Will "Drill Here, Drill Now" petition reach 2 million signatures by 7-15-2008?

I hope so!!!

I'm gaming this question by signing the petition ;-)

i hope not...

I'm gaming this question by NOT signing the petition:p

vote early and vote often ;-)

@f_o_f > That's Chicago-style politics for you!!!

How much real pain is being suffered by American motorists compared to the ongoing pain of a blighted environment. Save gas, live closer to your work place.

I hope so!!!

I am gaming the petition by posting this question ;-)

". . .compared to the ongoing pain of a blighted environment"
Are we talking about a drilling rig in every backyard? I don't think so.

As for living closer to your work place - I started driving a cab 3 weeks ago to make ends meet. I could probably pitch a tent in the area where the cabs are parked, next to the maintenance facility. Not my idea of a valid way to address this issue.

The pain I feel from high gas prices extends beyond merely driving as a motorist. Higher fuel costs affect the price of everything we buy, since all of our produce and merchandise is trucked in, at some point. This gives rise to inflation which hurts our economy as a whole.

Join the 1,047,728 people who have signed the petition.
June 20, 2008 - 6:11 AM MDT

@keyeshoveden The environment here in America is fine. We have cleaner air here than in China, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, etc...

The whole environment questions is really a way to try to control people and take away our liberties. Don't fall for the trap

@notable:
HOGWASH!

@theonecalledmichael:
Ok then, can you provide 3 examples of "save the environment" laws or proposals that give us more personal liberties than we had before?

bump

I just looked at http://www.americansolutions.com/ and 1,088,450 people have signed the petition already!

the king of the tree huggers (al gore) buys carbon off sets to make up when he flies in his jet. basically they (carbon off sets) take care of tree's. so if we all go out and plant 3 or 4 tree's then global warming will be solved. man can't destory the atomsphere if he tries..let alone by just living a normal life. if global warming was a 100% true deal, why don't gore debate the people who disagree with him?

offsets are NOT to take care of trees.... Offsets are bought and sold like licenses, licenses to pollute...if one company exceeds it's limit on a certain pollutant, they can purchase offsets from another company, or an individual like al gore, at the going rate...it is a non-partisan way to limit overall emissions, and allow companies who do exceed their limits to avoid being fined...

I am gaming this by annoying people people. Save energy insulate your house well.

@notable:
1: the freedom to breathe cleaner air
2: the freedom the drink cleaner water
3: the freedom to eat safe food

that's 3, want some more?

notable: you're pretty ignorant, aren't you? about environmental issues, i mean...

@theonecalledmichael:

You and I both know those are not freedoms you listed. Would you choose to eat unsafe food, drink dirty water, etc?

The free market would bring use these things, - say you can choose between brand X's safe food and Y's unsafe food. Which would you choose?

I live in a city where we have a fair about of high air pollution advisories. I know what I am talking about when I say that I would sooner breathe the air in my city on a pollution advisory day than the air in Mexico City, Bejing, Sao Paulo, etc on one of their "normal" days.

Look who is behind these environmental groups. Socialists like Al Gore, ex-comunists like Gorbechev, criminals like Charles Manson... and why do they all aim straight for the United States to tell us what we should not be doing? You would think an honest enviromentally conscious person would be in Mexico, Brazil, China --- where the problems are orders of magnitude greater than they are here! But no, they are here, I am convinced, to chip away at our liberties.

I believe I am a reasonable person. You can call me ignorant if you like. That still doesn't change the fact that our freedoms are being restricted, and the worst problems in the world are not being addressed.

@TOMC:
I am disappointed. You once asked me to avoid personal attacks (after calling DeeLilly a zealout, because she has a passion about her political views). I felt you were right and have since avoided writing anything that could be construed as a personal attack.

Calling somebody "ignorant" because you do not agree with their views is a weak counter argument. It is similar to calling somebody racist because they do not agree with Barack Obama instead of considering the merits of their ideas. It is easier, but not really valid.

@TOCM:
Carbon credits are another example of liberal "feel good" legislation that accomplish little in the way of measurable success. The US has already reduced emissions more than the Kyoto countries.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070712182736.2zv65rro&show_article=1
The President of Guyana Bharrat Jagdeo, recently stated that the carbon credits promoted bad behavior basically among countries; if you cut down trees and you plant them back you get money, if you preserve them, you don't get anything. He criticized the Kyoto Protocol on climate change for failing to allow countries like his nation with pristine unharvested forests to earn carbon credits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/environment.carbontrading?gusrc=rss&feed=society
"Any type of technology other than nuclear power can apply for credits. Even new coal plants, if these can be shown to be even a marginal improvement upon existing plants, can receive offset income. A massive 4,000MW coal plant on the coast of Gujarat, India, is expected soon to apply for CERs. The plant will spew into the atmosphere 26m tonnes of CO2 per year for at least 25 years. It will be India's third - and the world's 16th - largest source of CO2 emissions."

@chatarra
"The USA drew worldwide criticism for failing to adopt the greatest international agreement for the reduction of some greenhouse gases, The Kyoto Protocol, which has been accepted by nearly every other country. This is despite the fact that the USA is by a massive margin the world's biggest polluter and very disproportionately so."
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html

When they reduced emissions more than the Kyoto countries, why don't they sign it? I agree with you that the Kyoto protocol has flaws. But it is a starting point. You see: A starting point. There must be something done, and you must start somewhere.

The US is a developed society which should be able to take a leading role in "how to live better". But it does not.

@notablenotices
You really think the mechanisms of a free market will let us live long and prosper? You are aware of the fact that the free market is just all about short-termed profit maximization for those who have the power - regardless what comes next, are you?

krujis> If I understand You correctly...You're a socialist. If so, there's no way you'd understand or apreciate a free-market, capitalist society.

@Erik:
<sarcasm>
Yes of course. Just because of these three lines I wrote I must be a socialist. There is no doubt about it. Maybe I'm an evil communist or Marxist, right away. Very short sighted, I think, to make your mind up about someone you don't know.
</sarcasm>

Your response to my comment is an attack on me as a person, not an argument in the line of the discussion. This is called "argumentum ad personam" (http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist38.htm).
At the same time, you put me into "Some Odious Category" (http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm).

This is reason enough for me to not longer respond on any of your comments.

@kruijs
Yes, I absolutely believe that the free market would let us live long and prosper. When people are given a choice, the majority do tend to choose living long a prospering. Free markets are all about giving choices to consumers.

The problem that you mentioned about favoring those who have power tends to be a problem when these people are in a position of power (government solution give power to these few...)

Consider some extremes: Mr Mugabe, in a position of extreme power (or Kim Il-sung, Hugo Chavez etc) and compare them to extremely successful, such as Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt. Which group would you consider the larger risk to society? It my opinion, we should encourage everyone to do well for themselves, and being successful never hurt anybody.

People succeed in business by providing solutions to needs. When there is competition, there are choices. Customers will choose based on price, quality, avalability, etc, and those entreprenuers who provide the best choices succeed. That is their reward for providing their service in the free market. It works every time, and I have complete confidence that it will continue to work in the future. It works well in the United States, and we provide the world with one of the few examples of how the free market works, thus our "leading role" in showing how to live better. The vast majority of other nations are in varying stages of being examples of how big government fails.

@krujis - Erik prefaced his comment with "IF"... "krujis> If I understand You correctly...You're a socialist. If so..."

I might be wrong, but it didn't sound like a personal attack on you...

When I travel outside this country I enjoy speaking with people and learning about them. On several occasions they asked about life here in the states, and they find our freedom incredulous... they find it hard to believe that it works... they ask questions like, "What if everyone moved to the same State or to the same City?!" and one of my friends joked that we Americans were stupid for paying our speeding tickets, where she lives the police collect fines on the spot. And others have asked how is it that we make a living without Government mandated/regulated salaries... "It's not against the law for your employer to cut your wages?!?!" and I replied, "No, they can pay me whatever they want to, and if I don't like it I quit." and "Your employer can fire you without any reason?!?!" and I replied, "Yup, they can, but then they would have to replace me and train someone else."

My friends in Canada, a fairly wealthy nation I might add, are blown away by how affordable my Full-Coverage-Insurance is. They have Government run insurance paid for by the gas tax that provides minimum protection, so they purchase additional coverage from private insurance for about the same cost of my Full-Coverage. And to add insult to injury, they complain that if they lived just 25 miles south in the states they would earn on average $10 more per hour and pay a GREAT deal less taxes.

I don't know what country you live in kruijs, but from my admittedly limited travels, it seems that those with less freedoms than us don't believe that it works... almost like they would be afraid to face life alone without Government aid & safety nets.

Those of us born and raised free really mean it when we say, "Live Free or Die!"

Thank you, fingers. Indeed I did.

We had an intern from France working with us several years back, and she shared her observations on the contrasts. She said that we had very nice things, but that we had so much less free time. She said our lives seemed hectic, France more leisurely.

Yes, freedom and independence are expensive, no free lunch and no free ride. Some are winners and some losers. We don't believe in a level, fair playing field. Pure freedom requires, for better or worse, that each bear the consequences of their actions.

@Krujis: The USA is not the worlds largest polluter. Admittedly, the USA used to be the major polluter, but now that dubious honor belongs to China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions. However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years. Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010, and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.

I wonder how much you know about Kyoto. Did you know that of the 174 countries to sign it, 137 actually have no requirements to meet. All they have to do is monitor and report their emission levels. Among these are some of the worst polluters, China and India. All that Kyoto does is establish a worldwide market for this ludicrous idea of "carbon credits". That explains Gore's involvement quite clearly. Aside from that it is basically global welfare. We will be expected to fund those countries that aren't pulling their weight.

I can speak for my own home town - Denver, Colorado. We used to have a brown cloud that rivaled the smog capital of the USA - Los Angeles. Stricter regulations have reduced emissions from automobiles. While I am not a fan of over regulation - I must admit it has been beneficial in this instance. Without the Kyoto Protocol, we have reduced pollution, which I do attribute to living in an advanced society.

USA leads by example and not by posture.

That is well said chatarra.

The Kyoto Protocol was more about trying to get the United States to reliquish some more of its soverignty than the environment. It would have cost us incredible amounts of money in lost revenues, besides giving the international community an ever increasing voice over what they think we should be able to do or not do inside of our borders.

Even the Bill Clinton/Al Gore team knew better than to ratify that treaty...

ref: f_o_f, Erik:
"If I understand You correctly...You're a socialist."
This is a statement and not a question. Your conclusion is: kruijs is socialist. This is directly followed by further conclusions: "If so, there's no way you'd understand or apreciate (sic!) a free-market, capitalist society." The "if" doesn't play a role here. Either way: Would it been a question whether I am socialist, it is still a leading question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question).

@chatarra: I partly agree. But my conclusion is slightly different: I think the US should play a leading role because it's the world's leading economy. They should (and they can) do more. And when almost all major (in terms of industrial and economical weight) countries sign this protocol, why doesn't the US do so? I also agree the Protocol has definitely flaws: I repeat: When they reduced emissions more than the Kyoto countries, why don't they sign it? I agree with you that the Kyoto protocol has flaws. But it is a starting point. You see: A starting point. There must be something done, and you must start somewhere.
"USA leads by example and not by posture." hmm. I dunno, seeing latest (and earlier) proposals by W. Bush :(

@fingers_of_fury
I'm living in Switzerland, born Dutch, grown up in Germany, close friends in France. I haven't noticed being "not free" in any way in any country in western Europe as you seem to think it must be here. Could be because it's so close geographically to what was formerly know as USSR you have that opinion. FYI: these societies here are all ca

@notablenotices: "Free markets are all about giving choices to consumers." This is wrong (or at least doubtful) in many ways.

BTW: I'm only criticizing the US here, but I have differentiated views on other countries rather than the US too, but that's just not the topic in here. Sorry if I sounded biased.

I am surprised what a fuss about my comment arises here.

@kruijs: I think these links might be helpful -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/if
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market

Ok...enough of this bulderdash, krujis. Please don't take my comments out of context. You read what I typed and if you have any sort of command of the language, you know that I was not accusing you of a thing. I was simply trying to clarify your politics. I'm truly baffled why you would interpret this as an attack. Myself..I'm quite proud of my political stance and if asked, would gladly explain it to anyone who might wonder if they had correctly understood a statement that I'd made.
I'll spell it out:
Are you or are you not a socialist? If you are....fine, your choice.
If not, fine too...
But please, be proud of who you are and don't feel attacked about your beliefs. As the song goes--You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Make a stand.
Oh, one more thing:
Why on earth would you use wikipedia as a referance source? My grandson can edit it to anything he'd like...geez!

"I am surprised what a fuss about my comment arises here."
You obviously just don't get it, krujis.
For me, it was your first sentence concerning "world-wide criticism."
I could care less. I want my government to do what is best for the USA and comments belittling my country from a foreigner, frankly, ain't worth a hill of beans to me.
Now, we could get into great, indepth debate concerning the Kyoto Protocol, but that's not the point.
In my book, The U.S.A. does not and should not make policy with "world-wide criticism" in mind. Rather, with constituency criticism in mind, and you ain't one of 'em.

Nothing like a guy who gets his deep thoughts from song lyrics to teach the world how it really is.

Hardly, infernal--just attempting to egg the guy on-to stand up for his beliefs and not get defensive. No one was putting him down for being a socialist (although it's definately against my grain). Just seems that if that's the case, why would he think it a "put down" ? He should be proud.

"egg the guy on" with attempts to pigeon hole, translates into harassment in my opinion.

Any way, caring about the future sustainability of life on the planet does not make you a socialist. Kruijs does not criticize the free market system, he merely suggests the slight lunacy of thinking that free market principles will satisfactorily solve all issues that confront us from outside the economic realm.

@notablenotices
thanks, although I am not a native English speaker, I knew these words before.

@fingers_of_fury
sorry, my last sentence I addressed to you was somehow crippled. Please read: FYI: these societies here are all capitalistic democracies. And free. We must even choose between far more colors than just "Red" or "Blue". http://www.systemsthinker.com/writingscreative/speeches/thirdparties.shtml

To all: I repeat very slowly:
"krujis> If I understand You correctly...You're a socialist. If so, there's no way you'd understand or apreciate a free-market, capitalist society."
I contrast to:
"No one was putting him down for being a socialist"

I am proud to be able to not decide whether or not to be republican, democrat, green, liberal, patriot, neutral or whatever but to think it over on every occasion.

oh, to the question: i just made 19% gain on this one :) (I put a stake on YES)

OK, ignorant was rude, I'm sorry.... I was just saying that it seemed like he didn't understand what off-sets really do, not that he was stupid.... ignorant meaning not informed or mis-informed....

@TOCM:
FWIW - You just made my "A: list of liberals again. I was a little worried about you, but it takes a special type of person to make difficult admissions. BRAVO!

Should read "A" list.

@Kruijs,
Saying the Kyoto Protocol has flaws is like saying that the steering the Titanic into hitting an iceberg may have been an error in judgment. True, but it doesn't tell even half of the story.

President Clinton signed onto the Kyoto Protocol and then President Bush pulled us out of it, which is one of his better moves, in my opinion. I may not (and do not) agree with all that he has done, but Kyoto is so lopsided that it appears designed to only be concerned with wealth redistribution at the expense of America and against our better interests. In an overview, the only country to be punished for pollution violations would be the USA, even when other countries sometimes pollute more than we do.

Can you say "Zero Sum Gain".
My name is Chatarra and I approved this message.

I approve of that message too chatarra!

Why the sudden downturn in this market - has something changed?

Aside from all that has been said here before, I just took a closer look at the petitions website: http://www.americansolutions.com/

Claim: "America Solutions: for winning the future"
Problem: "the pain Americans are feeling at the pump"
Goal: "lower gasoline prices", "reduce our dependence on foreign oil"

Solution: "exploration of proven energy reserves"

IOW: For winning the future one must exploit the limited resources available today.

Being a US patriot or not: I would't sign that. IMHO it does not solve the problem (a problem not limited to the US only, BTW).
It'd just ease the cure for a short period. I think it would be better not to exploit these resources now, to be able to act autonomous in those days when oil really runs shot - which could happen much sooner than expected.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the free flow of ideas among compatriots.
In an overview, the world oil crises will probably not be solved until we do run out of oil. As long as oil provides a relatively inexpensive method of fuel production, there is no incentive to develop alternative energy sources.

I wish I understood physics / chemistry better (well really I don't - too complicated for my little brain).
It seems to me that we need to make fuel out of water. Water is made from H20 or Hydrogen & 2 parts Oxygen. Oxygen can feed a flame and Hydrogen is very explosive (76% TNT equivalency). Seems like a combustible combination. But people much smarter than I am, say that it takes more energy to extract the Hydrogen than is recoverable in the operation, so it is not efficient.

I say "Buy stock in Kymco".
The company that makes a lot of those little scooters that can get 80+ miles to the gallon.

chatarra,
My wife has a brighter view on chemistry. She told me once that a huge problem with hydrogen is that the atoms are so small that there is hardly a way to store it without leakage. Your tank just runs down to zero over time regardless the sealing you use - it just goes through. This is annoying but also danagerous. Whenever this problem is solved, still, to use hydrogen only is an alternative when it is obtained using regenerative energy, like solar energy or renewable resources.

Often proposed nuclear power (just like McCain did recently) is actually not an option, because uranium is an ore, just like coal, and it's deposits are finite (they will last a few year though: an estimated 70..280years), not to speak about problems of mining and disposal, abuse for nuclear weapons.

Therefor: "grit your teeth and get it over with", is what I think. Hoping some of those with larger brains than ours will find a solution. And will find it soon. Just saving energy is what you and I can do so far.

For example buy one of those cute little scooters (they are quite common over here in Europe, btw) instead of driving by Hummer into the city.

Umm, guys, we're never going to run out of oil unless we decide to. At least one high-tech company has created genetically-engineered bacteria that can make oil out of any substance containing sugar ... so they've basically solved the energy and waste-disposal problems simultaneously. And don't even get me started on human-induced global warming, there may be some consensus, but it is most definitely _not_ based on science.

I agree with you about human induced global warming, but I had not heard anything about genetically-engineered bacteria that can make oil out of any substance containing sugar. Very interesting.

Without trying to make too much light out of this serious subject, it makes me wonder about a few things:
Will we as a society be willing to use our food supplies to create oil for our precious transportation?
It would be a great way to get rid of those leftover hard marshmallows.

We should look what nature can provide. Penicillin is a product of nature - it mildew actually. Other antibiotics are produced by bacteria. I've heard about bacteria, used in sewage, to attain hydrogen and methane. That promising. Why make oil when you can have hydrogen and methane? That way we could get around using food supplies for energy production - Maybe there is a usage for to marshmallows nevertheless?

Human-induced global warming: The consensus actually is based on science but it is put in question by industry and politics influenced by lobby groups.
Just MHO.

@Kruijs
I can only speak for politics in the USA, but IMHO both parties use scare tactics to rally the populace around their platforms. Without em, our people might wake up and revolt. The right uses terrorism and the left uses climate change. Since watching the Twin Towers collapse, I fall on the side that sees terrorism as the bigger threat, but that is probably best suited for another thread.

I fell for the climate change hoax nearly 40 years ago, when it was forecast that global cooling would be the end of our civilization as we knew it. I became convinced that all of our air pollution would inhibit the sun's rays from reaching the earth and we were going to have massive ice ages.

F A L S E

I do not believe that global warming is a serious threat to our lives, especially when espoused by former politicians, like Al Gore. His brand of "science" is peculiar, because it is absolute with no room for dissenting opinions. Many of his scientists are part of the United Nations, which is so corrupt that it makes Al Cappone look like he is running for office at Disneyland.

I believe the same as AnAverageAmerican that we have plenty of oil in our own country, where we can easily get by without being held hostage to foreign nations as oil suppliers. However, a much more fun source would be:
Harness volcano power, energy experts say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/26/eavolcano126.xml

Ummm, i'd like to have a link to a story about this miracle bacteria... because i think the trash mafia (waste management) would have been all over this already....

@chatty
sorry you "fell" for that 40 years ago, but actually, global warming, as noted by scientists, will, indeed, induce a new ice age... the gulf stream will no longer flow...they were right 40 years ago, they just didn't have the science to prove it....

@AAA
I agree that we have a ton of oil in the states, and we don't drill for it or talk about it....but it is not an endless supply... what would be so wrong with moving toward a responsible alternative to oil, one that doesn't harm air or water quality, even if we don't bring global warming into the equation...what's wrong with improving our environment?

I'm only trying to be mildly confrontational, because so many conservatives rebel against global warming, I think at the expense of considering other consequences and alternatives...

@theonecalledmichael

Here is the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

@TOCM: well said. Just my thoughts.

TOCM:
40 years ago the fear was global cooling - now it is global warming. How can both scenarios be correct?

It is like me saying:
The stock market is going to go down today, unless it happens to go up today.

TOCM:
Here are some comments from John Coleman - Founder of The Weather Channel, while issuing a challenge to Al Gore for a debate about Global Warming.

"Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming."

On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel.

1,204,549 people have signed the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/

It is getting closer - tell your friends!

WOW thanks notable, i hadn't seen that.... GREAT link.... i hope it does work out that we can use these things, but emmissions are still a problem... i appreciate the link!

"Not by fire, but by ice"...google it....

I think we all have a common goal, with different ideas about how to get there... discussing issues has never hurt our progress, and i don't think we will change that here.... i need to sign off, so i can finish this article... very interesting,,,,i hope everyone here reads it..

we don't need the government to solve problems that private industry is already doing:

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

The Air Car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

And NO, the auto industry and oil tycoons are not trying to bury this car... they're very interested in this.

Compare today's cars with cars from 50 years ago, 100 years ago... Now imagine cars in 2058 and 2158. We ain't seen nuthin' yet my friends!!!

@theonecalledmichael

Yeah, I agree. The free exchange of ideas is one privilege that we have & ought to use often.
We will never solve major problems if we tell people to say what we want to hear, instead of listening to all the viewpoints.

F_O_F - Air car is very cool indeed. I especially like the rotary design engine, using compressed air to move the single piston.

guys, looking for a renewable energy source that doesn't harm the environment is great, and we ARE doing it. some great examples have been shared here already. But in the meantime you have to admit that we need relief NOW. Drilling for oil in America is indeed a temporary solution, but it's great for the temporary relief we need right now.

I signed the petition, and for the first time ever I'm going to start a stupid email chain letter to get everyone I know to sign it as well.

Great story here, shows again that you want some real world experience in a candidate: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2008/06/26/offshore_drilling_a_potent_issue_for_mccain

@IronMan - Great article. If we announce our intentions to start drilling, it will lower prices much quicker than critics will admit, because speculators cannot drive the price up, when there is more supply or plans to start drilling within the USA.

Without researching it, I believe the current tax on gasoline is 4 times higher than the amount of money earned by so called obscene profits. I may be wrong (and hopefully TOCM will bring it to my attention if I am. . . ) but I think the oil companies make about 10 cents per gallon in profit. Our gasoline is taxed about 40 cents per gallon but somehow that is OK, by the people that complain about 10 cents per gallon of profit.

Necessary efforts toward energy independence:

- dramatic increase in on-shore and off-shore domestic oil drilling
- reasonable, practical increases in vehicular fuel efficiency
- serious investment in battery capacity technology
- serious investment in fuel cell technology
- serious investment in wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and other alternative energy technologies
- reduce and streamline nuclear power generation and petroleum refining regulations
- substantially increase nuclear power generation and petroleum refining capacity
- stop pursuing alternative fuels made from food crops (causes inflation and starvation)
- serious investment in non-food crop bio-fuels that can be planted in poor quality soil
- mandate high efficiency standards in all electronic and electrical appliances and equipment
- complete overhaul and reduction of impractical environmental and endangered species regulations
- immediate 100% deductibility of all homeowner alternative energy investments
- reduced business income tax rates for alternative energy equipment manufacturers

AND.........

- Planning for the short, middle, and long term energy needs of the country
- A comprehensive use of all available means used in combination to reduce energy consumption and increase output.

Five percent here, 8 percent there, 3 percent elsewhere — add it all up and we're well on our way.

We may not be able to make radical forward movement in the next few months but if we don't start now, when will we? Short-sighted, self-serving morons in government for the last 30 years are the ones that got us into this trouble we are in today. We could have solved this problem ten years ago.

@ markov

Exceedingly well put!

markov: that actually makes the significance of situation real clear. Someone telling that that all is wrong or not true is acting ignorantly and negligent.

@Markov
Thank you for your contribution!
It is outstanding, concise and thoughtful.

If 337 people can sign an initiative that would create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission, it ought to be easy to find 2 million signatures for "Drill Here, Drill Now" at http://www.americansolutions.com/ !

When I created the question, I had high hopes of getting 2 million signatures. I still think it will happen, but probably not before this question is settled.

The website is gaining almost 100K signatures per week.

Yeah, right now it is at 1,308,135 people...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZQPy8an12g