I'm still not sure what you're advocating with that last position, but I'm guessing you support the "cold turkey" position.
Well, quite simply, it would evastate our economy. Besides the actual fuel industry, there is so much tied up in the sale and use of gasoline that a sudden shift to not using it would cause severe damage to our economy.
Now, I'm all for introducing other sources such as nuclear energy and, where practical, solar and wind energy. Unfortunately, many of the same people who complain about fuel use are standing in the way of these other sources. There's a cost to everything, and if you wait for the "perfect" energy source, you'll be sorely disappointed.
Also note that the biggest foe to alternate energy sources is not the "fuel industry" administration but a Congress composed of career politicians of both parties. Yet, the issue still falls on Bush.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Former CIA Director: Shift to alternative fuels now
>> What is needed is congressional action to build on the president?s call by enacting the necessary incentives for producers to make, and consumers to buy, cars that offer fuel choices while encouraging the development of a mass market for alternative fuels, along with the modest necessary changes in the distribution system. Such policies would make the U.S. economy more resilient and put it on a trajectory toward oil security. <<
This was the "Pro" half of a "should we quit our oil addiction cold turkey?" discussion. The "Con" half was CON: There's no good substitute for oil and gas.
>> Unlike the ailing alcoholic who may save his life by joining AA and going cold turkey, America can moderate its use of oil by increasing fuel economy mandates for motor vehicles and generating more of its electricity from nuclear energy and coal-fired power plants. <<
I suspect the optimal policy is between the two -- "cold turkey" would be too painful, but 20 years is way too long. It's taken Brazil a lot less...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
14 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
Brazil required that cars be able to burn ethanol and now they can tell the oil producing countries to go - well you know. Using a renewable resource makes more sense.
I don't know how much oil is underground but we use it in so many things that cannot be substituted. It seems wasteful to burn it up in our vehicles.
Diana
- Collapse -
Why? Do you have a better use for it? Not doing anyone any good sitting in the ground. You can't eat it.
I'm glad at least to see that Dave is on the right pro-nuclear page. NMow if the rest of the enviro-whackos would join him we might be able to get somewhere.
I have also noted before that Brazil is not the US nor is it the rest of the world. There are good economoic reasons why gas powered internal combustion engines are still the choice of the majority, even in places where gas is much more expensive than it is here.
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
... to wash our dishes with the stuff, it's too precious.
We're not running out anytime soon.
- Collapse -
Not made with petroleum distillates, so they claim.
Of course it IS delivered in big trucks, Damn!
- Collapse -
... is that most of these other petroleum-based products are made from the "waste" of fuel refining. As such, the raw materials are cheap because of the high supply. If we had to pump oil JUST to make plastics, etc., the price of all of those would increase dramatically.
I happen to agree with you that the burning of fossil fuels for energy is an excellent (and productive) use for this resource.
Evie 
- Collapse -
we wouldn't have them at all IMHO.
- Collapse -
Certainly wouldn't have the array of disposables we have now that's for sure.
Evie
- Collapse -
and many of the can be made without oil or we can find substitutes for them. But it's not really an issue. Making gasoline out of oil is not a "waste". We're not taking away from those other products.
I am not against ethanol, but if it were a real viable alternative I think people the world over would have switched to it by now, not just Brazil. People use gasoline engines for good economic reasons. It's not an arbitrary choice.
- Collapse -
... knows about energy and economics escapes me.
We need to supply our own oil is all. There's plenty of it.
- Collapse -
We currently do not have a feasible means to withdrawl, so either move to Brazil or whatever country is better than the U.S.A. today, invent the next better thing or shut up about it. IOW do something that is not even remotely like complaining just once.
Don Erickson
Mr.California Republican
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic