Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Think of big picture to solve energy crisis
Fri, Aug 8, 2008 (2:03 a.m.)
A new compromise bill in the Senate has the Democrats giving in to the Republicans and Big Oil on the issue of offshore drilling rights. In return, the Democrats would get rid of some Big Oil tax breaks and get a lot of money to develop alternative fuels. It is hoped that if the bill goes through the oil companies will not drill in the Gulf because it is not to their advantage — it would pollute the environment, and it would not lower gas prices.
The United States consumes 25 percent of the world’s energy but has only 2 percent of its oil reserves. We cannot consume fossil fuels at this rate and become energy independent. According to the Energy Information Administration, Gulf drilling would not be productive until 2030, and the effect on prices would be minimal.
Hurricanes in the Gulf have caused nearly as much spillage as the Exxon Valdez catastrophe. It is also true that new refineries will not help. Most of them are owned by Big Oil anyway, so why would the companies want to build refineries at their expense?
To lower gas prices, the president should open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Congress should close the “Enron loophole” that permits electronic trading in the dark. Then, because there is no “free market” in oil, we would have only OPEC and Big Oil to blame for the price of gas. Even then, alternative energy is the only way to gain independence and to control global warming.
Discussion: 14 comments so far…
Post a comment
Email Edition
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Kathy Griffin carted off Las Vegas stage
- Palin links resignation to ‘higher calling’
- Fireworks in place, ready for tonight’s big show
- Cards fly at World Series of Poker main event
- Metro arrests self-proclaimed ‘prophet’ in child sex case
- Fourth fireworks light up valley sky
- Holiday weekend: Steady visitors but lower spending
- Popular in their cities, could Reno or Las Vegas mayor be governor?
- Las Vegas to sizzle for the Fourth
- With success of Singapore campus, UNLV eyes United Arab Emirates
Blogs
Punchy Points: UFC 100
No. 8: The Ref: Dean relishes role, making right calls
The Bull's-Eye
Canadian is first in Desert Classic's final four, Barney joins him (UPDATED) (1 Comment)
Sports: Upon Further Review
July 4 at Wimbledon
The Kats Report
It's the fourth, it's the Phil, but it is not fireworks
Punchy Points: UFC 100
No. 7: Brave new world: UFC goes global (1 Comment)
Joe Brown
Kathy Griffin carted off Las Vegas stage (15 Comments)
The Kats Report
On the track, this Kwasniewski is making a name for himself
Calendar
- Backyard BBQ at Bare Pool with Steve Aoki (11 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
- Dubfire of Deepdish at Prive (10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Fourth of July party at Charlie’s Lakeside Casino (2 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
- Brooklyn Bridge Beer Bash at NYNY (noon to 11:59 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
No, that would make too much sense, besides it wouldn't make Bushy or Cheny any more money. They don't do anything that doesn't help them personally increase their wealth.
Allowing US to tap our own resources and providing American jobs to do so instead of buying the same resources from foriegn dictators and kings is not GIVING big oil anything. That's just the buzz to make it sound bad. Allow US to build nuclear power plants with American investment in American jobs is not GIVING anything. Allowing US to keep dollars at home instead of destroying the value of our money is not GIVING us anything.
Reid and Pelosi don't want us to control our destiny as they want to do it for us. We are not going to lose this country in a war, we are going to lose it in a foreclosure sale. We buy foreign oil and the Arabs are buying our banks and infrastructure. Contact harry today. Tell him to come home from Asia and represent Nevada instead of San Fransisco and China.
email link
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm...
Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there is little doubt that new drilling in the gulf could provide crude. The timeline and yield is not known, but the EIA did not say that the gulf "would not be productive until 2030."
The question that republicans never want to answer is that of increasing demand. As China and India rapidly grow, the demand will be increasing at an expanding rate. The question is: how will additional drilling keep up with the rate of growth in demand. Even with off-shore drilling, even if California and Florida allowed additional off-shore, the unknown is whether more drilling can keep up with demand growth.
So what does that mean? We face an extremely volatile market. We've watched oil speculators explode the price of a barrel of oil, but when given the chance to act, the republicans refused. There's no doubt it's a tight market, and most of the price can be justified, but if we can reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by 5, or even 10% through legislation, that's a reasonable and rational action, and the republicans should be chided for not cooperating and compromising.
But the author is right, we need a radical shift away from a petroleum-based economy. We need to work to reduce our demand, by alternative technologies and, something that rarely gets any good press: increasing public transportation. There are a great number of daily commuters that would enjoy saving money if their commute time wasn't doubled by taking the bus.
Unfortunately, the only party that has constantly been eyeing the future of energy in this country is the Democrats. Had the republicans heeded warnings 10 years ago, we'd be half-way to a fundamental shift toward greener, renewable energy.
Yes, the letter is totally correct.
Adding supply will never work to lower gas prices.
Instead we should lower supply.
According to Obamanomics, lowering supply will also lower prices.
ksand99
It will take more than 10 yrs to be half way towards REenergy. We started 4 decades ago and are now free of fossil fuels for energy production, and by 2020 will not be reliant on fossil fuels for transport.
Yes, and yesterday jfnance32, you said the exact opposite.
You must have gotten out of the bed on the right, rather than the left side today.
Tomorrow, maybe you'll crawl off the foot of the bed. I wonder what your fact-free argument will be then!
And I'm still waiting for a quote from Obama to prove what you've said. I notice you've cowered away from offering one and have thus altered your rhetoric.
I'll take that as a win.
I believe that uddeboda is from Sweden
"Sweden no longer uses any fossil fuels for energy production."
http://www.swedishenergyagency.se/web/bi......
Over 98% of electric power in Sweden comes from Nuclear and Water Dams. It is about half and half from both sources.
I would happy if the USA electrical power came from water dams and nuclear. We are very large country with hundreds of millions of more people than Sweden. Unfortuntely we do not have enough water dams resources that Sweden does.
Total energy production in Sweden includes the commerical section which has its own power plants, homes that have their own heat systems, electrical power generators and transportion.
Total energy supply breakdown:
33% oil
33% Nuclear
16% bio fuels
13% hydro
4% coal
Small percentage from Heat Pumps and Natural Gas
I believe Sweden is going into the direction of biofuels for transportation.
It is a small country only slighty bigger than California with most of its population located in the southern part.
It has only some 9 million people. The USA has several cities that have more than 9 million.
If the USA went to BioFuels with its 250 million population then many parts of the world, especially countries that need cheap food, would go hungry because our crops feed the world.
uddeboda, what I said, and coincidentally what I meant, was that 10 years would take us a long way toward paving the infrastructure for a radically different industry. I did not say we would be half-way toward complete independence.
My greater point, and the point that smart voters will understand, is that the Democrats have been working for decades toward cleaner, better, renewable energy. They have paved the way toward the advances we have, including the solar energy supplied by plants here and in southern California.
The republicans, and John McCain in particular, have suddenly realized that "greening" the economy can produce jobs, stability and security. They would rather we ignore their decades of working AGAINST such reforms.
So when faced with the choice of the "big picture to [solving] the energy crisis," would you take the party with the proven track history, or the huckster peddling the fantasy that they've changed after all these years?
I think voters are smart enough to make the right choice.
ksand99,
Actually, we do know "whether more drilling can keep up with demand growth." The answer is no, it can't. That's why we have to take immediate steps to dramatically curtail our demand for oil.
"I think voters are smart enough to make the right choice."
And you base this opinion on......what? The fact that George W. Bush just spent two terms in the White House? I fear for the future of our country.
It is hard to get those bitter folk who cling to guns and religion to vote for Democrats.
John, I base my opinion on the fact that John Kerry, the Democrat least likely to win the Presidency or invigorate the base, came within striking distance of beating Bush.
I base my opinion on the 2006 congressional elections, which repudiated the Bush doctrine and gave the Democrats control of the House and Senate.
I base my opinion on Democrats taking over House seats long-held by Republicans in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana special elections.
I base my opinion on the 20 electoral college predictions that have Barack Obama leading John McCain by a wide margin.
I base my opinion on the 70%+ of polled American citizens who say we're on the wrong track.
I base my opinion on the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters, his fundraising and the power of his message.
And I base my opinion on the continuous attacks on Obama's character; the hallmark of desperate republicans trying to get anything to stick. Their utter disdain and dissatisfaction with John McCain bellows loudly from their posts here. Never one to defend or tout McCain, they throw labels at Obama in a bid to scare voters. It's a time-tested political strategy that persists, even though it always fails.
There is not a single advocate for John McCain on the Sun's website. That speaks volumes about the hopes and dreams of America.
How you could doubt it?
I am for McCain.
I think the odds are still in favor of Obama to win. He should win.
It is 8 years of Republican Pres--usually the people get tired of one party rule.
The economy is down ---usually the opposing party wins.
There is a war...again favor Obama.
Too bad, if it was Hillary the Democrats would be 20 points ahead right like they usually are in the summer.
Thanks for picking Obama. It gives us a chance.
jfnance32,Said,
"I believe Sweden is going into the direction of biofuels for transportation.
It is a small country only slighty bigger than California with most of its population located in the southern part.
It has only some 9 million people. The USA has several cities that have more than 9 million.
If the USA went to BioFuels with its 250 million population then many parts of the world, especially countries that need cheap food, would go hungry because our crops feed the world".
Maybe so, but the cleaver thing is not too use food crops for bio fuels, even if we do at the present moment, shame on us!!, no, the way forward is to use cellulose, forest waste to produce bio fuels, and we are well on the way.
Whether the population is 9 or 90 or 303 millions the change over can be done.
Exxon decision not justice for fishermen
My name is Kellie Kvasnikoff. I was a commercial fisherman forced into a career change by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. In 2006 I published a book on the oil spill entitled "Exxon Valdez 18 Years and Counting." In that book I said that justice for the Exxon Valdez-impacted fishermen should be spelled "Just Us." The law did not help us in our time of need. It hindered us. The law went any way Exxon wished to pull it.
This latest Supreme Court decision on punitive damages (Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker) is more of the same. It is a travesty. It is filled with errors. Bad facts, bad law.
Please help to correct this gross error of the Supreme Court by signing a petition to open an investigation immediately and without delay into the wrongdoings of the Exxon Shipping Co. and specifically the erroneous act of the Supreme Court in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. You may sign this petition at http://www.rallycongress.com/exxon.
Law made from the bench should be a warning to every American.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Kellie Kvasnikoff