Un-commom sense wrote on Nov 7, 2006 5:59 AM:If oil is produced in the US, tax-paying companies and their employees, and businesses providing support services to the industry would benefit. It would reduce demand on world oil prices, putting downward pressure on oil prices and foreign profits from the same. We also need a coherent national energy policy that really encourages alternative energy sources e.g. solar & wind. Ethanol BTW is not the answer - it takes too much energy input for what you get out of it. Bio-diesel from plant waste products and cleaner modern diesel engines (e.g. VW TDI technology) would further give consumers an alternative. Think about our ENTIRE energy environment and economy - not just oil or foreign oil.

John wrote on Nov 7, 2006 10:28 AM:We dont need foreign oil,we need to stop exporting the oil products to other countries in the ammount that we do.And we certainly dont need that 15 to 20 percent we export from the middle east.Im with Uncommon on the bio diesel thing.Ethinol gives poorer economy ,can be just as dirty in many other ways.Check out the facts on ethinol.

The Big Picture wrote on Nov 9, 2006 8:40 AM:Politicians love to talk about foreign oil, But you almost never hear about foreign labor, I think American coprorations are hooked on foreign labor, Look at all the everyday items we buy from Wal Mart to Nordstrom, They all say "Made in China" The biggest problem we have is outsourcing American Jobs to third world countries from labor to blue collar office jobs just try calling Amex, HP or E-Machines after hours and you'll understand what I mean. The corporations say they do this to stay competitive but with the costs of shipping being what they are, We as a country would be better off absorbing the costs of having if made hear domestically, The middle class is disappearing before our eyes because of this practice. Oil is the not the only political topic that needs to be addressed. China is becoming way to influential to what happens in the US and is obvious because their currency is based on ours (and advertly devalued by about 60% by the government) They were warned not to do this by our government but what are we gonna do, Induce sanctions? Impossible, Because they have too much control over the US economy.

Oil Man wrote on Nov 9, 2006 9:05 AM:"Flex fuel" vehicle hybrid vehicles IMO are the realistic change we need today. The problem is Americans won't quit going to McDonalds thus creating a demand for big cars.

Hybrid Faux wrote on Nov 9, 2006 12:46 PM:Problem with hybrids like the Toyota Pruis is they get no better milage than an economy Honda Civic, But cost thousands more and after the warranty expires I fear for the owners who need to fix their "hybrid synery drive" Big bucks no doubt. In europe they use common rail Diesels that get way better milage than hybrids and they're emission have been greatley reduced to that of gasoline autos. Hybrids have been way to hyped for the little benefit if any they provide.

Oil Man wrote on Nov 10, 2006 10:03 AM:You take a hybrid flex-fuel vehicle that gets let say 40 miles to the gallon instead of 25, add 50% ethanol and you have cut oil consumption by about 70%....This is realistic and no the earth isn't flat.

John wrote on Nov 12, 2006 10:25 AM:Another problem with theese so called HYbred cars is the ammount of hazardous materals needed to make theese dirty monsters,lead in batteries,copper,plastics. All disposal problems on a disposable car.Hea ,its new Tec. gotta try it on some poor sucker.LOL... So much for clean energy.Diesel is probably the most workable solution.

Oil Man wrote on Nov 12, 2006 6:54 PM:My sister inlaw drives a hybrid. These cars are really nice and competivly priced. The newer batteries are good for about five years. These cars and there quality is to the point where my next car could in fact be a hybrid.

Bob wrote on Nov 17, 2006 4:59 AM:The only correct course of action is less people, using less resources, more wisely. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the population stupid."

Bill2 wrote on Nov 18, 2006 6:30 PM:The youngsters that write about our depenence on "Imported oil" haven't lived in this area. I remember when our Long Beach oil fields were in full production. Tankers would be loaded and sent south past the Mexican border. They would then turn around and come back. They were then "Imported Oil" because they had to cross an international border and could be sold at higher prices than domestic oil. Oil company duplicity is nothing new.

Big Gay Al wrote on Nov 18, 2006 10:04 PM:What's "unpatriotic" is that we let the environmentalist wackos force our own oil production down to nearly nothing, so that we HAVE to import foreign oil. IF we drew on our own resources, the OPEC countries would be having their own recession. It's past time for us to utilize the oil resources that we have here.

Bill2 wrote on Nov 25, 2006 2:39 PM:Big Gay Al has evidently never lived in an area where environmental disaster was a reality, or he wouldn't have the snide remarks about "Environmental Wackos." I was born and raised in the middle of the Pennsylvania hard coal region a long time ago. We had a creek running by the town that ran black with coal dirt. Nothing grew within about a hundred feet from the water. The standing joke was that you didnt need to worry about drowning, you would disolve first. The problem wasn't resolved until the 1900's when Pennsylvania finally cleaned up some of the mess from the strip-mining.

Cree wrote on Nov 29, 2006 4:50 PM: Well shucks just how much fuel do you you think those tanks,trucks,aircraft,aircraft carriers and all other vehicals of war are sucking up (translate that into barrels of oil per day) and you think we can ever be independant of oil. Where is our rapid transit system, to remove half the nuts off the highway instead of seeing two or three gas guzzlers setting in the driveway's on every street,first Americans need to change thier habits as far as fuel is concerned (oh I know I can hear the cry's of pain now it Unamerican it ain't patriotic but believe it or not in the very near future it will become a reality.!!!

William wrote on Dec 2, 2006 8:26 AM:Andrew Kleske forgets that we are at war, which can have a way of really messing up your environment(Kaboom!). This will consume decades of time and money to win, and the stated target is our economic infrastructure. 40% of U.S. trade deficit is from energy imports. Trade deficits erode the Dollar's value--both your wallet and U.S. economic strength. We need long-term economic strength to support the battles that lay ahead. Domestic production now (including coastal drilling 100 miles out) is a necessary step to shore up our economic weakness, or your kids will have a much uglier social-political-economic environment to come home to some day. We are all environmentalists, but there are those on the left who haven't got a clue about the real threats facing us--and it ain't global warming, unless one is referring to the heat generated by a nuclear weapon. If and when Iran controls the flow of oil out of the Middle East, my guess is Andrew will be the first to scream about $120 cost to fill his tank. A nuclear-armed Iran and its crazed leadership who are following in lock-step with the rise of Nazism should be your focus, not "stinking processing plants."

Wayne wrote on Dec 4, 2006 3:27 PM:Sure dependence on foreign oil is a hot button topic ....becuase its the long supply chain from some place half way around the world that is blamed for sky-rocking prices at the pump ...when in reality the available volume of oil is never a problem. Oil comapnies bounce th eprice up seemingly at their own whimsy. Importing oil is apparently all about being able to get and market the commodity at the lowest price and maximuming corporate profits. Which seem to not ever be spent for anything except to line the pockets of CEOs. In the meantime, any actions that might be taken to levelize the day to day price fluctuations and their commensurate impact on all other consumer commodities don't seem to be explored. And year after year no real improvement develops. Automakers produce more cars now with seat warmers and GPS and features like pushing a button and the car parallel parks itself ... but longer durability and lower fuel consumption have made minimal improvements over the years. Our society is more "hooked" on oil today that t any point in our past. Half of our oil imports don't even go to making automotive fuels !! Its unlikely there is an endless supply of the stuff so drain other countries supplies before draining our own may be prudent ...but the reality is that we aren't using our own because of that ...its because you have to pay people more money to do anything in this country than you do in almost any other country in the world. which allows for higher cororate profits ...which lets face facts ... that's why corporations are in business ...to make maximum profits. Sure ...we ..the society of the US...needs an energy policy that our outline for future success ...we don't have one now ...and probably will never get the right one unless it lines the corporate pockets with lots of cash. Big business runs this country ...they own the politicians and the public good is rarely "profitable" enough for them. More than one country in history has been invaded for the betterment of business and the oil business is very powerful. We aren't in Iraq because of "oppression" because there's lots of countries with dictators that are "oppressing" their people and we aren't invading them. And like most of our wars ..."business" has made some serious money on the Iraqi war. And most certainly will make a ton for years to follow once we ever find a way to get the hell out of there. So ...where does that leave the average guy ? Up a creek ...well... that is if you were epxpecting the gov't to "fix" things. So ...if we want stability or efficiency ...we'll be needing to find a way to do it ourselves ....because big business is also in cohoots with each other... if you could have a car that got 200 mpg, lasted a million miles without service or repair and rode on tire that lasted 500,000 miles they would all go broke. So...clearly we'll never see them produce such a vehicle ....just like if it were possible to run your car on water ... they'd never produce that either. If we want it ...we'll have ot do it ourselves.

No. County Reader wrote on Dec 5, 2006 12:17 PM:I drive a honda civic and I am just about run off the road daily by semi's, suv's and truck's. So much for my saving on gasoline and trying to get to work safely. This morning I was high beamed by a passenger truck because I would not pass a semi while I was in the slow lane. Then he tried to run into my car on Camino Del Norte because I didn't move out of his way earlier. Where else am I supposed to drive in the emergency lane ?!! How about taking your foot off the pedal and saving gas like the rest of us are trying to do, not to mention safety. Not everyone drives an suv or goes to McDonald's !!! If I could afford an SUV you darn well bet I'd be driving one too. I might even "feel" safer !!!

Bob wrote on Dec 13, 2006 7:50 PM:The United States has no choice but to import foreign oil and natural gas. Until such time as Congress resists lobbyists and campaign contributions from the Energy and Automotive sectors and enacts legislation mandating 100 MPG minium limits on all vehilces sold in the United States within five years, raising that to 200 MPG within ten years, the country will continue to be held capitive and engaged in middle eastern conflicts. Here is why! Today, the United States is facing an energy crisis that threatens our economy and status as the globes only remaining superpower. The U.S. is down to its last 22 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, including those in Alaska and off the Coast of California. These reserves have declined by around 20% since 1990. Total U.S. oil production in 2002 was down sharply about 2.4 MMBD, or 23% from the 10.6 MMBD average in 1985. U.S. crude oil production is at 50-year lows. Today, the United States is consuming an average of about 19.7 MMBD of which it imports 11.2 MMBD or about 57% of total daily demand. Nearly 40% of these imports come from OPEC nations, of that nearly half comes from Persian Gulf sources. At our current rate of consumption, should all imported sources of oil be interrupted, the United States would completely consume it proven reserves in as few as three years. Former U.S. General Norman Schwarzkopf, the commanding officer of coalition forces in the 1991 Gulf War stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in February 1990 that, “Mideast oil is the West’s lifeblood. It fuels us today, and being 77 percent of the Free Worlds proven reserves, is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry. It is estimated that within 20 to 40 years the U.S. will have virtually depleted its economically available oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf region will still have at least 100 years of proven oil reserves.” Those comments were uttered over sixteen years ago. U. S. and U.K. energy corporations have been activity engaged in Iraq since World War I. The five major world oil firms from the United States and United Kingdom, were excluded from operations in Iraq when that nation nationalized the oil industry in 1972. During the Iran/Iraq war, its oil infrastructure was virtually wiped out. In 1996 the Iraqi legislature under the U.N. Oil for Food Program began awarding oil and oil infrastructure contracts worth hundreds-of-billions in revenues to companies from China, Russia, Syria and Turkey. Those contracts to repair, operate, maintain, pump, and ship the Iraqi crude to international markets alarmed U.S. energy industry firms for it meant that they would be frozen out of operations in Iraq for decades. With the U.S. oil industry in decline, U.S. oil companies and oil services firms faced a challenging financial future. For them, securing access to the Iraqi oil fields with the second largest proven reserves in the world (112 billion barrels, 11% of the worlds total) was essential to their economic survival. Iraqi oil is vital to the five big oil companies from the United Sates, and England (Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron/Texaco and British Petroleum). Iraq’s oil is of high quality because of the composition of it’s chemical properties, high carbon and low sulfur content. Those factors make it especially suitable for refining into high-value products. Because of these properties, Iraqi oil sells for a premium on the world market. In addition, more than a third of Iraq’s current proven reserves lie just 1,800 feet below the surface. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil firms estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than a $1.50 and possibly as little as $1.00. That number includes all exploration, oilfield development and production costs, including a 15% return. By comparison, a barrel of oil costs $5 to produce on other low cost nations like Malaysia and Oman. Production costs in Mexico and Russia may be as low as $6-$8 a barrel. Offshore production costs in regions like the North Sea can run as high as $12 to $15 a barrel. In Texas and other U.S. and Canadian fields where wells must be drilled deep into small reservoirs, costs can run as high as $20 a barrel. Assuming the price of a barrel of oil on world markets commands $50 and assuming that Iraq’s reserves are as high as 250 billion barrels after production costs, future gross revenues could run as high as $6 trillion. Assuming a 50/50 split with the a new Iraqi regime and also assuming a production period of fifty years annual profits could run as high as $60 billion. To put that number in perspective Exxon/Mobil 2005 collective profits from world wide operations were $36.1 billion. Chevron/Texaco 2005 annual profits from world wide operations were $14.1 billion. ConocoPhillips 2005 annual profits from world wide operations were $13.5 billion. B.P’s 2004 profits were $16.2 billion from world wide operations. Royal Dutch Shell’s 2005 profits were $18.54 billion from world wide operations. That makes Iraqi oil one hell of an incentive for U.S. oil firms especially when the cost of acquiring the concessions to the Iraqi petroleum fields are financed by the U.S. taxpayers and paid for with the lives of their military sons and daughters. Subsequent to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam, the contracts worth hundreds-of-billions of dollars awarded to firms from Russian, China, Syria, and Turkey awarded under the U.N. Oil For Food program were vacated by the Coalition Provisional Authority by order of then U.S. Director, Paul Bremer. The contracts to re-build, maintain, and operate the Iraqi energy producing infrastructure and to ship both the Iraqi oil and natural gas to markets around the world was then awarded to the U.S. firm Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas oil company in March 2004 in a close door, non-competitive bidding session in Baghdad. Halliburton you may recall is the firm Vice President Richard Cheney headed before joining the Republican ticket in the 2000 election. The new Iraqi constitution of 2005 influenced by U.S. advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiations are currently underway to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the super-giant Majnoon, whose 21 billion barrels are worth in excess of $1.5 trillion at today’s prices.

Oil Man wrote on Dec 14, 2006 8:22 PM:I know most people don't like the truth but no one is entitled to a dollar a gallon gasoline. There is no conspiracy and your family is fat from eating at McDonalds. You feel compelled to drive a big fat car to make you look smaller but it doesn't work. With that said, one solution is to diversify fuels by immediatly increasing the ethanol content in a gallon of gas to 15% and mandating flx-fule vehicles. Subsidize shale oil (about 40 dollars a barrel to extract)and continue to work with Canada on tar sands (12 dollars a barrel dependent on SAG-d or shovel operation) which is being done.

George wrote on Dec 21, 2006 5:29 AM:Here in California, we dodged a bullet with that 4 billion dollar tax bill which I thought was foolish. One can build a Still, put grass clipping in it, and ferment it to produce Ethanol for about $1.25 a gallon. The only problem is California Legistlator, Democrat and Republican, refuse to take on the federal government on EPA Certification of the Equipment needed to convert vehicals to Ethanol. Is it because they have Fat 401K invested heavily in Big Oil?....I smell a rat, and the solution lays with who we elect in Sacremento.

George wrote on Dec 21, 2006 5:29 AM:Here in California, we dodged a bullet with that 4 billion dollar tax bill which I thought was foolish. One can build a Still, put grass clipping in it, and ferment it to produce Ethanol for about $1.25 a gallon. The only problem is California Legistlators, Democrat and Republican, refuse to take on the federal government on EPA Certification of the Equipment needed to convert vehicals to Ethanol. Is it because they have Fat 401K invested heavily in Big Oil?....I smell a rat, and the solution lays with who we elect in Sacremento.

George wrote on Dec 21, 2006 5:31 AM:Here in California, we dodged a bullet with that 4 billion dollar tax bill which I thought was foolish. One can build a still, put grass clipping in it, and ferment it to produce Ethanol for about $1.25 a gallon. The only problem is California's Legistlators, Democrats and Republicans, refuse to take on the federal government on EPA Certification of the Equipment needed to convert vehicals to Ethanol. Is it because they have Fat 401K invested heavily in Big Oil?....I smell a rat, and the solution lays with who we elect in Sacremento.

George wrote on Dec 21, 2006 6:22 AM:The whole issue of this is that big oil and politicians of both parties are fooling us. You want a solution to this, well here it is. We have to tackle this problem on three fronts, legislative, environmental, and industrial. First we need politicians who do not have a vested interest in big oil. Many of them have fat pension funds invested in big oil, while they speak of the evil industry through the other side of the mouth. Second, the federal government has to revise the scope of environmental laws that are choking off the life of the ethanol industry. Certification of equipment to be installed on motor vehicles needs revision to allow the public to either produce their own Ethanol, or purchase it from a local vendor. Finally, this nation must build Ethanol refineries to cope with ever increasing demand of fuel for the motoring public. In the United States alone, not a single new gasoline refinery has been built since the 1960s. EPA regulations and the profits of Big Oil are at stake if we build more refineries. To conclude, the United States has painted its self into an energy corner to which it resists finding a way out. If we switched to ethanol as a primary energy source then politician’s jobs would be stake, the EPA relevance would be at stake and finally big oil refinery profits would be at stake. It’s called a red herring because the only person with the hook in their mouth is the American motorist.

Laid back Surfer wrote on Dec 21, 2006 10:49 AM:I don't know if I am violating the terms of service by pasting a news story, but earlier in the month there was some good news on the hydrogen front. See below. I don't know what one of these tanks would cost given they high cost of rohdium (I think that is the material used,) but I found this to be very encouraging. Here is part of the story: "Invention could solve “bottleneck” in developing pollution-free cars Hydrogen-powered cars that do not pollute the environment are a step closer thanks to a new discovery which promises to solve the main problem holding back the technology. Whilst hydrogen is thought to be an ideal fuel for vehicles, producing only water on combustion, its widespread use has been limited by the lack of a safe, efficient system for onboard storage. Scientists have experimented with ways of storing hydrogen by locking the gas into metal lattices, but metal hydrides only work at temperatures above 300°C and metal organic framework materials only work at liquid nitrogen temperatures (-198°C). Now scientists at the University of Bath have invented a material which stores and releases hydrogen at room temperature, at the flick of a switch, and promises to help make hydrogen power a viable clean technology for the future."

John E wrote on Jan 2, 2007 4:25 PM:We require a serious multipronged R&D program on the scale of the Manhattan Project of the 1940s or the Space Race of the 1960s, including conservation, nuclear fusion, solar, wind, coal conversion, biofuels (switchgrass, not corn), etc. The environmental payoff and economic opportunities for ths US are immense, if we have the political will to chase them.

None wrote on Jan 4, 2007 6:21 PM:Great book. I just want to say what a fantastic thing you are doing! Good luck!

Oil Man wrote on Jan 4, 2007 7:29 PM:I think the goes into = outt a will preclude oil and ethonal not being part of a comprehensive oil plan. Practical steps (baby steps) should be taken like increasing the amount of ethanolt in gasoline from the current 10% and subsidizing shale oil again. All the other stuff as potential and needs including coal. Desulsulfurazation technology already exist for coal and is starting to become more common. The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind also.

TonyD wrote on Jan 8, 2007 12:34 PM:I think the editors of this topics area might want to consider researching a matter fully prior to going public. When it comes to oil, oil prices (adjusted for grade quality) are set on the global market, including the per barrel price for US oil. So, foreign oil per se is not necessarily the pivotal driving force in the price of US oil and eventually gas at the gas pump. As you know, economic growth in far away places such as India and China exert strong demand for oil and hence contribue to the global market price of oil, and I say this to underscore the point that foreign oil producers alone are not the pivotal driving force in global market price of gas. Another factor is the amount of reserves available on the world and US domestic levels and, at this stage, contrary to what the editors indicate above, there is very little reserves, resulting in a tightening of global and domestic supply easily affected by small and large shocks, such as the way in which instability in the Middle East. As you know, with a large reserve, a nation could conceivably ride out shocks for some time, to the extent that those who own those reserves are willing to urn to them in times of need. One seldom discussed factor influencing the price of oil is that, as I understand the situation, almost half of the world oil supply is already bought and paid for by commodity brokers intermediaries who then dispose of the oil onto the market per their respective priorities and timelines. To promote a discussion that in essense can be summarized by saying, "foreign oil, bad; domestic oil, good" completely misses the point on why price of gas at the pump is high. Even if the US, and California in particular, stepped up its production of oil, the price will still be set by the global market and the attendant factors influencing this market. There is no "European per barrel price for oil," "Japanese price", "Chinese price", "Saudi Arabian price" or "US price." The basic price of oil as a commodity, adjusted for grade, is all the same for the most part. As a moderate Democrat, I encourage policynakers to improve our supply of alternative fuels but, having said that, we should be clear that we must pursue this for reasons related to improving creating new industries and sourves of jobs, air quality, combatting global warming, and geo-political considerations related to our Middle East entanglements. But all indications are that even with alternative sources of energy, the basic per barrel commodity price of oil -- whether its produce in the US or elsewhere -- will continue to be set the global market.

yawn wrote on Jan 10, 2007 6:49 PM:move on. They own us now.

RWC wrote on Jan 11, 2007 2:30 PM:Is environment more important than human life? Time to develop our own oil resources. We have plenty of sites off coast, Alaska, Gulf, Colorado, etc. The mid east is like a bee's hive. Would be wise to separate ourselves from as much as possible.

ThinkingMan wrote on Jan 11, 2007 4:52 PM:RWC and Yawn: Yes! Our planet's good health IS indeed much more important than our individual (our entire generation, for that matter) poor health. If you don't think so, consider the fact that we have other examples of dead planets out there to look at. Ours is dying, and we don't need to speed up the process. Think about today and you'll forsake tomorrow. Even if it's not our fault, we need to figure out how to cooperate with our planet's systems rather than ignore them. If we don't correct this course, your kids will die a slower and more painful death than you will - do you wish for that kind of progress?

To Thinking Man wrote on Jan 13, 2007 10:08 AM:I think you have been brain washed. Humans are not the enemy. Nor are we pollution to be exterminated. You remind me of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. As a science instructor I can tell you that there is no planet in the universe yet discovered that even comes close to providing the necessary ingredients for life. As far as Earth dying, I am suspect greed, lust, covetousness, murder, etc. will destroy us more surely than us developing our own, local oil resources. I would be far more fearful of a nuclear holocaust.

gordon wrote on Jan 14, 2007 1:40 PM:Bob is right about US oil reserves dwindling. All the easy stuff has been found, the Barnett Shale is expensive and environmental water/nearby agriculture problems galore.'Ol Bush removed lots of restrictions on shale drilling permits in the Energy Bill.I read on rigzone.com that Prudhoe Bay production is 78% past peak.BP is stimulating wells using lateral fracturing to free up any pockets of crude that are left.Maybe that's why BP is'nt spending lot of money on pipeline maintanence? It also said ANWAR is likely in several smaller deposits, unlike Prudhoe, the exploration footprint will be far larger than industry claims.

jonny19 wrote on Jan 16, 2007 11:18 AM:jonny7

Jay wrote on Jan 21, 2007 12:52 AM:What I think we are all missing is that the oil companies don't consider Middle-East oil as "foreign". Western companies found it, drilled it, pumped and shipped it from the very beginning. They think of it as theirs. in an attempt to keep it they have used the U.S. military as their personal security force. We think we are paying $3 a gallon, the pump price. In reality much of our military budget is spent to keep it flowing. How much does that bring the real pump price up to? Either no one knows or they won't tell us.

Austrian School wrote on Jan 25, 2007 12:54 PM:we don't need to subsidize alternative fuel, all we need to do is stop subsidizing oil. if you think the $3 per gallon you pay at the pump is the actual price, think about the amount of money we're spending around the world on our military to keep our vital energy interests intact. Think about all the lease and R&D subsidies to oil companies. You pay high federal taxes (not even counting the futute taxes you will be paying because we run a deficit) so you can have cheap gasoline. Prices are signals in markets, and people respond to signals. Cheap gas= big car and long commute. There is nothing wrong with buying oil from the cheapest market available, whether thats here or there. Its a world market, and as I understand it, oil produced in ANWAR would be shipped to the Asia as this is the most cost effect place to sell it. When gas costs what it really costs, you won't need any stinking CAFE standards or other goverment intervention into the market, people will demand fuel efficient vehicles because they will have an immediate financial incentive to use this limited resource wisely. People respond about 100x more to self interest than they do altruism.

Headline wording a syntactical black box? wrote on Feb 3, 2007 10:31 PM:What does this headline mean?

Austrian School Rocks wrote on Feb 3, 2007 10:37 PM:Kudos to Austrian School. Unfortunately, most Americans ignore anyone who tries to make them behave responsibly. It interferes with their "freedom." Our military keeps the oil flowing around the world at enormous expense to American taxpayers. That's fine with me, but I want the Hummer drivers out there to pay for their share of it. Forth cents a gallon is nothing.

Sandy K wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:43 PM:Don't you think this "Hot Topic" has become cold after four months? Come on NCT find a new issue for discussion.

Robyn L. wrote on Feb 24, 2007 8:52 PM:Yeah, we need a new "hot topic"

Fangdango wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:52 AM:Oceanside author Michael P. Byron has written a book that addresses the issues of peak oil and corporate control of government, among other pressing issues of our time. His book is "INFINITY'S RAINBOW: THE POLITICS OF ENERGY, CLIMATE AND GLOBALIZATION." It's a real eye-opener. For one thing, Byron makes the point that oil shales and tar sands are both impractical in terms of energy produced vs. the energy required to make it, they are extremely polluting, and they will require huge amounts of agricultural and water resources that are going to be needed by hungry people because the world is over-populated. Our oil dependency has also resulted in our being constantly bitch-slapped by vicious and unpredictable weather. By the way, hurricanes Katrina and Rita have convinced the oil companies that deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will never again be profitable. They have abandoned many of the rigs that were damaged or destroyed and they have dropped plans for other deep-drilling projects. As a nation that is completely dependent on oil for our food production and distribution, our proverbial goose is cooked. Dig up your useless lawn and learn to grow your own food there. It's a start to independence and it just might save your life.

John wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:36 AM:Has anyone seen a HyBred that wasnt just plain ugly?Youd think they would build some style into them.Besides beind a recycleing hazardous materal nightmare,they dont do exactly what they claim to do. The honda CIVIC claims to get 40mpg. Now that sounds like an improvment,IM still up for diesel vehicles.

MadSat wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:57 AM:LOL, people, you have totally missed the boat. Saudi production is DOWN. Mexican production is DOWN. Canda is dependant on oil sands to keep production CONSTANT, not increase it. Venezuela is now peddling a water/crude emulsion as a substitute for diesel. Get the picture? Cheap oil is a thing of the past, we are going to switch because economically we MUST, not because we disdain foreign oil. Get a grip on reality.

analqrs wrote on May 27, 2007 5:44 AM:rlsur order generic cialis order generic cialis buy generic viagra online now

analsne wrote on May 27, 2007 6:31 AM:cmbyu buy cheap viagra online order generic viagra order generic viagra