bone better) and other private investors. Not our tax dollars. Put windmills off the east coast where Ted Kennedy can see them. Oh that's right, he doesn't want them in his ocean view.
When the private sector realized it wasn't viable or profitable to use infant stem cells, the government jumped in and threw money at it.
billva, I hope you get my comment now.
Thanks to both of you for the comments.
I favor the government getting the he!! out of the way and letting private industry find the solution. It is the government that has caused this problem with it's hyper-enviroMENTALism, over-regulation, and no-drilling policy. Does anybody really think that the government could possibly formulate a respectable solution?
I favor the government getting the he!! out of the way and letting private industry find the solution. It is the government that has caused this problem with it's hyper-enviroMENTALism, over-regulation, and no-drilling policy. Does anybody really think that the government could possibly formulate a respectable solution?