Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.
The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?
I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.
|
That comment was part of a chain of posts discussing the government's role over the past 35 years. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue "let's be mad at the gov't" post.
And of course it serves a purpose - examining our historical approach to this problem should be the basis for choosing a path going forward. We have historically failed to provide oil companies with incentives to find alternative fuels, because they can achieve higher profits without them. Even now, at $4/gallon, consumers are still willing to pick up the tab.
How do you get the oil companies to spend the necessary money to develop alternatives when, as firstdown and SGG have pointed out, they are able to report record profits to Wall Street simply by maintaining the status quo?