Tom Ah, another one of the anti-Obama brigade here at Poligazette... To the best of my knowledge, it is not criminal to "mold public opinion".  And it's not just Democrats in Congress who oppose offshore drilling; Californians aren't keen on it either, remembering the damage oil spills have made on their coasts.  And I don't think offshore drilling will be enough to stop US dependence on foreign oil.

Claudia, Assistant Editor Chaim, if you´ve read about the subject you know that experts have already said that we would have to wait around 10 years for any effect, and that the actual impact on the price of a gallon of gas would be minimal. This aside from the fact that there are already plenty of unexploited reserves already authorized, negating any argument that we have no domestic reserves authorized for drilling. McCain is being blatantly dishonest by implying that ending the offshore drilling ban will solve our problems of energy independence and ESPECIALLY dishonest by implying that this will have any impact on gas prices as they stand today. They are pretending that the price of gas would go down in a tangible near future thanks to this, which you know full well is false.

They are doing these to divert attention and scrutiny away from the moral and intellectual emptiness of their very photogenic candidate.

Insults that have nothing to do with the rest of the post, seemingly put there to for no other purpose than to bash a Democrat, since it does nothing to advance your argument.

Brandi Drilling off shore or in ANWR may not stop the need for foreign oil but it will certainly drastically reduce it, even if it takes ten years. The fact remains that the simple threat of oil exploration in the US will lower the price of foreign oil. Read Samuelson's Economics to get an idea of the principles of economy and you'll understand the market forces. Strange that you choose to subscribe to those who say that exploiting our own resources will make little difference (I have no doubt, that in the immediate future it won't), how about those economists who say that once our resources are in full production the cost of a barrel may go to $29.00 as opposed to currently hovering at around $124.00? Why ignore that prognosis, pray tell?

Sammy Benoit Claudia, Actually you are wrong. First of all Experts say that you can tap the natural gas reserves within MONTHS. And as far as drilling for Oil, the latest estimates are Three to five years. (see http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/07/will-pro-drilling-wave-overwhelm-pelosi.html) As far as any coastal pollution Tom, let me point out three problems with that argument: Drilling uses a much smaller footprint that it used to.  Instead of going straight down the can now go sideways, so the "visual" pollution is much less than years agoThe Oil Spill disasters that used to happen, like the famous exxon one, did not occur from drilling, they occurred from Transporting. The Oil disasters came from OIL BARGES.Last month the Republicans offered a compromise bill. No Offshore drilling within 50 miles of the coast.  The democratic party refused to allow the bill to be voted on (see http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/06/democrats-doom-us-to-higher-oil-prices.html) Now lets say that it IS 7-10 years (which it isnt).  Senator Obama says that his plan will take ten years, and that IF the alternatives he want to fund actually work out.   (See http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-ad-promises-10-years-to.html) Now take a look at what has happened since the President announced the withdrawal of the presidential ban on drilling. It has put downward pressure on the oil speculation market.  Imagine what would happen if Nancy Pelosi allowed it to come to a vote in congress. Firstly it would pass, secondly it would drive prices down further. No one is saying that alternate sources of energy should not be explored.  I agree with Senator Obama on spending 150 Billion Plus on funding the development of renewable energy sources. The problem is without the drilling component he is dooming us to ten years of a maybe.  We should at the same time be allowing  the 3-5 years for a sure thing.

Chaim Claudia, the point of the whole post (not just the two paragraphs I cross-posted here) was to show the paucity of Senator Obama's ideas on solving the oil crunch. The actual post includes a link to a video of the good Senator's advice (his words, in person) to his audience on inflating tires and getting regular tuneups. To do these (it's good advice anyway, I fully agree!) he has the audacity to say, will save as much as using our own resources. Preposterous! What an arrogant insult to the intelligence of the American voter. Yes, I fully confess I am part of the anti-Obama brigade. Why? He touts his experience as an indefatigable community organizer (he has no other!). The Boston Globe (which certainly cannot be labeled a right wing reactionary dishrag!) has a lengthy article which quotes his own constituents saying how disastrous his community organizing really was! It also points out his dubious close contacts with various... less than upright figures. Read for yourself, please!

utsu "Preposterous! What an arrogant insult to the intelligence of the American voter." Actually, it is a pretty useful way to lower your mileage a little, at least by 3 %. That helps for all involved, and is an optimistic and responsible way to deal with things. To want the politicians to solve the ENTIRE problem, to ask them to do everyting while you won't even do a small part and pump your tires - that is unamerican.

Sammy I agree that everyone should do that Keep in mind it will increase your MPG by maybe 10%, but only for those cars that have under-inflated tires(27% of all cars)  so it will  increase total US MPG by 2.7% According the the Gvt. we consume 9.6 Million Barrels of Motor fuel a day. We Consume 20.7 Million total barrels of petroleum a day.  If we save 2.7% of the Motor fuel  that represents .26 Million Barrels a day or less than 1.3% of total US consumption.  In other words its a good thing to do but in the scheme of things it will have very little effect

utsu "In other words its a good thing to do but in the scheme of things it will have very little effect" Yes, and if Obama is saying that such a measure will be just as useful as McCain's "More oil" plan he is most probably either wrong or lying.

Sammy which was the point of the original article above

C Stanley Claudia, you may want to read up on the subject before adopting the Democratic talking points as fact regarding oil leases. Here's the rebuttal to that. Think about it- with oil prices per gallon at record highs, does it make any sense to believe that oil companies are sitting on leases that could potentially yield high profits? Or is it more likely that the leases that are currently held have been shown to be low yield or too costly to extract from? 

Jason, Managing Editor Why is it that some people seem so frequently prone to attribute nearly every political disagreement to the other side "lying"??? It's annoying and a continual distraction from substance. Of course, maybe that is precisely the point.

utsu "which was the point of the original article above" The article had a point?!

redfish Tom, Actually the number of people in California who support oil drilling has risen to 46%, with only 47% disagreeing. That means there is no clear majority on the issue. So far Rasmussen reports suggest he's lost some support in California, as contrasted to gaining support in Florida, because of his support for drilling. But apparently only because he lost some of the support of the 47% without gaining some of the support of the 46%. At any rate, public opinion on drilling has been changing in favor of McCain's position. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/california_mccain_slammed_in_golden_state_following_call_for_offshore_drilling

Sammy The article had a point?!Utsu Obviously it did because you commented on it.  Or do you spend your days throwing random nasty comments toward articles you don't understand?You know this was a nice Civil discussion of people sharing a point of view and information until You brought it down to the sewer

perpignano utsu, Merely from reading the comments, pro and con, it is obvious that anyone with a modicum of intelligence actually got the point of the post. Judging by your own, second, comment I though even you understod the point of the article. Oh, how foolishly wrong of me. :(

Jason, Managing Editor utsu's reviews on the quality of other people's posts generally seem to derive directly from personal vendetta and/or ideological criteria and thus do not actually say anything about the posts themselves.  It is therefore unsurprising that he would miss the point of any given article since his opinion of it was predetermined before it was even posted. I'm pretty confident that utsu saw the author's name and pretty much stopped consideration of any reaction other than to hate it. ;)

utsu I actually read it and found myself unwilling to honor it with any serious consideration. However, there were plenty comments available to read it. Furthermore, I refuse to endure insufferably grandiose writing to get to any substance when it is much easier to go to the comments instead. I don't want to give any kind of writing consideration.

Sammy , I refuse to endure insufferably grandiose writing to get to any substance when it is much easier to go to the comments instead. I don’t want to give any kind of writing consideration...UTSUFirst of all your first comment quoted the article.  Second of all like I said everyone was sharing information and discussing civilly  if you didn't like the article or had nothing to add to the Civil discussion ....well there are a couple of million websites on the internet, pick a different one

Jason, Managing Editor Sammy, look back up and see how utsu has been able to trick you.  By hijacking the thread with his personal vendetta, utsu has been able to make himself and his own inflated sense of importance as a critic the center of attention and he has distracted you from the discussion you were enjoying. Don't let trolls trick you. Slap them down and then go back to what you were doing before.

utsu "First of all your first comment quoted the article."I simply had to refute the incredible spin, the insinuation that asking for more pumping of tires is supposed to be talking down to an American voter."Second of all like I said everyone was sharing information and discussing civilly  if you didn’t like the article or had nothing to add to the Civil discussion "And?"By hijacking the thread with his personal vendetta"Personal vendetta? Don't use such heavy words, there isn't enough substance to hold a vendetta against in the first place. I hijack nothing, I just don't think that there was any food-for-thought in the article this time around, and people don't seem to be able to handle such a stance."Slap them down and then go back to what you were doing before."Oh do try.

Jason, Managing Editor The last substantive comment before utsu hijacked the thread with his irrelevant expression of opinion about the finer points of good vs. bad writing and his compulsion to express his dislike for various writing styles is reposted below as an opportunity for participants to get back on point. Those who might be interested in a demonstration of utsu's clear expertise in good blogging are referred to his own blog which clearly displays all of his blogging achievements that give him the stature to insert his judgment of everyone else's work into every thread. As you can see, the site lists all of the accolades and qualifications that make utsu's opinion so deserving of weight that it is necessary to make sure it is prominently posted on every thread posted by a less qualified author. --------------------- originally posted by C Stanley ------------------- Claudia, you may want to read up on the subject before adopting the Democratic talking points as fact regarding oil leases. Here's the rebuttal to that. Think about it- with oil prices per gallon at record highs, does it make any sense to believe that oil companies are sitting on leases that could potentially yield high profits? Or is it more likely that the leases that are currently held have been shown to be low yield or too costly to extract from?

Jason, Managing Editor Claudia, something strikes me as bizarre in the continuing talk about how we should avoid drilling because it will be 5, 7, or 10 years before we see any of the resulting oil.  What that bizarreness is becomes clearer when I recall how the exact same thing was said 15 years ago as a reason not to drill in ANWR. In short, the reason we supposedly never should have drilled in ANWR was because it wouldn't have helped until, well, right now when we really need it. So aren't those who are saying not to drill basically telling us to do nothing so stupid as plan ahead?  And doesn't it seem likely that 10 years from now when we have an even bigger oil crisis on our hands they will be telling us exactly the same thing, to NOT drill?  Fact is that we are going to need to use those reserves to give us time to build up those alternative technologies.  The "never drill" people seem to me to be just non-responsive to the realities of the situation.

utsu "Those who might be interested in a demonstration of utsu’s clear expertise in good blogging are referred to his own blog which clearly displays all of his blogging achievements that give him the stature to insert his judgment of everyone else’s work into every thread."Now you were actually creative, which is nice. No, if anyone can make a blog, the notion that I need to have experience of it in order to properly criticise bumf for being bumf is moot. I don't have to be a chef in order to distinguish between supermarket tortellini and freshly made restaurant tortellini. I don't mainly attack the writing, I attack the lack of anything beyond the inflated writing."his judgment of everyone else’s work into every thread."That is sort of a lie but OK."Fact is that we are going to need to use those reserves to give us time to build up those alternative technologies. "Or they will be used as an excuse to not spend the necessary amount on research. To use your apt criticism of "it will be too long" argument, how many times have a serious effort on preparing the country for costly oil and global warming been halted by the same complaint?

Chaim There may very well be another reason why some are so dead set against drilling whether in ANWR or offshore. Could it be (yes, I know I'll be accused of believing in conspiracies... but it still bears asking) that the Suadis are actually directly or indirectly filling the pockets of some very powerful individuals so as keep us dependent? Idiotic conspiracy theory? Perhaps... perhaps not.

C Stanley Jason, in addition to that very valid point, it's also not even close to a unanimous opinion among energy and economic experts that long term signals of increased supply won't stimulate short term decreases in price. At least some of the current high prices of oil are due to concerns about security in the Middle East, and a clear signal that the US will be bringing more domestic supply to the market will ease those concerns. Certainly the price won't suddenly plummet if Congress votes to authorize drilling in ANWAR or the Continental shelf, but it's just as certain that there will be SOME immediate decrease. BTW, have you heard the lastest? Heh.

TZ Why preserve it if you don't also make use of it?

Tom Chaim's right...I'm being paid off by the Saudis to oppose offshore drilling in order to increase oil prices. In fact, here's Prince Turki's limousine pulling up in front of my apartment... ;)

Barbara utsu -- every time I come here you are doing something to lower the intelligence quotient of the dialogue at hand. And Chaim -- I barely remember the 70s... wait is the wall melting?  :P

Michael Merritt I support drilling, but it's not a long term solution by any means.  More of a band-aid if anything.  Drilling can help, but cannot be the only solution.

utsu "BTW, have you heard the lastest? Heh."Hey, they can waste their own time as much as they like.

utsu Wait, didn't the republicans have some other, alternative fuel bills about to be discussed as well? I don't see why democrats should adjourn by then, especially if they have vacation afterwards. OTOH, this has happened before.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061002110.htmlIt's looking like Taiwanese parliament.

Interested

utsu — every time I come here you are doing something to lower the intelligence quotient of the dialogue at hand.

He's not American, who he supports doesn't matter much.

"BTW, have you heard the lastest? Heh."Hey, they can waste their own time as much as they like.

Typical Democrats, ignore what they promised voters for, be incredibly incompetant with the job at hand, blame someone else - and when someone gives them the opportunity to work - they cry and leave.

"This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo."Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers."You're not covering this, are you?" complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans "morons" for staying on the floor.Update: The Capitol Police are now trying to kick reporters out of the press gallery above the floor, meaning we can't watch the Republicans anymore. But Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) is now in the gallery talking to reporters, so the cops have held off for a minute. Clearly, Democrats don't want Republicans getting any press for this episode. GOP leaders are trying to find other Republicans to rotate in for Blunt so reporters aren't kicked out.Update 2: This message was sent out by Blunt's office: "Although this Democrat majority just adjourned for the Democrat 5-week vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN cameras have been turned off, House Republicans are on the floor speaking to the taxpayers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican energy proposals. "All Republicans who are in town are encouraged to come to the House floor."Update 3: Democrats just turned out the lights again. Republicans cheered.Update 4: Republican leaders just sent out a notice looking for a bullhorn, and leadership aides are trying to corral all the members who are still in town to come speak on the floor and sustain this one-sided debate.Also, Republicans can thank Shadegg for turning on the microphones the first time. Apparently, the fiesty Arizona conservative started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again."I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring. ... This is a kick."

Silly, Silly, Stupid Democrats.

utsu The republicans tried to get more time than they are guaranteed to have and didn't get it. The republicans tried to imagine they were all played by Mel Gibson is some movie detailing a historical breakthrough for a new mold of soapboxy politixians, and they failed to do more than excite themselves. I don't mind republicans getting their own medicine, but not at the expense of important work being done. Of course, I am not sure the bills that were left on hiatus were important. The ones subsidizing wind and solar should have been implemented, and there was something on warming for the poor as well that should have been adressed. The way I see it, dems acted childishly and reps followed suit. Drilling or not drilling now won't make any important difference. It won't hurt OPEC one bit. If you are scared about high gas prices, strengthen the dollar, go for alternative fuels and stop messing with crops that are important for third-world people. Obama was wrong when he said that his tune-ups/tire-pumping plan would suffice instead of coastal drilling (wonder what that would do to tourism) but it would be about three quarters of the way there. 1.25 millions of barrels is a pittance, especially if it takes up to 2030 to get there (it starts of slow in 2010, at 800k). One estimate is that ANWR would offer about 90 days of oil. Yay. Plus, Obama seems to be quite pro-nuclear. Not to mention the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, is saying that more drilling will only come on tap 10 years from now AND it will not bring down prices today, no matter what the economics 101 crowd is saying. Obama's measures could be implemented today. Another idea is to create incentives for auto manufacturers to go for the Cali standards on cleanliness and mileage. I think Obama should use part of McCain's plans and parts of his own depending on what fits where. I guess I want to see... More supply and less demand. Change the source of energy, start doing that now. Strengthen the dollar and then stop Enron from speculating all over the place. You can't do all of it completely, because democrats are democrats and republicans are republicans, but by doing all of it a little you might get something done.

redfish utsu, The Republicans got more press attention than they would have if the house closed silently, which was the point, and they had fun doing it. I read one article where a Congressman said something like "Congress is usually boring". Don't turn everything Republicans do into a basis for attacking them

Chaim My heartfelt apologies for the confusion, Tom. I assure you I never meant to impute your honor. I specifically referred to some very powerful individuals not to their followers.

Barbara Chaim, you are being polite, as always, to say Obama is foolishly arrogant.  Frankly, I believe him to be a con man with sociopathic tendencies: http://barbarany_9.blogspot.com/2008/07/harold-hill-will-be-played-by-barack.html He's got to be one of the biggest flip floppers ever: http://barbarany_9.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-never-bottom-line-on-anything.html despite his trying to play at being presidential... his arrogance is in full view because he comes off as if he believes he has the election in the bag. The way his Sheeple keep spinning everything and scrubbing the net as fast as they can they are fueling his massive ego. Like the pathological, he does BELIEVE what comes out of his mouth as he says it -- despite the fact that he's so naive & such an empty suit he can't back anything up. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/01/obama-your-failure-as-head-of-the-subcommittee-on-european-affairs-again/ And of course, people are forgetting the massive legal challenges that WILL face Barry very soon: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/02/obama-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-legal-challenges-imminent/ Lastly -- he's got yet another friend to throw under the bus, Rev. Willie Barrow: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/02/meet-obamas-other-anti-israel-noi-friendly-supporter/ Wonder how long that one will take? If we elect this bozo -- can you just imagine the thugs and anti-semites that will crawl out of the woodwork? Besides, on the Oil thing -- Obama came up with a GREAT solution. Inflate your tires: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/021122.php That's right, a little air will do the trick... maybe the HOT AIR coming out of Obama's mouth for months now could be seen as an untapped energy source. All in all, you are on point as always, Chaim

utsu "Frankly, I believe him to be a con man with sociopathic tendencies." What about short-fuse McCain, who has reular tantrums and seems completely addicted to the war-adoring machismo of his dad and grandad? "He’s got to be one of the biggest flip floppers ever:" He'll have a hard time beating McCain. "And of course, people are forgetting the massive legal challenges that WILL face Barry very soon" How about detailing them a bit - I don't want to visit that blog. "Lastly — he’s got yet another friend to throw under the bus, Rev. Willie Barrow" You mean how McCain still has Gramm, Norquist and Schimdt on his conscience? "Besides, on the Oil thing — Obama came up with a GREAT solution. Inflate your tires" Estimates on what tune-ups and inflation would do is at about 75 % of more drilling would save. It's a good solution, not a great one. Right-wingnuts, of course, seized on this to call Obama an ivory-tower people-hater with hippie tendencies. How very predictable and unimaginative. Everything Obama does is part of some deeper mental pathology - the armchair generals have taken a course and now they are all armchair psychologists.

Abraham Stubenhaus The Democrats need to understand medicine. Medicine? Yes, medicine!!! If a child needs medicine but the results will be apparent for six months, should the mother say, "It will take so long to help, who needs it?" We would all condemmn that mother and say, "Wake up! It's your child dummy!!" The Democrats have been allowing many yeatrs to pass, always saying, "It will take too long until there s a noticeable difference. Therefore, why act?" Hey dummies!! If you would have acted when you first could have, America wouldn't need Terrorist oil! Yes, terrorist oil! As in Chavez as in Saudi Arabia as in Iran! Congress is waiting until they get kicked out. Then they will say they wanted to drill but no one agreed. Liars!

Jermaine Rodrigo The Democratic congress is so sure they will again be elected, they do not even try to get votes. Obama is a trickster with a smiling, young, innocent face. Didn't we all learn when we were very young students tha we should not judge a book by its cover? So what if he smiles a lot! We want a real president who will not continue to rely on foreign oil while he flatters us with $1,000.00 for each family. We want a solution that lasts, not temporary bubble gum.

Elif I agree with Michael Merritt here, drilling oil reserves of your own is just one of the solutions that needs to be implemented alongside with others to fix the problem in the long-run (of course if I have the right to comment on the article at all considering that I am not an American!). Can someone tell me why US is avoiding to sign the Kyoto Treaty? I am not asking this question out of arrogance or it is not one of the loaded questions that you ask while you have an opinion about it of your own. I am really asking why and I mean it. You are talking about independence on foreign oil, some of you even call it as terrorist oil. It is the geographical luck of your 'terrorist countries' to have this many oil reserves of their own but it is also their curse. The increasing importance on oil in this global village makes unfortunately Middle East the center of attention where we see a lot of power clashes (unfortunately meanwhile Africa with so many lives starving to death can not get any attention from any country including my own). Any country dependent on oil not just US will need to solve this problem sooner or later either they develop vehicles working with sun power or else (not that I am a greenpeace activist or so). Like every other reserve, oil reserves are not endless. People are talking about water wars ahead. The reason why US seems to be exposed to the problem more is because its dependance on oil is more but this does not mean that the other countries in the world are free of oil problem. I am living in Turkey where the oil prices are highest in the world, yes highest in the world even higher than Norway you imagine and if we do not start at least to try to solve the problem, our economy will be severely affected by the consequences.

RRRocks Drill vs no drilling boils down to the democrats desire to go green.  Pure and simple.  The democratic party has adopted a stance in which Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro and biofuels is the only legitimate way to go forward in the age of global warming.  I am in favor heartily of going green.........it is the future for sure. However lost on them in their attempts to stop drill now is that While Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, Hydro and biofuels will be renewable and will aid in the greening up of the world: going green WILL NOT GET YOU TO WORK.  It will not get goods to market. Gasoline and diesel is made from OIL.  Those get us to work.  Now Biofuels sound great.  We can just start importing food instead.  We have already seen food shortages as this worlds population GROWS daily we need more and more acres to feed us........NOT LESS.  Biofuels feeds our desire to get to work, it does not feed our families. Wind.......makes electricity.  It does not power our transportation.   Solar heats up our water, it does not drive us to work.  If the auto industry started today in producing electric cars they could perhaps get 1 million on the market this year, 2 million next year and 3 million the third year and 4 million the fourth year and 5 million the 5th year............in 5 years we have put 15 million electric cars on the market...........super..........ONLY 235 MILLION MORE TO GO. Right now gasoline is 4 dollars per gallon, up from 2 dollars per gallon.  That means that this nation is now spending DOUBLE the disposable income on gasoline and as a result it now has that equivalent amount LESS IN TAX REVENUES to spend on other things.  In other words for every extra dollar spent on fuel that is one less dollar spent on other things that is taxed and that tax money spent on other things. These are just facts.  The price of gasoline is the most dangerous thing to our national security since the first Axis of Evil.   Doing nothing now, hoping to punish us into going green with shrink this nations economy, perhaps throw us into depression and put millions out of work.  Those are facts.   The one thing that can defeat Obama in the fall is the price of gasoline and HIS PARTYS demand that we NOT DRILL.  

utsu The ANWR has 90 days of oil for Americans, and those are quite optimistic estimates. Strengthen the dollar, decrease the demand, increase supply, change your sources of energy and stop Enron's speculation. You have to do a little of each, but I guess you'll toggle differently depending on your political bias.

Jason, Managing Editor utsu, I love how you include "increase supply" on your list of prescriptions but you oppose every available means to actually increase supply. You suggest strengthening the dollar, but I'm pretty confident you would oppose the only possible means to do that (budget cuts in the social entitlement programs that form the vast majority of the budget problem). You want to decrease demand, but you offer no specifics on how that could be accomplished without producing crippling side effects during the transition. Even if your claim that there was only 90 days worth of oil were true (it is not), that is still 90 days more than we have now.  Same goes for the offshore deposits. And my bias in this area is non-ideological.  I could care less about partisanship on this issue.  I only care about the practical problem of gaining access to more oil to give us TIME to develop other technologies to a more practical state than they are at right now instead of endlessly finding excuses to do nothing at all as your vaguely obstructionist position would mandate. "Changing sources of energy" is going to require more time than your vague, magic-wand list would allow. P.S. Enron has been out of business for years now. Perhaps you should drop the cheap partisan talking points and try engaging substance for a change. Try talking about specifics about what will or will not work instead of just throwing your ideological boogymen at us over and over and over and over and over and over and over.