If Democrats refuse to drill oil because it takes too long, shouldnt they also be against alternative energies

which will also take a long time? Our infrastructure is currently geared for oil and gas. Won't it take at least another decade to switch completely to ';something else';, whatever that may be?If Democrats refuse to drill oil because it takes too long, shouldnt they also be against alternative energies
i retires from a major oil company as a Property Analyst. i know that if we started drilling now that it would take 1 oto 2 years to see production. i was involved in the Prudo Bay Project and i know that it has not harmed Alaska, the land is still pristine and the wild life flourishes. we must start drilling now and tap ALL our resources. That would allow us time to develope alternative sources of energy and decrease the price at the pump immediately. Congress has been warned of this problem for at least twenty years and congress would not listen.





'Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security,'; President Bush said in proposing the plan. ';We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package.';





That was in June 2001 鈥?more than seven years ago.





His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. could take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000. He kept his promise. His first plan included, among many other things:





鈥?New drilling for more oil and gas and new refineries.





鈥?Building of nuclear power plants.





鈥?Revamping the U.S. electricity grid.





鈥?$10 billion in tax breaks to help push energy efficiency and alternative energy.





The fact is, these are remarkably similar to the plans that economists, oil experts and energy wonks say need to be put in place today in order to end our oil crisis.





Yet, those proposals went nowhere 鈥?not approved in 2001, not in 2002, not in 2003, not ever. Bush tried repeatedly to get something through Congress. He pleaded. He tried to cut deals with Democrats. It didn't work.





A New York Times headline from August 20, 2003, sums it up: ';Ambitious Bush Plan Is Undone by Energy Politics.';





When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, and oil was $50 a barrel and corn $2 a bushel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised an energy plan. We're still waiting for it. Today, crude oil is $134 and corn is $6.50.





It's pretty clear who's to blame: Congress. In fact, House and Senate Democrats have obstructed any progress in America's fight to regain some semblance of energy independence.





Bush's original energy plan, derided by the Democrats and so-called progressives as a wet-kiss to Big Oil, was in fact a visionary plan. At the time, Reid joked that GOP now stood for ';Gas, Oil and Plutonium.'; Funny, we don't hear anyone laughing now.





we should watch and see if they will act now to 'save' us or if they are more interested in beating Bush up some more.If Democrats refuse to drill oil because it takes too long, shouldnt they also be against alternative energies
You are, of course correct. It is not a question of one vs the other. Increasing the oil supply is the quickest way to go, and will buy the time necessary to find and fully develop and deploy the next generation of technology.





Remember, the Model T Ford was first produced about 90 years ago. That does not mean that the next day everyone had a car. It took years before enough cars, service stations, spare parts and trained mechanics were available to make the automobile the method of choice. The same with the next generation of alternative energy.





Even if we found it tomorrow morning, it would be quite a while before it was perfected, standards set, enough produced to supply everyone and all the requisite infrastructure is in place to finally retire the gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. It is obvious that just as hoses and buggies shared the roads with Model T Fords for quite a while, the old tech and new tech vehicles will, too.





*
you are totally misguided. the ultimate solution is energy independence and drilling for more oil is toothless. investing in green technologies now will provide safe and clean and cheap energy option. it will also greatly help our economy since we don't have to buy from other countries. it may take some time but we won't regret it.
It will take a decade for any additional oil to come from drilling in the USA. It will then be at best 350,000 barrels a day, but we consume 20 million. That's like a drop in he bucket and that is the best case scenario.


If Detroit stops selling ridiculous gas guzzlers, we would save 6 Million barrels today, each day.
What is a Democrat ? The party has been re-defined, and I don't like what I see. They've been saying for 20 years, it'll take five years - it'll take five years. If they would have allowed this back when - we would be benefiting from it by now.





Why wait any longer - which will only prolong our wait ? Everything takes time but we have to start somewhere. Beginning is better than giving up. We have to take steps in that direction; otherwise, what is the alternative.....to sit in Limbo, in neutral, going nowhere fast ?
Wow, yes logically, but Libs dont employ logic.





Their plan is to sink a whole bunch of money into alternative energy, praying for a miracle since the 60's.


We drill and bomb while they duck the issues and run from the truth, all the while praying for miracles from the God they ousted.
Had Slick Willy (Bill Clinton) not vetoed the oil drilling bill approved by the Congress at the time, oil would've been gushing out of the tower by now. If we start drilling now in ten years we will have oil gushing. If we don't start drilling now, in ten years we will have NO oil gushing. Take your pick.
Utilizing our resources is the only viable option left open to us while we search for alternative that are capable of sustaining America.





Drilling, more and updated refineries, nuclear are the first step to energy Independence. Not less driving, turning off the A/C when not home, using special mercury filled light bulbs, converting food into fuel.





Lets get real sustainable alternatives.
democrats are against drilling for oil cause it won't do anything but further benefit the oil companies, that my friend is appeasement, giving them something in hope they would do something good for us.
Exactly!!





War is quicker n cheaper
The whole point of being against the drilling which takes too long is to find the alternative form of energy.
I say put them all on the table than see what happens.