As more and more Americans begin to grapple with the idea $5.00 per gallon gas, they will begin to realize the underlying truth of the basic economic principles of supply and demand. These are the same principles embraced by the right and despised by the left.

Did you read her entire statement?

It does not sound as if you did.

She said she was tempted to call Bush's bluff...lease it all because it doesn't matter.

Demand is so far ahead of supply, both above and below the ground, that punching holes anywhere and everywhere cure what ails us.

DOH!

Last sentence in my post should read:

Demand is so far ahead of supply, both above the ground and below, that punching holes anywhere and everywhere won't cure what ails us

Sorry...giant fingers get in the way

So if we look at the 'free market' analogy of why we should drill for more oil, can we also suggest that in the free market if a product comes along that is priced high (such as oil is right now), isn't the logical course of action to find a product that will accomplish the same goal at a lower price? If I am a business person interested in making money in the energy market, I would be researching and developing new energy sources that will be cheaper to extract and produce than oil. Can someone please explain to me why we should keep using an inferior product and not develop cheaper sources of energy?

we are exploiting are natural resources: having beautiful and clean beaches without oil drilling within view and worse polluting the water is in California's interest

oil is a finite resource and if we really wanted the economic advantage we would be the leader in developing and supporting alternative energy

wind and solar are natural resources as well

Debbie was right, endangering our beaches for a tired old idea is wrong

If you look at what many analysts have been saying about overall supply and demand in worldwide oil supplies, you might understand Mayor Cook's comments a little better.

President Bush, John McCain, Dana Rohrabacher, and other partisan hacks, are pulling out their standard tired attacks on liberals and environmentalists to make up for the fact that their six years with total control of all branches of government and their continued ability to obstruct any meaningful legislation has brought us to the world of $5.00 gas.

Not only have we reached the point where we have depleted the oil that is cheapest to recover, but our ill-advised invasion of Iraq has destabilized the one country that has large reserves that we might exploit cheaply.

In addition, the 500 billion dollar a year deficits that Bush and his borrow and spend cronies have continued to run have reduced the value of the dollar so that all imports, including oil, have gotten a lot more expensive if you're paying for them with US Dollars, the world's new peso.

And let's not forget who it was who stalled the last attempt to open up new offshore tracts to development. Jeb Bush, the President's brother, fought this tooth and nail.

But by all means, let's not actually read what Mayor Cook had to say.

"wind and solar are natural resources as well

The old standbys! Please lead the way by strapping a windmill to your car and showing us how well that will work.

Matt,

Put down the GOP talking points. Tell Karl Rove/Mike Schroeder to remove the strings from your back for a second.

You all had 8 long years to oome with a sound energy policy and you blew it. Now at the last second you pull some off shore drilling plan out of your behinds to save your fast sinking fortunes.

Is there any surprise that McCain is losing in all the key battleground states? Is there any surprise that you all are desperately trying to blame Dems for an inept administration that blew it on the War/Katrina/Budget Deficit/Taxes/Economy/Corruption/ and locally your dumb ass law suit against the MAYOR of HB/ Corona/Pedophilic Staffers/

So keep barking up the wrong tree as you a Dem Tsunami rolls over the OC. Ya Genius.................

Matt,

Don't play dumb. Wind and solar energy can ease the burden off coal power so that when (in the near future) you plug in your car hybrid to charge it up you are using renewable energy to do so.

Put down the GOP talking points.

If common sense is a "GOP talking point" then that's a good sign for my party.

Tell Karl Rove/Mike Schroeder to remove the strings from your back for a second.

The lame personal attack. Always a sign of a strong argument.

Tell Karl Rove/Mike Schroeder to remove the strings from your back for a second.

Dude, you need to take off the tin foil hat, come out of the bunker and get a breath of fresh air.

You all had 8 long years to oome with a sound energy policy and you blew it. Now at the last second you pull some off shore drilling plan out of your behinds to save your fast sinking fortunes.

First, I have always favored lifting the short-sighted, out-dated offshore drilling ban.

Secondly, a good energy policy should be spurned because it wasn't proposed sooner? A very mature approach to policy-making.

As for the rest of your "arguments": mark my words, this will be a close election. Americans aren't stupid. Not all of them are so mesmerized by good oratory skills that they'll hand over the Oval Office keys to a guy who less than four years ago was voting on traffic legislation in the Illinois state house, who despite claims to great judgment is constantly surprised by the views and behavior of his friends, and who isn't going to let winning get inn the way of withdrawal in Iraq (you lefties forget that the rest of America doesn't like losing wars).

Jason:

I'm not playing dumb. I am totally in favor of the increased use of "alternative" energy sources as technology makes them feasible and cost-effective. But it is the free market and technological advances -- not government mandates annd interference -- that will make that day happen.

But enviros have been chanting "wind and solar" for decades without regard to its economic practicality, as if it were a real alternative.

I think Debbie Cook is dead on correct. Long time Republican supporter and America's favorite "oil man" T Boone Pickens also shares her views.

This video is worth watching in my humble opinion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jngHfYFs9L8

While I disagree with Jubal that now is the time to open a Wildlife Reserve to development, he is correct that "alternative" is more a hope for the future than a currently viable solution.

Some simple engineering facts.

1. Solar is still not cost effective, even for the most favorable situation: peaking power in southern Cal. From the Sept 1, 2007 issues of Forbes: Solar cell installations currently cost $7-8 per peak watt, but even sunny southern California, the break-even for peaking power is somewhere in the $5-6 range. So we're getting close in LA for peaking power, but not quite there yet.

2. Baseline power is a different matter. The crossover point for baseline "grid" power is sometime in the next decade -- call it 2015. Until then, installed Solar is a net loser.

3. Even when Solar becomes cost effective, it will take time to install the necessary infrastructure. Assuming solar becomes more efficient than currently possible, one would still have to cover a land area equivalent to the entire State of Nevada to meet current power needs.

4 Wind power can never take you beyond about 10% of your power grid. This is because the variable nature of the wind - the gusts- are constantly creating "ripples" in power grid deleterious to providing reliable power. Denmark has been grappling with this problem head on. It's not easy.

So yes, let us develop alternative energy for all it's worth, but we need to be realistic about how much worth there is to be had.

Meanwhile, we already have two techniques at hand that are safe, well-proven, and effective: conservation, and nuclear power.

Mayor Cook's house is solar and she says she has no power bills...zip...nothing...nada

Solar works at the household level right now...how may households face south across the county and country?

Please do not cry on my shoulder about tax incentives for solar either because you forget that there were also significant tax incentives to buy SUV's. The bigger the beast the higher the tax credit

The question becomes: Is Debbie Cook correct when she asserts that there is an emerging economy that Bush and Rohrbacher are willing to ignore until other nations beat us (once again...hello VCR's) to the punch?

If past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior then the answer is "yes"

That is unsatisfacotry to me and I will not be able to check the name of any politician who is so inclined. McCain, Rohrabacher, Obama...we need leadership in this arena and we obviously do not have that with the Bush Administration

Catholic Boy:

"works" is ambiguous here. No one disputes that technology exists to run a house "off the grid." Of course, the technology exists to run a house solely with hamsters and hamster wheels, too. Doesn't mean it's a practical alternative.

At present, solar only makes (economic) sense for S.Cal homeowners if a large subsidy is provided.

Perhaps Debbie was fortunate enough to grab precisely one of those subsidies the state of Califorina was handing out few years ago. Great for her, bad for the rest of us tax payers -- and her kids, who will have to pay off that debt that was used to finance the subsidy.

Anonymous,

Remember that all those troops in the middle east are a subsidy to continuing business as usual. The cost of that mess is a lot more than the cost of a few solar and wind credits.

Maybe I just don't understand Republican math. The deficits do bother me and sending billions out of the country for oil bothers me. Let's use wind, nuclear, whatever, and use natural gas for transport until we get the electric road figured out.

Jubal,

I applaud that you have a better grasp of economics than any of the presidential candidates: increase supply, the price will moderate. Indeed, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens asked the DOE to estimate the impact on oil prices of exploiting Alaskas Wildlife Refuge.

Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.

That's it: maybe $2/bbl, twenty years from now. call it a dime on $5/gallon gas.

Not much of an effect. More Drilling in Alaska, at any rate, is at best a small help.

However, since you have the basic idea down, let me give you some more factoids, and see what you can figure out on your own:

1. Half of global oil consumption now occurs in countries that do not use market pricing for petroleum products. (eg. Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia).

2. Nine of the Ten largest oil companies in the world (by reserves) are state owned.

I claim that the above explains these curious facts:

1. Indonesia, the country whose oil reserves were so vast that Japan started a disastrous war with the US, is now a crude oil importer.

2. Mexico is a natural gas importer.

3. In the time that the price of oil has more than doubled, Venezuela's production has dropped by at least a third.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Gave us the idiot from Texas who brought a bunch of yahoos from Texas to run the country into the ground. Remember the Boots and Hats Ball at the Mariott Wardman January 2001? Remember Republican Dominated Surpreme Court giving the Election to Bush?

As to experience: Bush had run a couple of oil companies into the ground, was given a ball team to run, disappeared during his difficult stateside assignment during the Vietnam War. And that qualified him to be President against Al Gore?

The in 04 a real war hero with tons of experience in John Kerry ran and you all called him a flip flopper ($100 million dollar smear campaign, along with Swift Boating)

So now your talking point mantra is EXPERIENCE. Well I think the country has experienced enough. Bush Bad. McCain with Bush's policy's bad.

So Matt I will make you a bet this election. Straight up no point spread. I get Obama, you get McCain. Loser has to wear a bra and panties and sing the praises of the winner at Original Mike's.

Are you man enough to take the bet?
Put your panties where your mouth is................

"Let's use wind, nuclear, whatever, and use natural gas for transport until we get the electric road figured out."

I would like Libertarian candidate Andy Favor explain to me how we accomplish all that?

Are you man enough to take the bet?
Put your panties where your mouth is................

Somebody who won't even put their name to their arguments is asking me if I'm "man enough"?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

I'm thinking those examples are continuing examples of why nationalization doesn't work, and those countries would be better off privatizing their petroleum industries..

This is just bunk.

First, it will be a period of years before the leases could be let. Then it would take years more to get the platforms in place. After that, it would be months more until oil starts flowing. (And then, where would it be refined? But that's another discussion) What happens with prices in the intervening time?

Second, lifting the ban amounts to nothing more than substituting one set of problems for another. Exxon-Mobil is still in litigation for the Exxon Valdez spill. Even with their astronomical profits, they still don't want to pay. There's no reasonable assurance that another sleep-deprived ship's captain won't run aground.

Third, if we had devoted the kind of attention to developing and delivering alternative energy that has been put into getting blood from a rock -- oops, I mean oil from shale -- we very well might have reasonably priced wind, solar or other energy for the general population. But, alas...

Mayor Debbie Cook is right. Don't lift the ban. It will have no short-term effect and cannot alter the fact that one day, sooner or later, we will run out of dead dinosaurs.

My bad. I forgot. If oil prices are to come down in a meaningful way and right away, close the Enron Loophole.

Tell Me,

We do it like all problems get solved. You end the insane nation building and world policeman schemes, slash taxes and reward the entrepreneur. 35% corporate tax rates put a break on innovation. Take the break off.

Now I must admit that I am not certain if an electric road is a good alternative. I know it has been discussed on the oil drum and when I was scanning "How to Profit from Peak Oil" in the bookstore a few weeks ago, I noticed that was an option that was discussed in that book. I have not looked too closely at it though. But I do know that we need to start moving away from petroleum as a transportation fuel.

So withdrawing from Iraq will lead to more solar power?

No wonder the Libertarians are a freakish fringe party.

It's funny. Generally, the same quarters criticizing lifting the ban on drilling offshore or in ANWR also favor mass transit, i.e. light rail systems, as a means of lessening the use of fossil fuels. Yet they are undaunted by the multi-year lead times it would take for mas transit to have any impact on car usage, even as they deploy that argument against expanded drilling.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE FOR AMERICA

In the early 1970’s America imported only about 30 percent of its oil. Due mostly to the federal government’s interference in the free market and the passing of legislation by congress that restricts the development of American oil fields, America is now importing 60 percent of its oil with some of that oil coming from countries that are less than friendly to the United States. Our government leaders, including those in congress, have allowed our country to become too dependent upon the oil production levels of foreign nations that has not only resulted in higher prices at the gas pumps, but has also endangered our national security.

The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due mostly to population growth, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added in decades to meet the increases in demand. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. Members of Congress routinely point their fingers at the oil companies that make about eight to ten cents profit on a gallon of gas. In 2004, the US Energy Information Administration reported that the oil industry in the US made $42.6 billion in profits after spending billions of dollars on researching, drilling, transporting and refining their products. On the other hand, in that same year, Federal and State governments collected $58.4 billion in taxes from the oil companies without investing a dime. Who is gouging who? Corporations do not really pay taxes. They just pass along the cost of the taxes to the consumers in the form of higher prices.

The Ethanol subsidy program is a prime example of how our government’s interference in the free market has led to higher prices. Subsidies amounting to $10 billion a year are given to corporate corn farmers, even though Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline and it takes about 200 pounds of corn to produce enough ethanol to fill the average gas tank. It takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol because corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers. It also takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is so costly to make that it wouldn't make it in a free market without being subsidized by the government. Ethanol related congressional legislation has resulted in the following:

1) Big corporate corn growers (who are also big campaign contributors) get a $10 billion dollar annual subsidy from the American taxpayers,
2) American consumers wind up paying more for gasoline at the pump because of the ethanol requirement in gasoline, and
3) the program is responsible for dramatic increases in the prices of corn and other grains worldwide, which has led to severe food shortages and food riots in other parts of the world.

How is this government program successful? We need more free market competition and less government interference.

America must approach the issue of energy independence much the same as we did when the USSR put their first Sputnik satellite into orbit. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy motivated the nation and promised to put a man on the moon within 10 years. If we can put a man on the moon, land unmanned space vehicles on Mars, we can surely develop a strategic plan to become energy independent in ten years by increasing the domestic production of oil while at the same time encouraging the development of environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would free America from its dependence on foreign oil. Freedom from oil dependence is also in the best interests of our national security. Depending on foreign governments for our oil supply, some of which may be less than friendly to the United States, is definitely not in the best interest of our nation’s security.

It is time for Congress to stop listening to the socialist environmentalists who would turn our nation into a third world country by prohibiting us from using our own natural resources. America has the natural resources and the technology to solve our energy needs. It is estimated that ANWAR has 10.4 billion barrels of oil which is 200 billion gallons of refined gasoline. The outer continental shelf is estimated to have 86 billion barrels of oil which would be over a trillion gallons of refined gasoline. On top of that there is an estimated availability of 2 trillion barrels of shale oil in the Western United States. If Congress had opened ANWR to drilling a decade ago the nation would be that much closer to lessening its dependency on foreign oil today.

We must meet our energy needs with a 10-year strategic plan that provides a balanced portfolio of drilling, research and development that will ensure our economic and environmental future. The plan should include the following:

DRILL AND DEREGULATE NOW: We should drill for oil and natural gas in the United States, using our best environmentally friendly techniques under our own rigid environmental controls. We should take a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production.

DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY: Congress must repeal federal regulations and taxes that impede the development of new energy sources. Alternative sources should prove their viability in the free market. Any source that truly is cheaper and cleaner, yet still reliable, will not need much government help to develop. I support legislation that will provide investment tax credit to help encourage the development of solar energy, fuel cell and wind energy technology.

REDUCE THE RESTRICTIONS ON COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR ENERGY: I support the repeal of federal regulations that hinder the development of coal, natural gas and nuclear energy and also support the repeal of all federal subsidies granted to these industries. These sources of energy and power will prove their worth in our free-market economy without excessive government interference and subsidies.

John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY's 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

Tell me more,
I am not certain about solar. I don't really follow it that closely. I admit I am a bit biased towards wind since Irvine's Composite Technology Corp. bought the Dewind Turbine Company a few years ago. I wish they had not because I think the stock price would be higher now. But that is a long discussion.

But just to add a point of information on Debbie's point about jobs. I think she is once again correct. Just to give an example of how energy technology creates jobs, the above mentioned Composite Technology is a good example. They have an electricity transmission cable that carries twice the juice of traditional steel core cable. In not only saves money on capacity upgrades, but it is more efficient and just the energy savings gives a payback of the cost in about 3 years (I think that is the number.) But China is the big buyer of their cable. So here we have company improving our energy efficiency that is being sold all over the world. I can go on and on about the other Orange County businesses that benefit from those sales but I don't want to go too long.

Anyhow, the below article tends to indicate that you might get more alternative sources of energy when you hunker down and take care of America first. It is from 2006 so it is a little old.

Anyhow, I have to say Debbie Cook’s energy statements have resulted in the most positive debate this whole election season in my humble opinion.

But maybe I am in the minority in that view because as
“Tell Me More” said, I have fringe views.

Denmark Points Way in Alternative Energy Sources

America has been outclassed, and by an unlikely competitor.
In the realm of alternative energy, there is an inconspicuous European nation that could stand to teach the U.S. a few lessons — Denmark.

Besides being home to the world's happiest people, according to a study this year by a social psychologist at England's University of Leicester, this small country, badly battered by oil shocks in decades past, has become a leader in the field of renewable energy.
Alternatives Born From Crisis

Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Syria and Egypt, most of the Western world was subjected to an Arab-led oil embargo. The crisis forced Denmark, which was 99-percent dependent on foreign oil at the time, to develop an alternative-energy policy.

As a nation with few energy resources of its own, Denmark had to consider its needs and rethink its policies in the face of an almost complete withdrawal of its oil supply.
In the 30 years since, Denmark has worked tirelessly to develop new technology and new policies.

The result is that today, renewable sources account for a greater share of the nation's energy consumption with each passing year, according to the Energistyrelsen, the Danish Energy Authority.
Twenty percent of Denmark's energy needs are now met by electricity generated by wind turbines, and the proportion is steadily increasing. Thanks to advances in technology and turbine design, the cost of wind power has been reduced by 75 percent since 1970, when the programs began.

Wind-power technology has also been a driving force in the Danish economy, according to Chuck Kleekamp, president of Clean Power Now , an American nonprofit organization that informs citizens about renewable energy projects and studies Danish energy programs.
"Danish companies manufacture 40 percent of the world's supply of wind turbines, as well as having had extensive research programs for decades," Kleekamp said. "The technology also provides employment for a segment of the population in Denmark."
But wind power is not the only renewable resource Denmark has explored.

Other Danish alternative-energy sources include the burning of waste products, or biomass, in combined heat and power plants; electricity generated by photovoltaic, or solar-energy, cells; and geothermal turbines powered by the escape of underground steam.
Alternative-energy technologies, as well as conservation habits, have become normal parts of life for the average Dane. High gasoline prices and heavily taxed vehicles result in fewer people driving than in the United States.

Matt says take my word this election will be close.
The polls say Obama is up my 15 points. I didn't know 15 point was close.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

CAMPAIGN 2008
Barack's Bounce
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 20, 2008 | Updated: 3:37 p.m. ET Jun 20, 2008

Matt says take my word this election will be close.
The polls say Obama is up my 15 points. I didn't know 15 points was close.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

CAMPAIGN 2008
Barack's Bounce
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.
By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 20, 2008 | Updated: 3:37 p.m. ET Jun 20, 2008

It's also June, and the election is in November.

Maybe we can discuss the huge summer polling lead President Dukakis opened up, or when Bill Clinton was in 3rd place at this point in 1992.

The drill more crowd wants to drive down prices and achieve the status quo. The Debbie Cook crowd wants to drive innovation. If you want to see what innovation is going deliver, take a look at this baby!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

I'm sayin'....

"Andy Favor said:
Anonymous,

Remember that all those troops in the middle east are a subsidy to continuing business as usual. The cost of that mess is a lot more than the cost of a few solar and wind credits.

Maybe I just don't understand Republican math. The deficits do bother me and sending billions out of the country for oil bothers me. Let's use wind, nuclear, whatever, and use natural gas for transport until we get the electric road figured out."

Response to Andy: If all those troops in the middle east are doing is just allowing our government to continue business as usual, then you insult them. Those men and women are putting their lives on the line daily to fight a war on terror THERE rather than have a re-occurance of 9/11 HERE. And, I'm sure even YOU would agree that at any cost, that's a good deal.

And regarding your comment on "REPUBLICAN MATH"!!! if you want to talk about sending billions out of the country for oil, let's also talk about the NAFTA effect on our trade deficit; and also let's talk about the BILLIONS sent out of America each month to other countries in the world to poor relatives while we have either legal or illegals working here to support their poor relatives in countries that are raiding our coffers in more than one way. Do you understand "DEMOCRAT MATH???" Yeah, let's let those illegals come here, educate their children, take care of their health needs in overcrowding our emergency rooms, tax our infrastructure by having 17 people living in a 2 bedroom apartment; and sending their earnings monthly back to another country...wow, that's some DEMOCRAT MATH for you! That will surely help our economy!

While we are at it, let's sell (and we actually are doing this) all our wood and cement and steel to communist China and other emerging nations so they can build up their economies; while we run up the price of our own natural resources of wood, cement and steel. A house addition used to cost something reasonable; now you have to pay nearly 5 X the price you used to in order to get a patio addition....why? the cost of materials. Let's sell them all our wood so they can build sub standard furniture for us and sell it back to us at twice the price it would have cost to keep it here and build it.

Screw NAFTA, Screw free trade. We are getting screwed here, not them. Don't we need another Boston Tea Party?

Wow. That car will be great for a family of four or five.

Andy, everyone favors innovation. That's easy. The Debbie Cook crowd wants government to drive and direct innovation.

Aren't you supposed to be a Libertarian?

Tell me,

My point on that is really that I have always found it odd that our tax law encourages people to buy large SUVs. I cannot tell you how many people have told me, "Andy, I don't care about the gasoline, I just want my tax deduction now."

I am not certain that we need any preferenctial depreciation, but since depreciation is only a timing issue and because it does influence behavior I say give the prefernece for depreciation to a fuel efficient inovative vehicle.

To Annonymous above, there are so, so many points to make that I will have to get back to you. I need to help my wife make French Toast before Church.

But, before I go I will say one thing. "Free trade is God's diplomacy."

Anon 1:04 AM,

The below is from the 9/11 Commission report and we had troops in the KSA before 9/11. That is in fact one of the major grievances and recruitment tools. And why do you suppose we have troops in Saudi Arabia if not to support business as usual?

Now I agree that there is a movement to expand Islam around the whole world. And that risk has to be dealt with. But I just have to wonder if there is not a better way.

(165) Bin Ladin also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Islam's holiest sites, and against other U. S. policies in the Middle East. Upon this political and ideological foundation, Bin Ladin built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organization. He built an infrastructure and organization in Afghanistan that could attract, train, and use recruits against ever more ambitious targets. He rallied new zealots and new money with each demonstration of al Qaeda's capability. He had forged a close alliance with the Taliban, a regime providing sanctuary for al Qaeda.

Andy,

You're a CPA and a Libertarian. I would think that you would favor a tax policy that is carbon-neutral as to energy solutions. Any other policy would distort the market.

Giving tax preference to fuel efficiency favors fossil fuels or similar. Shouldn't we let the market determine these outcomes? Just as government shouldn't pick the winner outright, it also shouldn't do so through tax policy.

David Frum (in my opinion) makes the same mistake in his book "Comeback". He favors a carbon tax to foster fuel efficiency. In its effect, I see little difference between this and the current wrongheaded and politically-driven ethanol policy.

The market will drive innovation. The growing demand in the BRIC countries (Brazil, India, China) will continue to worsen the supply-demand imbalance. Higher prices will force the switch to alternatives (whether fuel or fuel efficiency.)

Higher fuel efficient vehicles and technologies are here, and prices for these will fall as supply capacity increases, driven by demand. And demand for gas guzzlers is falling. Read this article on Carmax's latest results.
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/06/19/carmax-crashes-shares-burn.aspx

The best thing government can do is to do nothing. Let the market work.

Best thing the Government can do is nothing? Let the market work? Then perhaps they should get out of the regulation of drilling and let the companies drill.

Why Won’t Congress Act? by Ken Moore
July 9th, 2008
Those of us who are very concerned about the NO! policy of Congress in regard to fossil fuel and nuclear development know that the liberals who control the vote are to blame. Their leaders have been asked, “ At what level of gas prices would you agree to remove drilling bans–at 5$, at $6, at $10?” Their answer is a resounding “NO!” at every price level! Why are they so stubborn about relief for middle and lower income Americans?

The answer may be that they are truly worried about “climate change”, the new liberal words for global warming. If that is indeed true, I have some questions for them:

1. Why did we add 4 inches to polar ice last winter?

2. Why did record-breaking low temperatures and snowfall occur last winter in many places?

3. Why have temperatures of this planet not risen over the last 10 years?

4. Why was Greenland warmer in the early 1400’s than it is now? (Scientists know this to be the case, and most early settlers died out due to extreme cold in the late 1400’s)

Liberal answers to the first 3 questions are that we are in a short natural cooling cycle! Oh, then at what point does global warming overpower natural cooling cycles? They obviously cannot answer this question. This all raises a fifth question: Why won’t the liberals mandate an unbiased, in-depth study of the causes of “global warming” by scientists on both sides of the issue? Top scientists are evenly divided on the man-caused global warming theory.

Please call some liberal Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel. Let’s light up the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121. If others won’t talk with you, ask for a staff member at the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. We are planning a demonstration in Washington D.C. on Oct 1st. Go to www.DrillNowOrWeVoteyouOut.com
for details.

America's infrastructure is based on oil. All the trucks, planes, trains, ships, that deliver all goods to market run on oil. All automobiles, as well as all the gas stations across America run on oil. All petroleum based products, run on oil. Although alternative fuels most definitely should be developed, in the mean time America must have oil to keep our economy from screeching to a halt. In addition, our national security requires energy independence ASAP, so that we are not transferring all our wealth to foreign countries who do not like us, and who can cripple us by turning off the spigot, disrupting oil transport to us, or arbitrary oil price hikes. These are all reasons why we must be drilling for more oil right now and right here in the U.S.A. ... ASAP. Nancy Pelosi and her cronies stubborn commitment to petty party politics, instead of realistic concern over our national interest, even in the face of 76% of Americans who want off shore drilling now, will end up in bringing America to its knees.