Two choices: "dirty" oil or "conflict" oil

Canada is going to make it anyway, we may as well get it from them. After all, for those who are truly environmental, isn't it better to use "local" resources? Besides, would we rather our money goes to Canada or to the Middle East, countries that hate us at their core. Building the XL Pipeline makes sense.

Hell, even the Washington Post Editorial Board gets it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/oil-pipeline-politics/2011/08/05/gIQAQeliDJ_story.html

 

I would agree. There are times one has to hold their nose and do what they have to do.

 

Can't we have green energy instead?

 

How much are you willing to pay to live in an oil-free environment?

 

Can we get hover cars too?

Let's just get the oil.

 

The short answer is NO.

 

We're as close to basing our energy needs on hope, dreams, and unicorns as we are of basing it on renewable energy. Yet Obama's at it again today, saying that our recovery needs to be based on green energy.

 

It's not even a cost issue at this point. How close to home is westnob willing to live his life in order to live in an oil-free environment? Even electrical cars run primarily on coal-fired electricity.

Why don't we just go back to covered wagons?

 

But will be have an exit strategy. I think we'll have a slick one. [sorry about that]

 

No.

Next question.

 

I'll just address all at once;
Electricity does not have to come from coal, coal may be cheap economically but those aren't your mountains being blown up. Biodiesel from algae is still a viable source. Coal may be dirty, but the emissions can still be captured with... ALGAE! to make biodiesel. look up the MIT coal plant, I've posted the video before.

Anyone who denies that we went into Iraq for greed is kidding themselves. That money and the lives could have been better spent on researching improvements in alternative sources. (and yes the OP was about conflict oil)

 

And how much are you willing to pay/adjust your life with less electricity to have that outcome?

 

It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.

 

Good point.

However, there is a transition time- and we're in it and will be for several decades.

 

True, but we can't just say "we have growing pains, stop the growth!"

 

Less electricity is a tough one. When I paid the electricity bill, I opted for the extra green energy cost if that matters.

 

My wife & I have always "lived green" even before the term was used. I've been recycling since the mid 1970's, I always live in small houses (current one is 875SF), I have special room convective heaters from Europe that cost a few dollars per month to use in the winter, we hang our clothes to dry whenever possible, always drive fairly fuel efficient vehicles and drive 55 MPH... Our only vice is our hot tub- and I feel guilty everytime I have a nice long hot soak in the winter.

 

I'm not talking about the next 100 years. The next 30 years will do me just fine. The issue is that these so-called "green" technologies aren't yet up to snuff.

 

What if your electricity cost doubled or tripled? What if you had roving blackouts during times of peak demand?

I'm all for "green" energy, but I want it to be abundant and economically feasible. Right now, it's not.