Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.

The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
energy and it's impact on the world economy.

Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
person's mentality to address the problem.

Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
leader.

Drill baby drill was their solution.

There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.


Didn't take long to get to the first Democrat talking point. This one is
one of the most patently absurd ones that should make people laugh in
derision. The idea that solving a shortage is supply can't be solved by
increasing supply -- what a concept.


We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.


Not interested in extracting? ... or not yet profitable?

BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
but they did on everything else.

That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.

If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
lb drum of epoxy lately?)


... and a greater supply of crude is not going to help this, how?


There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.


Back to the politics of austerity. A more correct statement is the fact
that we can't conserve our way out of this problem either. At least not
while maintaining a viable, vibrant economy.


Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
of the population), is the other major problem it has created, global
warming.


Dem talking points #2 and #3. While using that amount of energy, we also
have used it to produce a significant amount of the world's food (until the
politicians meddled in that arena) and a significant amount of the world's
economy. It's not because we are using those things that other parts of
the world are in poverty. Global warming? Since 1998, average
temperatures have fallen, the idea of man-made global warming is laughable
yet significant time and energy have had to be devoted to debunking this
myth.


Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.




The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are
another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to
convert CO2 back to O2.


Different problem


IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
half of the 21st century.


Gore talking point


We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
will get our clocks cleaned.

If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make
a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of
living.


If renewable energy is viable, it will be cost competitive without
artificial means --that includes both subsidies and the ridiculous idea of
the carbon tax scheme.

I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.


Of course not. Bush has been an object of hatred since December 2000,
nothing he could have done would have changed that.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough