You're trying to use a straw man to get away from my point, in no way was blocking the keystone XL pipeline construction a good decision ...

From an environmental standpoint oil will continue to be imported from other countries using methods that are more likely to cause an far worse environmental disaster.

From a security perspective, the United States will continue to import large volumes of oil from unstable countries that fund terrorism. Consider that the United States may be dragged into another "War for Oil" based on Iran's threats to close the Straits of Hormuz.

From an economic perspective, Obama effectively "killed" tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment.

On the topic of alternative energy, while most forms of green energy are so expensive that they are net job "killers", I'm actually heavily in favour of energy diversification. Between Uranium, Thorium, Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Hydro-Electric, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and other forms of energy I'm probably forgetting there is no reason any major western country should be that dependent on any one energy source. The unfortunate problem is that none of these forms of energy production are actually acceptable to militant environmentalists.

I work in an oil company, so I see things from two sides. I find the whole climtae/energy debate a little absurd.

Yes, there is global warming ("climate change"). Yes, it is caused by emissions. But the Kyoto agreement was a joke, the world leaders will never come up with a functioning deal that actually makes a difference, if emission actually go down, it will be because of technological innovation, not political action.

But unfortunately, there are no really good alternatives to fossil energy at the moment. Electric cars are useless, doesnt matter if they get the range up to 300 or 500 kilometers, if it takes more than 5 minutes to "fill up" the battery, it is not an alternative to a fuel tank.

Hybrids are cool, but the Toyota Prius actually uses as much gas pr km as many normal petrol cars do today, and most diesel engined cars already use less. Taken into consideration the environmental issues with the battery, it is not a green alternative, but future hybrids may be better.

Nuclear power is politically dead in many countries, and most countries dont have other power sources than oil or coal (some lucky ones have hydropower capacity).

Thing is, I don't think it's about not using oil anymore, it would take a major, major technological breakthrough to replace it completely, but it's about using it where it is needed, and using other energy sources where they fit best.

In Brazil, especially in São Paulo state, they have a huge sugar production, more sugar than is healthy to eat :) So they make ethanol from sugar. You can get it at every gas station, all new cars sold there can run on it, and it's clean, the air quality there is a lot better than just 10 years ago.

In other areas, other alternatives will be better. In some cities, major investments from the city authorities may make electric cars viable for commutes to work, so that you can atleast move the emissions out of the city environment (will not help on global warming, but hopefully fewer kids will get asthma).

But for the most part, people will still use oil, so it's about using the oil we still have left efficiently. When something better comes along through innovation and technological breakthroughs, the transition away from oil WILL happen, but it's impossible to tell how many decades that will take.

I doubt we will run out of oil though.

As you know, the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone, but because they came up with copper. :)

I don't get the title of this thread. I mean, why should he be fixing anything with his "free time"?

The thing is though, he's playing golf with the head of the Republican Party. Cool hypocracy there.

Goddamit badgenome, you always me LOL irl with stupid yet well thought out one liners.

What good having control of 2 if the third can shut down anything you do.  You are right that when there is a split in power nothing gets done.  Right now the Dems have the Senate and the Rep has the house.  The Rep have been hell bent on getting Obama out of office where they have pretty much gone against anything Obama has signed on for even if they promoted it.  We have seen time and again, where if something Obama signed for will make him look good and it help American and it's people Republicans have signed against it. 

When Obama was actually able to get something through congress  was when he first became president and the Dems had the Senate and most of the house.  Once that changed and the Hose went to the Reps everything stopped because the Reps are so focused on making this a one term for Obama that they pretty much through out any concern for the country. 

If there is going to be a continued split in Congress like it is today, it will matter not who is president, nothing will get done.  If the Dems gain more power than stick with Obama, if the Reps can gain more power than pick the top Rep dog, thats the only way anything will get done.

Last but not least, I believe Obama 2nd term if he sees it will be much easier than the first.  My reason is that the Reps will have nothing to shoot for.  If that happens there will be no reason for Reps to veto things getting done because they want Obama to look bad, instead they actually can go back to trying to help the people instead of worrying about power issues.