F... gas prices

Now I am confused - Your original assertion was that “Anyone that really thinks the "free market" can solve our problems is either naive or utterly stupid.” As a general statement, I found this to be an ignorant and incredibly misinformed knee-jerk response to market economics that stank of discredited marxist/collectivest economic theory. My response was that a properly regulated free market is the best method for finding and marketing alternative energy sources. Further, even without governmental interference, the market will eventually create alternatives.

Based on your assertion, I assumed you were speaking of some form of centralization or socialization of energy markets that would eliminate private incentive. I don’t believe oil companies should be penalized for making profits.

If you are saying “fund research”, I agree for all the reasons stated in my earlier post.

I disagree, however, that this research would not happen but for government intervention. Based on the finite nature of the resource and the naturally increasing prices resulting from that – at some point, alternatives will be developed. I just believe, based on certain structural advantages given Big Oil, that the State should assist in “leveling the playing field” through investment.

Additionally, your implied collusion arguments just don’t hold water to me. These companies want to make money and are in competition with one another. If one of them could, tomorrow, take over the energy market by creating a cheap, profitable alternative to oil and undercut their competitors they would do it so fast your head would spin. The problem is that alternatives are still comparatively expensive to the cheap portability of gas and the internal combustion engine.

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

I totally agree and have said that I would love for the Republicans to present a bill just for exploration of oil in Anwr and other areas just to make people either vote for or against. This would be perfect timing with the current gas prices.

When Democratic politicians opposed to drilling in ANWR make either of the following arguments:

1. It will take years to develop, or
2. all the oil there only represents __% of the world's reserves,

they are not revealing their true motives. They are oppossed to it because environmental groups like the Sierra Club have told them to be against it. The next time Obama says he's going to stand up to special interests, someone should ask him why he's against drilling in Alaska.

David Brooks on Obama and Special Interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp

Really? Look what my friend Google turned up (http://www.anwr.org/archives/presidential_candidates_views_on_anwr_a_the_democr ats.php), by THE pro ANWR group no less:

Senator Barack Obama ( Illinois ) – Often cited as one of the top presidential contenders. Barack Obama has an abysmal record on ANWR voting on the Cantwell Amendment in 2005 to lock it up. He has been opposed to exploration and has rallied with Sen. Clinton in that regard numerous times. Barack states, "I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” In his two and a half years in the Senate he has been part of the introduction of over 100 pieces of “green” legislation from promoting ethanol use to increased car mileage. However despite this many in the left see Obama as a moderate as he is caught frequently citing the need for bipartisan support and dialogue on energy issues as the way forward. His support of corn derived ethanol and liquid coal do not win him support in the Green camp either, which when coupled with ANWR proves a weakness. Illinois is, after all, one of the top ethanol states in the nation. Obama has yet to visit ANWR or the Alaskan Arctic. By 2020 Obama hopes 20% of all US energy will come from renewable resources. For more information on Obama's energy platform visit:

JoeRedskin, I haven't forgotten about you. Sit tight, you'll have thorough response when I manage to get some free time.

Really? Look what my friend Google turned up (http://www.anwr.org/archives/presidential_candidates_views_on_anwr_a_the_democr ats.php), by THE pro ANWR group no less:

Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.

Nothing in there refutes anything I said. Obama failed to stand up the special interests on ANWR and on ethanol. Using the word "bi-partisan" a lot doesn't make you an environmental "moderate" no matter what the extreme left thinks.

First you claim democrats as a whole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to one "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.

FRPLG -- I disagree. Cpayne and I talked about this earlier. What source of energy is our best bet? Hyrdrogen. Oil companies will struggle mightily to make much in the way of profits off of hydrogen. Why would the oil companies ever go after that, it would kill their business. It has to go through academia as a previous poster said, they aren't in it for money, they're in it to find a solution.

Why is hydrgen our best bet? That sounds like one of the "common knowledge" innaccruacies to me. And why would oil companies struggle to make money off a resource like that? And while we're at it where did I say making money was going to be easy anyways? I thought I made a clear argument that gov't needs to artificially create a market where oil can make money. We'd need to create motivation.

I also tend to think that gov't sponsored research could do the trick. I just notice that history suggests it'll take 30 years before we get anything usable. For fast effective solutions history suggest the free market beats gov't research pants off.

First you claim democrats as a hole are not revealing their true motives and then you proceed to call Obama out specifically. What part of the his quote doesn't suggest his "true motive?" Further more, just because you're pro environment doesn't mean policy is being dictated by the Sierra Clubs. They play an advisory role I am sure (it's called listening to scientist and assessment) but ultimately the candidate makes the decision whether you agree with it or not. Lastly, opposition to drilling in ANWR is not limited to "true motive," one can in fact have a host of motives.


One can claim to have a host of motives but in politics there is generally one overriding factor. In this case, Obama knows that the environmental groups have , in effect, a veto over the Democratic Presidential Nominee. He's barely going to nip Hillary at the tape and he could not have done so with the opposition of "Big Green". It's easy to stand up to special interests that don't support you. It's much tougher to do when they give you money. As far as I can tell, BHO has never done the latter, and would seek to make the former an act deserving of sainthood.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is so obviously in the national interest, that only someone enthralled with the narrow interests of the extreme environmental left could be oppossed. Of course, that means the vast majority of Democrats.

Also I'm sure that in referring to the Democrats you meant "whole" and not "hole" but the mistake is understandable, on the whole.

70, while I agree with soem of what you said just about all of it could apply in a vice versa way to Republicans. it is the folly of our system.