redblueamerica.com

Thank you for showing me how stupid we americans are by the results in this poll! Where sound bites from special interest groups seem to rule the america to advance a policy that is killing this economy and it is not just in the energy policy. Instead of a everything is on the table energy policy get us out of this mess they have created 20 years ago. Speeches about energy independance, yet nothing is done. Now they are going to tax carbon and who do you think is going to pay for that? You will learn this soon. Third world america is at your doorsteps and you don't see it.

It's not about being green, or being pragmatic, or even doing what is for now the most profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that oil is not a viable fuel for the future of mankind due to the lack of supply when compared with the constantly rising demand. Furthermore, as an essentially non-renewable resource it is even less viable. Sure the National Wildlife refuge holds oil, but is it a considerable enough quantity to justify the sacrifice?
As humanity progresses towards the future we will increasingly run across such decisions and the answer is never easy. The important thing is to accept that the next few decades will likely determine the fate of humanity, we hopefully will not be destroyed under even the worst scenario... but, if we do not get our act together and address our world from an unbiased scientifically based viewpoint we will suffer untold damage. Honestly, drilling in ANWR is not a huge issue to me, but it is reflective of the choices we collectively must make in the coming years...

Its also called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

ANWR is part of the NPRA! Always has been.

So its still ignorance of the masses as to what even the land is in Alaska!

well, maybe when oil spikes to $200 and a state of emergency is declared, Congress will get up off their green asses because of the civil army of real people camped on the steps of their little namby-pamby game boards ... maybe right in the middle of their Summer vacations and vacuous all-consuming political season.

unfortunately that means ridding the world of us, so unless you're one of those humanity-hating neoenvironmental-utopist, we still need to do something.

7 of the top 8 richest companies are the oil companies because they have no competition and they are making us poor so their executives can ride around in nice big SUV's while you wonder how long it takes before you can no longer drive to work to pay for the gas you need to get there and feed you family.

Open up Alaska, tell the foreign oil companies to shove it and when they come back to us groveling on their knees because they are no longer making BILLIONS of dollars a year off of you and me enact a bargaining agreement that caps the price of oil. If they don't agree then send them packing.

Actually, My favorite idea is to just take over Iraq and make those oil fields our own. I mean geesh, all those liberals are yelling about this being a war for oil, we ought to go over there and at least get it.

Oh and all those innocent Iraqi people. They can live just as peacefully and probably more so in the American Province of Iraq. Not to mention all the technology and upgrades we'd bring them to give them a standard of living they deserve!

"You think profits for a large corporation are worth the risk of destroying our environment?" This is a leading question with a false causation assumption.

By answering yes the responder would admit the false premise that profits risk destruction of the environment. By answering no, then the responder also accepts the false premise.

If "...we can't know with any certainty..." How do you know the following?
"...CO2 levels in history happend at a MUCH slower rate...", "...millions of years ago...","...to have done nothing would be catastrophic..."

Good example of "stupid" arguments

First, I laughed long and hard at your very first sentence.

If your a follower of Al Gore and Global Warming is caused by man argument, then well its just sheer idiocy.

Yea Gore got some 180 scientist to pen their name out of how many? Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world.

Geez, its just sheer loonacy. Are you aware that the earth goes through cycles? That in these cycles that the level of CO2 rises like what we see?

That there are at the very least 5 known times in geologic history where the CO2 levels were many times more than what we see today?

That the main factor in Global warming is tied to three things predominately?

1. Shifting of the pole from 22.5° to 24.5° and back again When approaching 22.5° ice age. 24.5° Green house effect We are current at 23.4° and heading for 24.5°

2. Vulcanism. The level of active vulcanism is down from times in previous past history. Although its on the increase its still down from preivious history. The Amount of Ash in the atmosphere is at play. The more Ash the cooler it becomes. This was the reason for the little Ice age. Before the little ice age, it was so warm in the northern parts of the world that greenland could grow grain crops like in Germany and England had Wineries of the likes that were better than anything France could produce. True as written records show that Nobles of france imported English Wine because of how good it was. Its almost warm enough now in England again to have grapes and wineries like they did some 1000 years ago.
Thus low level of Ash in the atmosphere promotes Greenhouse effect. High ash Amounts promote Ice age effect.

3. Oceanic currents. These current are driven by two factors, Water denisty and salinity.
The lower the salinity of the oceans the less dense the water becomes the more CO2 is released from the oceans which is the main factor of the CO2 in the world 90% of the world's CO2 Comes from the oceans. most of this is locked up because of the density of the ocean keep the CO2 locked up. But as Salinity drops the denisty also drops and CO2 is released from the oceans and this for a time drives the ocean current to work faster and it raises the overall temperature of the oceans.
Eventually, the level of salinity reaches a point where the density is not enough to cause Oceanic convection. The ocean currents shut down and then we will travel back toward the ice age type of item.

When will it happen? wnen most of the shelf ice from the poles are melted. Then we will see harsh winters of the likes that will drive most canadians to America because it will be winter for 9 to 10 months out of the year.

But that is some time down the road. We are heading the oposite direction where winter is 2 to 3 months out of the year with the max point where winter is only a month or two.

Then it will shift back.

Thus man will be powerless to effect it. After all, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. 90% of these greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. Does man have an effect? sure. But only 10% effect. The truth is that man when burning wood and Coal had more effect on the environment in the past than what we do today. The difference is that the types of gases man makes are more deadly.

But CO2 is the main factor in Greenhouse effect. 90% of the world's CO2 is in the oceans and the amount of salinity and density has more of an effect than anything else.

Even if every factory and person on earth stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow. The truth is that it will not change the cycle of the earth. It might change local air quality and it might have a local effect in some areas. But globally, no effect.

That is the truth and the facts. Its call science. Its called Geology, Its call Geophysics, its called Astrophysics. If any one of the 3 items above can effect climate for a period of time.

For example. If you have high vulcanism at a time when the poles are at 24.5° then it would limit the greenhouse effect. Should it happen while at the 22.5° time, then it would magnify the effect.

What we are seeing right now is lack of vulcanism which is magnifying the greenhouse effect. We need several vulcanoes to blow its top off to the point that it reduces the amount of light from the sun to get to the surface.

then you would see a change in the climate.

But man really has little effect on the climate at this time other than Man cuts down too many trees which does effect CO2 levels. Trees and jungles consume CO2. Thus the more plant life Man destroys has a million times more effect on the overall greenhouse issue than some 1000 coal power plants or 300 million cars on the road.

The environmental effects of drilling even in %20 of ANWR for what would ultimately be, if %100 were used all at once, a month or less' supply of oil is just not very feasible. Drilling in ANWR is a bandaid on a hemorrhage; if cheaper oil is something to be desired, perhaps the United States should try to be more cooperative with the OPEC nations, as for the most part the US is at odds with two of its most powerful members (Venezuela and Iran) and has successfully reduced the amount of oil coming out of Iraq to a trickle.

Why do u think trains need oil? They are run in many other countries on magnetics. A very fast stable form of transportation, costly yes but much nicer. Japan has it down to a science and we should implement that. Planes will always be flying on oil until research is made on other forms of flight. Id say if we can get off the oil tit we can research more effective ways to fly. ATM us is the worse techno superpower that is developed china doesnt count they arent exactly developed. Europe kills the Americas in alt power consumption. What we should be thinking about not complaining is how we can fix this... Most people want to drive there oversized trucks around and still think they are cool. So when they go broke from wasting $ on gas and cant pay there bills loose there houses, whos gonna pick up the bill. Lookin to canada to move out cause this union is going down the hole quick and no government intervention is coming.

Look everyone.

Oil will be a standard in America for the next 1000 years or more.

WHy? Plastics, Perfume, most chemicals, about 35% pharmasudicals and the list goes on and on.

America will always have a demand for Oil.

The difference is where you get it. We can either get it domestically where the price can be under control and could even be reduced down to like $20 a barrel or less or fight with the rest of the world for oil where the price of a barrel of oil will top one day $500 a barrel on the global market. I have seen the projections from two different oil companies which expect price of oil to one day max out somewhere over $500 a barrel.

America can stop the need for gas and disel from oil, but that it. Gas and Disel currently make up 70% of the oil used.

The more reason to convert to hydrogen for tranportation modes and open up ANWR.

ANWR is so huge and the area that is supected to have oil is roughly 20% of the over all area if they just drilled like mad where they wanted would not take up more than 20% of the overall land mass. An that is still based on drilling methods of times past.

America needs to bite the bullet and make the leap to hydrogen. Its benefits to the environment is obvious as it is the best green item out there even more so than electric.

But America will always have a need for Oil. All those plastic bottles for your precious clean water or soda to a millions of other items is made from oil!

So even if gas and disel was a suddenly no more, Oil would still be under demand so that all those environmentalists can have their bottle of water and other pastic goods.

Wake up, people. The sooner nations get off the petroleum tit for fuel, the better. There are chemical products that only come from petroleum that will still need making we should be using it for. The aviation fuel problem may take longer to solve due to the weight issue. We're wreaking all this havoc to drive fricken CARS??

Get personal vehicles off petroleum and we'll have that much more to fuel trucks, planes, and trains until an alternative suitable for them is developed.

I am currently working on it.

I have changed over my central heating and AC to an all electric source which is 100 time more effecient than Natural gas common items seen in 80% of the market.

My overall electric bill is $92 a month Its actuall less in the summer a bit more in the winter for my home in the city.

I have a three windpowered generators which produce more electricity than I can use in my ranch home where I earn $450 a month from the utility company.

I would buy a Hudrogen car today if I could get one. They are just not sold where I live. Honda FX cars are only being leased in California, Oregon and Virginia.

If they would sell one, I would be first in line.

The technology is here. We just need leadership from congress and a President who is for the American people to make this technology a reality for all citizens.

There is a hydrogen generator for electricity. But I can not buy one. Because the Federal government wants to research more on its overall performance. Its been researched now 22 years. There is more research and development to prove Hydrogen is safe and reliable than ethanol or biodisel.

It just going to take people in power to just make the stand and make it happen.

But I do practice what I preach and would be one of the first people here in Texas to get the proven and current retail products which are based on Hydrogen technology.

The hardship is a 3 year one to jump to hydrogen. The Automakers need about 2 years to get the engines in place and they do not need to redesign cars for the most part other than where the fuel tank goes and a few other minor things. The hydrogen engines cost basically the same but are a few hundred dollars more expensive right now because they are few. But generally a hydrogen engine works the same as the current combustion engine that uses petroleum. In fact, Hydrogen engine is a combustion engine. The difference between them is that hydrogen produces water as its exhaust. Thus the materials for the engine and exhaust have to be water corrosion proof or resistant.

If a Semiconductor plants like Texas Instraments or Intel can heat their factories with Hydrogen and have been doing it for 35 years, why can I use hydrogen to heat my home? Why does the Government need more research on a proven technology?

Simply put, Our government leaders are too addicted to Big oil money bribes, campaign controbutions and other links to allow the cheapest of energy items to be allowed to the general public.

All we need is leadership and a couple of years and America will be free of foreign oil!

Even so, China, India and other parts of the world will increase demand on oil. Thus price of oil will never drop on the world market. But If America produces all its own oil for the Airplanes and trains which will still need to be oil based, Then we have to open up all those localities for that oil to be used over the next 20 years until hydrogen or other types of fuel can be used in those sectors like Airplanes and trains. Once that happens then oil and gas will only be used to run vintage cars or other products.

Hydrogen takes less power to make than any other kind of fuel or gas for that matter.

Currently in Sweeden, they have small units half the size of the one I was describing using a 2 by 2 solar cell to produce hydrogen for their 2010 project.

It takes about the same amount of power that your own refigerator in your home to produce all the hydrogen you would need to fuel your car, heat your home and in some cases produce electricity for the lights in the home.

So for the moron who said that hydrogen takes too much power to make is clueless!

Converting hydrogen to electricity is currently at a negative for high power generations or for high voltage batteries.

But to make hydrogen gas for common fuel for a car, takes the least amount of power than any other form of gas or fuel. A 100 watt light bulb take more power than it would take to make hydrogen gas.

Geez people, stop listening to the lies of the idiot environmentalist.

Anonymous wrote:
"and that bad thing is BREEDING. STOP IT NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET."

Tell it to the Democrats in Sacramento, they pay poor people (mostly immigrants) with all manner of benefits to have up to eight children so that is what many of them do. As a result immigrants in CA have 50% more children than their neighbors back in their home country.

Why not let the oil companies decide if it is feasible to drill in ANWR and make a profit. If they determine it is not worth it, then it's a moot point. If it is, let then have at it at their expense.

true alaskas americas last beaty dont destroy it for poulliting fossile fules

Things to be thinking about.

In the beginning no one cared if some oil company drilled for oil and made different things out of it. The oil reserves are a natural resource of the Nation. Some nations have it and some don't. A few have some oil reserves. Who really owns the oil in the ground? Most countries that have any real oil reserves control the oil by claiming ownership of the resource. Is that good, or is that bad? The price of gasoline and diesel has skyrocketed and coincidently the oil companies have had record profits at the same time. The question is how much are the profits compared to the cost of recovering the oil from the ground and processing it? I suspect that the profits are out of proportion to the cost of processing the oil reserves.

No! George Bush didn't cause all this price gouging in the oil industry because it has been going on and increasing for years even when the democrats were completely in power.

The only thing wrong with nuclear power is the number of ignorant people who are scared of anything they don't understand. Its clean and efficient.

Wind power is fine, but the environmentalist are always complaining about the effect on their view, (Teddy Kennedy and wind power where he lives and sails his yacht.)

Somebody is always complaining and harping about NIMBY. It is time this country wakes up from the free and easy ways of the past and comes to grips with what the future will be like.

while hydrogen is an alternative to oil, there are many other alternatives out there to coal besides nuclear. Wind and solar for instance are probably going to be some of the best.

NIMBA. Not In My Back Yard. The route of selfishness. I want this. I want that. My house is better than your house. You store my garbage in your back yard (San Francisco vs Lassen County in California)

"And who is going to allow refineries " Well said and is the gladius of the energy debate.

Hydrogen, no any processing, takes energy to condence-produce. Even nature uses energy (mostly solar) to produce H2. Hydrogen base electrical energy is technologicly impractical today for me to use. Discovery is a gift. Not something that money guarantees.

The elite can afford such extravagant energy just as the nobleman of 1400 riding in a weatherized coach vs the peasant walking behind a produce cart.

Hydrogen requires a lot of energy to produce. Hydrogen is usually produced by coal or some other carbon based fuel that ia burned to produce electricity. The process simply converts a non portable fuel to a portable fuel and concentrated pollution in one area.

Unless you are willing to embrace a massive nuclear program you are just trading the devil for the witch.

We have a lot of oil in the US. We need to use it carefully while we finde a better source of energy and develop a new infrastructure to use it.

Hydrogen can be produced in a person's home or garage.

It a unit that is about the size of a small refigerator and uses about the same about of electricity as a common refrige.

Hydrogen is produced in most cities of size. It produced by the same companies which make oxygen and other gases for medical equipment.

All of these are EPA approved and most are in Downtown areas of most Cities in America. Name a city over 75,000 and chances are it has a plant which makes gases.

But the truth is that Hydrogen is one of the easiest gases to produce. Its actually safer than natural gas.

So it will not take much to produce the gas. An industrial size unit needed for a fuel station will be about the size of a standard Cargo Van.

But most people will get their gas right in their own driveway.

we have had brokered conventions in america before and we can have one now and still take the presidency from mccain. he is just 4 more years of the BUSH REGIME! but, if florida and michigan are disenfranchised we can assume at least FL will be RED as it was when bushgate started. those voters need a reason to vote for a dem.

so, screamin dean needs to take his chimp butt to denver and let the process of DEMOCRACY IN ACTION WORK FOR THE PEOPLE---US!

Carol
CA

And who is going to allow refineries to be built to produce the Hydrogen.....It does not grow on trees,,,,,,,,,,,

as a native Californian for over 50 years I have been surfing for over 30 years off of Huntington Beach. And guess what, the same oil platforms from my childhood are still producing oil, yet the rest of the coast is "Off Limits" because of the "Not in my back yard" mind set. Yes, in 1969 Santa Barbara had an oil spill and in 1941 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Get Over It!!!! There is Oil, Black Gold, Texas Tea in these United States!! Oh yes I also surf off the Nuclear power plant in No. San Diego County. Guess what,,,that plant has been operating for over 40 years. So, if you believe that corn (which is causing twice the amount of green house gases than oil) is the answer. God Help us all...

Very True,Pablo! Thanks for stating how I feel.

Government should fix everything.

Oil for Libs exchange? Upward pressure on demand offset by lower prices at the pump and increased national confidence.

How many people know how big the ANWR really is?

Did anyone ever think that ANWR is just as big as California?

That the amount of area requested for drilling is so small that it would represent less than 1 millionth of the overall size of ANWR.

That if there was an environmental problem that the over all effect to the environment is less than 1 %.

Sometime the ignorance of people is amazing. Alaska is 2.5 times larger than the state of Texas. Texas oil fields represent 9% of the over all size of the state of Texas.

That kind of puts things into a ball park for discussion. The amount of area that is requested for drilling is so small that it becomes rediculous.

Think of it in real terms. You have a property that is 100 feet by 100 feet.

The amount of area that would be drilled on is 2 inches by two inches on the scope of the 100 foot by 100 foot.

Its this kind of thing that is the reality of what is going on. ANWR is so vast that there are sections that have not even seen the foot print of man. So what is the harm in allowing drilling 50 miles from the pipe line and from Prudhoe Bay. This is an area that is already compromised environmentally with the pipe line and from roads along with other infastructure.

I would not mind a 20 mile by 20 mile drilling area which is 20 times larger than the current requested amount.

This would not be noticable by any stretch of the imagination. This is less intrusive than the allowed drilling than that which is allowed in of all places California!

Sometimes the environmentalist are so antihuman and so antifuture that they could care less about anything other than an environment which is so remote and free of any human contact that it not worth the fight. If the land can not be used or enjoyed by man, then what's the point in protecting it? The animals have more than enough room and honestly would not even notice the land missing unless by some sheer miricle they happen to cross that area.

Thus this argument should not even be happening. The vastness of ANWR is such that a few square miles represents less than one hundred millionth of the overall picture.

You could not even put a dot with a pen on most maps of Alaska that people have because that dot would be 100 times too big.

That is the truth.

at least explore and see what the real potential is. It would be quite some time before anything was really available. But it is really brain dead stupid to at least not know and/or be ready.

Drilling in Alaska would be a childish display of instant gratification. How foolish are we going to be before we put the pressure elsewhere for our energy crisis? I am secretly glad that gas has gone up to nearly $4 a gallon! It is the discomfort of $100 fillups that will get Hummers off the road. It is the loss of jobs and grounded airplanes that will make people say "Something has to change!" We can communicate instantly with people all over the world. Humans have discovered how to clone animals. You mean to tell me that there is no other source of energy that can be thought up!? Drilling in Alaska would be like watering a desert with a garden hose... it's not enough and the energy and money and discussion that is being wasted on that short term, juvenile "solution" could be put to better cause. I love nature and polar bears and permafrost as much as the next person... but the environment obviously does not concern some people. If we want to stop the drilling in Alaska, our message has to change from “Save the Polar Bears” to “Drill in Alaska? Great! THEN WHAT!?”

It is not worth the drilling at any cost if causes our animals to go extint. If we drill we lose more. If its war your afraid of think of something that isn't going to kill plants (which take away from our food source) or animals which take away from our eco system.

Drill everywhere. Drill under Ted Kennedy's ocean front house if need be. Wehave to get rid of using foreign oil. Build Nuke Plants,
Whatever it takes, or face WAR and very negative downward spiral in our lives.

Economists believe that drilling in ANWR will decrease gas prices by exactly 1 penny per gallon. Still think it's worth it?