If you want an example of what will happen to our medical industry if we implement a universal healthcare system just take a look at our public education system. A universal healthcare system will take a similar route. that's not to say that we don't need to reform our healthcare system just that universal healthcare is NOT the answer.

Let's look at these.

Scenario 1 - We do not drill. What happens? Are the other fields going to all of a sudden pick up production? No? Then our supply is going down. Let's say from 100 to 80.

So now we have 80. That is the basis for now deciding what drilling in ANWR will do. Not 100.

Scenario 2 - We drill. What happens? The other fields go from 100 to 80 (see above). BUT now we are getting 20 from ANWR. So what happens?

We went from 80 to 100. We got an increase.

Your premise is flawed because the only way for your premise to be right is that if we DONT drill then the old fields will not decline.

Got to pay for Universal Health care some way.

Sorry El Duderino, I should read all responses before replying.

The republicans don't have an alternative energy plan?

Last time I checked, McCain wanted to build over 30 nuclear power plants ASAP, and match that with massive funding of electric car development.

It's an answer that we can do with today's technology, right now, if the nation actually decided to go for it.

Considering that both Britain and France have ordered construction of dozens of nuclear power plants, what the hell are the Democrats waiting for? They should unite with Republicans to usher in the new Nuclear power age...

This is flat out wrong. The administration is begging industry to come up with alternatives that work. They were so desperate for alternatives they went against better judgment to push bio-fuels. It was a short sighted decision that is costing us big time.

By providing incentives for turning corn into oil the price of corn went through the roof. Corn syrup is a sugar substitute because the price of sugar is so high. Now it is just as expensive as sugar because there is less corn on the food market and more corn on the oil market. Look at the ingredients of your food you will find corn in there somewhere on most products. If it cost more for corn then every product that uses corn goes up. Great we have a bio-fuel that does not work as advertised and food that is more expensive. In taking the short path we have not solved the main problem and created two more problems.

You can not build and infrastructure for a product that has not been invented yet. First you get the alternative, then you build the infrastructure to support the product. It does us no good to create a support system for unproven and untested products.

IN the end, nothing, not congress, the president, or Canada or Europe is going to come up with alternatives. Private industry will, when the money is to be made there. The honest democrats, and there are some here, admit it and embrace the high prices. Not to be mean, but to advance their agenda (one I agree with to a limited extent).

An energy plan does not have to include pipe dreams, and until oil is too expensive (it has gotten there now), alternatives are just that.

An honest energy plan will deal with the reality, not the fantasy.

And how much of that is tax compared to the actual price of oil? Canadians do have to pay for things that US residents don't pay for, like national health care. Your right, drill will never get the US back to where it was, but doing less will only make it worse. Sorry to take your article out of context, not my intent. That's what I despise about the written word, it can be hard to get the authors real meaning.

I like Canada, beautiful place, the people are nice too. IMO great and appreciated friends of the US, one of the few NATO countries to pull their share of the load and more. I hope you live close to the border so you can fill up cheaper, at least occasionally.

Couldn't agree more! And if we don't get serious, soon there will be nationwide rationing.

Thanks Nitro Cruiser! I believe that if we can all get past the scripted hologram that calls for left-leaning folk fighting right-leaning folk, we might actually be able to buckle down and tackle the real problems we all face collectively!

As for Canadians paying more for gas than the States, I was alluding to the fact that even though we are a net exporter and you are a net importer, we still pay more. While a small portion of this is indeed due to taxation for our social programs, as you have correctly stated, much of it is also due to the fact that many of the oil companies operating in Canada are American. Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, etc, comprise the major players developing and exporting our oil. Therefore the prices paid for barrels going across the border is not so much due to our government as it is international economics, and collusion between the big players in country!

The Bush administration has pursued bio-fuels, this is indeed correct. However, this is also part of a larger pattern that fits in with the administration's ideological views. Let's take a step back and look at this objectively;

The Whitehouse, as part of their 'alternative energy' platform has encouraged:

1) "clean" coal. While scrubbing certainly can be introduced that reduces the pollution somewhat, there is still a great deal of contamination that results from coal fired plants, and no matter how you spin it they are incredibly inneficient, due to the very nature of the amount of energy stored in coal and the means of retrieving that energy. The administration was pushing this lie big time a couple of years ago (remember those "clean coal" commercials with the smiling kids? yeah, those got pulled after massive uproar from the scientific community and many folks who actually engineer and work in coal fired plants calling in on the administration's lie!!!!)

2) Ethanol from corn. Taking an existing product (food) and using it to fuel our obsolete and inffecient machines. There are enough calories in 1 single tank of ethanol-based fuel to feed an adult for an entire year. Coincidentally, the average north American's diet is based on almost 70% corn. If you're not eating something derived from corn, chances are pretty good it was fed by corn products. Going to bio-fuels was a win-win in the eyes of the administration because it would (theoretically) help out any struggling farmers AND lower the price of gas. Yup, that worked out real well.

3) Hydrogen. Even the senior engineers developing and playing PR for this technology have said that any rollout within the next 15-20 years is wildly unrealistic. And 15-20 years ago they said the same thing, even though way back then they had working hyrdrogen cars out... Why?

3a) The energy required to create hydrogen fuel results in a net loss. This means that far more energy is required to creat the fuel than is gained from that fuel as a locomotive source for vehicles (same thing as going one step forward, two steps back)

3b) Thousands of new stations would need to be constructed all across the continent with specialized containment for hydrogen. Can you say mega bucks? The cost of this would easily be in the hundreds of billions, especially considering that due to hydrogen's volatility, containment technology would have to be pretty tight!

So, all of the administration's so-called alternatives have either been quick fixes (ethanol) lies (clean coal) or outright pipe-dreams (hydrogen fuel cells)

Why did the administration pursue these 3 fields?? Take a big guess. That's right.... money and profit!!!

All 3 "alternatives" they've been pushing are extremely profitable, and require a fuel source that you must continually pay for

Meanwhile, electric cars which are the best alternative and can be readily mass produced in a short time (GM proved this in the mid 90-'s for Christ's sake!!!!) have continually been sidelined. Solar power and wind power projects have also been sidelined at the federal level.... the only ones pushing for them have been at the State level and below!!! Why?

Because solar and wind power rely on a fuel source you don't have to pay for.

Electric cars do rely on a fuel you have to pay for, but they're so efficient and give so much bang for your buck that profits are massively reduced for the manufacturer. Also, there's also the danger that folks can throw a couple solar panels on their roof and fuel their cars that way, which is a distinct possibility for most folks weekly driving habits.

We see this playing out in Bushes' "drill for more oil" push. Again, sticking with a method and technology that will require continual payment, regardless of the fact that finite resources are being depleted!

Back during Carter's presidency he started a massive program to pursue alternative energy initiatives based on renewable resources. IF the good people of the United States had stuck with his initiatives you wouldn't be in this pickle today. Why didn't it pan out? Because within the first 60 days of taking office, Reagan cancelled almost all of the initiatives Carter started. The genius known as Reagan even declared war on the sun by demanding that the solar panels on the White house be removed.

Now, almost 30 years later Bush's solution is to "drill for more oil, because we're addicted to oil" and to push the unrealistic pipe dream of hydrogen fuel while rolling out the debacle that is bio-fuels and the lie that is clean coal. Oh yes, and let's also build more nuclear reactors, not mentioning the fact that nuclear plants require massive amounts of water for cooling and the continental United States is currently facing water shortages and possible droughts in many areas due to over-use of many aquifers and rivers and lakes (there are a couple existing nuclear plants in the States that are quietly panicking right now due to continually dropping levels in the lakes they draw from for cooling, thus bringing into question how long they'll be able to continue operating at current generating capacity)

Again, the commonality between all of his proposals? No real change. Stick to existing technologies and methods and dress them up real nice and purdy to make them more palatable for the public. Any viable alternatives that are free after initial installation? Well that's an outright sin in the eyes of the free marketeers! Every service on the planet must be generating a continuous profit they cry, and so we are left with a gameplan that will see to our eventual extinction if we don't change!

Not a problem, great minds think alike.



I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the same people who claim to want alternative energies will fight you tooth and nail against building nuclear power plants. Even though the energy produced is nearly carbon neutral they simply don't care. Also you have the problem of where to build the nuclear power plants. Try finding some locations in the US that won't be met by many protests of people who don't want one built in their back yards because they keep thinking about 3 mile island.



Just out of curiosity, Canada is able to generate all the oil that it needs but does Canada have the refineries to turn the oil into gas? I wonder if part of the reason that Canadians pay more for gas is that they import gas from the US? Again I have no idea if this is the case I'm just curious.

Artysim makes some excellent points in his post about the so-called alternatives promoted by the Bush Administration. The bottom line that should be taken from all of this is that our government isn't where the alternatives are going to come from, it will be the private industry. Don't forget that part of the reason the big automotive companies haven't put out full electric cars is most likely the after sale servicing that internal combustion engines require vs. electric motors. As the company Tesla has demonstrated with their roadster the engine of an electic car is much simpler than an internal combustion engine, essentially only one moving part in the entire engine. By being simpler that means that the car requires less maintenance which means the auto companies lose their real gold mine, the service department.

But a perfectly good alternative fuel that would enable the auto companies to keep their service departments running at full capacity that should really be developed in this country is Compressed Natural Gas, yes the same stuff that many people use to run their stoves and heat in the winter. It is something that the US actually has a fair amount of, we only import 16% of what we use currently, and you can purchase a device that installs onto your house so that your house becomes your refueling station. Sure it takes 16 hours to go from empty to full, but if you fill up every night and you drive less than 250 miles a day it shouldn't be a big deal. The other good thing about CNG is that it is almost emmision free.