How to frame the debate over our energy future-

[LiberallyInclined]

we need to be weaned from that oil-oozing festering tit that is the middle-east...
ok, maybe that's not exactly how to frame it-
but we need to get tthe American people to realize that our deepening dependence on an ever-dwindling supply of foriegn oil equates to dead American soldiers, in order to secure and continue to hold those sources of petroleum. Iraq is just a prelude to what we'll eventually face in places like saudi arabia and all those "stans" from the former USSR, and indonesia, and anywhere else the goo is found.
we need to develop alternatives to petroleum, and that's the stand the Democrats need to/should take. EVERYTHING about our future stems from this one thing- dependence on petroleum. every war we'll fight will be about oil. our economy runs on it- we need to change that, or at least find alternatives.
bio-diesel is one, and my personal favourite.
nuk-u-lar, geothermal, etc...
Power plants are stationary, and can be built where they can best produce energy- wind farms, solar, geo-thermal, hydro-electric, tidal, and so on...
but we also need a portable form of energy- like gasoline- to power our vehicles. bio-diesel, batteries, fuel-cells, etc... and any new technologies or new twists on old ones that come along.

beyond that, there are the other petroleum derivatives- pesticides and fertilizers, plastics, polyester, etc...alternatives need to be developed there as well.

we either have to embrace the change, OR get used to paying a FAIR market price for all things petrol, and/or get used to our children dying on foriegn soil to keep our lights on and our engines humming.

since ultimately the oil WILL run out, the "choice" doesn't seem to be a choice at all.
what's needed is an apollo-like program to make us energy independent and possibly even petroleum free-

that IS the challenge that will occupy the rest of our lives, whether we like it or not.

[yurbud]

1. a lot of us have said it at this level but politicians don't

and it won't break into the public consciousness until they do.

[LiberallyInclined]

2. that's my point.

we need candidates and LEADERS who are willing to drive this home, and just LEVEL with the American people- the people can see the daily death tolls from iraq, and they DON'T like them- we need to make THE solid connection between our petroleum use and our soldiers dying- and make them NOT forget it.
we need to make petroleum un-patriotic in people's values.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberallyInclined]

5. that's WHY we need our elected representatives to fess up to them

people need to know that a republican vote = a vote for foreign oil = dead G.I.s.

[yurbud]

8. Use a simple analogy: why would Homer Simpson break into a...

donut shop? Do you think it's really for a surprise health inspection?


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[NEOBuckeye]

4. Lead them to Matt Savinar's website. He'll do the rest.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

I have yet to find anyone who has painted a more sobering picture of what lies ahead along our present path. As the initiator of the Peak Oil discussion group here at DU, I consider myself an optimist. But even I can't see anything less than major, major, major upheaval and scaling back in our lives, even if we start today to make the necessary adaptations away from our energy-dependent lifestyle.

Whether we take action now, or wait until reaklity kicks in, there are going to be a lot of losers. The question is not if this crisis will occur, but when, and that seems increasingly likely to be some point within the next 6 months to 10 years.

[johnaries]

6. There's a lot of great info at the Union of Concerned Scientists

website, including what we can do IMMEDIATELY!
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/index.cfm

[StevieM]

7. I think that hydrogen is going to be the next big energy source.....

The problem is that, as I understand it, you get it from petroleum, at least in its cheapest form. If we could find a cheaper way of producing hydrogen without using petroleum, we would have the beginnings of an energy revolution. We would also need to be able to create smaller fuel cells for cars, ones that didn't make the car more expensive or oddly-shaped.

Ideally, we need to get rid of the internal-combustible engine and produce hydrogen without using petroleum. I think that would solve our energy problems, both in terms of running out of oil, and in terms of damage to the environment.

Fusion power, which I believe is the ultimate energy source of the future, appears to be a long way off.

I admit I am not as knowlegeable as I would like to be on this issue. If anybody has something to add or correct by all means do so.

Steve

[LiberallyInclined]

11. I don't think that there will be ONE main replacement for petroleum-

and all it's various derivitives...at least not to start. some people will have bio-diesel cars, others will have fuel cells, still others will be electric, and so on- until such point that a technological breakthru somewhere will establish the next great power source, for homes, vehicles and industry.

[yurbud]

9. I am mystified how BOTH parties can be hostage to a dying industry

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[unhappycamper]

10. It's no mystery.

http://www.dekorraproducts.com.nyud.net:8090/Images/money-stackLrg.jpg

[yurbud]

12. so they're going to wait until the bucks dry up...

seems like the politician go gets a step or two ahead of the curve and backs the replacement will be the hero(and get the big bucks)and the current whores will be left in the cold.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog: