Quote:
Originally posted by turbocarrera
At this point in time, fossil fuels are not viable, environmentally. Anybody who thinks that the global economy can continue to increase it's use of fossil fuels at the present rate without destroying the entire planet was last in said line. END OF STORY. We are not stuck with what we got.
|
I believe the point being illustrated by a few posts is that the solution is going to be costly. Cost could be dollars, way of life, economy of the US and THE entire world, and even lives in conflict. So we pull out of the Middle East and let the sandpit melt. We encourage alternative energy sources like solar and geothermal through tax incentives. Guess who pays for that? The solution might well hurt everyone, and not just the rich. We want alternative energy? We want to be energy independent? Well, Joe Sixpack will be paying $4.50/ gallon of gas. It's not like we flip a switch and things change overnight. Perhaps the solutions are too expensive for Americans to accept. Bush cooks up the war in Iraq to take the fight overseas. For right or wrong reasons, that is what happened. Now, the question is what next? The problem is beyond Democrat vs. Republican. I believe neither side has a magic bullet. Each party wishes to preserve the current status of life, and I don't blame them for wanting that. Who is going to tell the voters that consumer prices will increase 10% per year to reduce our dependency? After all, an increase in oil prices or a decrease in supply has a huge affect on the economy. That's just the way I see it. Jurgen