You are relatively new here, so I'll do my best being nice.
Just admit you don't have a solution. You cannot repeal the laws of thermodynamics any more than the next guy. Oil, as a storage medium for energy, is the most efficient thing we have when it comes to every day consumption. Do alt energy sources have LIMITED applications? Yes. But that's all.
Spending everyone's tax dollars on funding solar company boondoggles like the one RMI cited is idiotic and wasteful at best. It's snake oil and a scam -- nothing more.
I would point you to the search engine on this site and look up "thorium" . There's a thread on it. I would rather my tax dollars go to funding things like this. I would rather the government work on changing the cost-plus financing of nuclear development than on building "alt energy" sites that cannot produce squat without massive subsidies.
Finally, the sources in mexico are sour and the tar sands in Canada are far more difficult to extract. So, Nnuut's point is valid and still stands.... what are you gonna do about it other than offer up criticism?
Look Minnow. This whole exchanged started, pages ago, when james made some vaguely liberal comment and RMI responded by saying something along the lines of "why does it always have to be political". I check this thread for oil prices but am well aware it is ideological echo chamber. That's fine, so I responded to RMIs above comment by saying "spare me" and quoted a couple the most recent ideological quips.
That's it dude! No criticism, just pointing out that accusing James of being political, in this thread, is the pot calling the kettle black.
RMI, to his credit, also realized this was the case...pretty open and shut really.
In fact, Nnuut pointed out that this thread was indeed very political. It really didn't need to go any further than that.
BUT Buster, well that wasn't good enough, so he told me to go hug a tree. To which I said "gladly", because I like trees and I'd rather hug a tree than a barrel of oil...which, I stand by. Again, didn't need to go any further.
Apparently this was seen as an attack so Buster had to point out how ignorant I was by not realizing that everything I do uses oil. And yes, I provided a sarcastic return. I touched a nerve with Buster who apparently loves making assumptions about me and how ignorant I am because I still don't know that my computer and roads are made with oil. But I do know that.
I said it then and I'll say it again. I KNOW. I am fully aware that we absolutely depend on oil. For craps sake I spent 4 years studying geosciences. Statistical applications in MANY aspects of geosciences are shared by traders and market watchers, this is half the reason I'm interested in markets. I worked with hard rock scientists, I worked with people in mining & extraction industries and one of my good friends works in exploration for Schlumberger.
I don't have a solution. I NEVER, not once, claimed to have a solution to powering our economy w/out oil nor will I.
I did say, however, that more and more people are looking to alternatives, times do change and in this instance change is inevitable. I also said risking many other resources to bring controversial Tar Sands oil from Alberta to TX and proposing we drill in a National Park
might not be the best use of our limited (financial) resources. For reasons that I sometimes agree with, and sometimes disagree with those are
very controversial projects; a litigators dream. Call me a tree hugger, fine, I don't care. I stand by my comments that a relatively clean natural environment is one thing that makes America great. I think that is a legacy worth protecting.
The criticisms I've made are directed toward the logic Buster used to attack me. The only argument Buster could provide me with was.
1) I'm a tree hugger. OK, fine.
2) I'm a tree hugger so therefore I'm ignorant. Not fine.
3) Stuff is made with oil and I've never thought about that fact. I know.
4) Without oil I'd be in cave rubbing sticks together. Don't think so but more importantly irrelevant.
5) Coffee rots your insides. Irrelevant
6) Stuff is made with oil and I've never thought about that fact. I know.
7) I'm super, ultra ignorant because I don't like his arguments. Laughable.
8) I'm wrong (about which he was referring to I don't exactly know). This isn't even remotely a discussion of "right and wrong"
9) Having a differing opinion is boring to him. OK fine, I'm sorry to disrupt the echo chamber. Don't worry I'll leave soon and you can back to chuckly little comments about how cool it is to align yourselves with oil barons.
10) God should be written with a capital "G". Grammatical errors have been abundant, irrelevant.
I do think that oil companies have entrenched themselves politically and fight tooth and nail against innovation that
might help reduce US dependence on oil. Something like 70% of the oil used in the US goes toward transportation. We CAN reduce our dependence on oil and still make stuff if we work towards reasonable ways to reduce oil used in transport. BUT, it's going to be a heck of a lot more difficult if we keep letting the oil barons in foreign countries and in boardrooms keep pulling our strings. Their lobbying and PR campaigns stifle innovation and hinder efforts to find ways to drive an economy w/out selling out to the middle east, which is a hinderance to our continued freedom. Playing police man in the Middle East hasn't been cheap. The debate really isn't all that different than our indebtedness to China. Therefore, I don't like supporting oil companies and think they leach off our systems via the subsidies we provide. I obviously don't care if anyone agrees with me but don't freaking make some baseless comment about me being ignorant because I don't like puckering up to the oil barons.
