steven787 said:
NJ5 said:
| Retrasado said:
48 ok, what does the fact that we have 3-4% of the world's oil reserves have to do with the fact we use 25% of the world's oil? obama fail
|
It's relevant when they're talking about energy independence. You can't be independent if you're using more than your share of the pie.
By the way, here is a fact check on energy independence:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4647
|
That article fails to take certain information and ignore them.
- When politicians say energy independence, they mean oil.
- When the author talks about the costliness of alternatives, he ignores the fact that that is the point. The government will subsidize the development of cheaper alternative energy production for long term savings that will make it back for the tax payers. That technology will be exported.
- The price of oil isn't what is meant by discouraging terrorism. If oil is made irrelevant by alternative fuels (by significantly lowering demand) then the middle east is made irrelevant, which means the U.S. leaves them to their own devices. Terrorist win, we leave the middle east alone. We win by having less threat from terrorism.
- There's more, but I'm lazy.
|
I don't think politicians mean oil independence by energy independence (if they do, they should be more clear). You could be right though, but I'm really not sure about that.
Regarding the cost of alternatives, what you say makes sense but doesn't totally negate the article's point; cost is still an issue, especially at this time of economic turmoil in which the government is already throwing money left and right (bailouts, etc). I have my doubts that investment in alternative fuels will be as high as required to achieve any good measure of energy independence.
