Help Free Our Energy

President Obama has adopted a go-slow approach in lifting restrictions on offshore drilling for domestic oil production, which would improve oil supply. Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment with The Heritage Foundation, discusses how the public can help push for improving domestic oil supply production by visiting FreeOurEnergy.com.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• domestic
• energy
• production
• offshore
• drilling
• oil
• FreeOurEnergy.com

[starcatcher7777]

Drill here drill now and ALL of the above!

No Excuses for PLACES LIKE VEGAS NOT TO HAVE EVERY ROOF SOLAR WATER AND SOLAR ELECT AND RECYCLE WASTE WATER FOR BIO FUELS !

[Nickk361]

That commie asshole in my state won't allow off shore drilling. He is also Obama's boy!

[vcdaniels]

Oh Obama freed our energy just like you asked him to. And now we have 200,000 gallons per day of energy drink and poisoned seafood.

Thanks BP!

Thanks HeritageFoundation!

Thanks Conservative Movement!

I couldn't look forward to a future of higher seafood & gas prices (let's be real, even though BP has to pay to dress up what they messed up, they WILL socialize the cost of it all onto us. So far that's $6 mill/day worth of cost as of now - day 10 with no end in sight).

[Watcher3223]

Using research to prompt action before really understanding the problem well enough to make that action effective is typical of politics, not science.

As for oil, right now it is still one of the most widely used sources of energy and will be for some time, so you still have to find ways to expand its availability in an effort to keep energy prices under control.

This can allow for a gradual changeover from oil to other energy sources, which will help to prevent or cause less shock to society.

[Watcher3223]

There are also scientists who are skeptical of greenhouse gas warming because there are other explanations to explain the warming trend, such as the solar variation theory.

This is not the same as denial of the possibility, but you must keep your options open and challenge what seems to be convention in the scientific community.

Sometimes, what is seen as broad consensus could still be incorrect and must require challenge to engage debate.

[barabg]

I agree that there is no such thing as a costless solution, and we all need to come to terms with that.

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus around CO2 global warming, which is the closest you can ever get to fact.

I do mean finite, sry English is my second language and it was late ;)

What peak oil means is that it is only going to get more and more expensive, unlike renewables which will get cheaper and cheaper with technological advancements and more funding. Dont waste money on oil

[Watcher3223]

And the bigger issue is not that green energy is dead (and I never said that) but the fact that the technology is there but people that would be normally behind it don't want to do it because it's not a perfect solution.

Specifically, there are people that want a solution that does not have ecological consequences at all. That's impossible to accomplish, both on paper and in the real world, at the scale needed to power major infrastructure, even with the safest green energy technology.

[Watcher3223]

Don't you mean that oil is finite? Of course it is, but you can still conduct geological surveys on various potential areas and there are also some areas, such as the ANWR and the U.S. oil shale reserves, that have substantial oil that's untapped.

And I'm not too confident at the idea of CO2 global warming as there are questions, such as the names of scientists being used to signify agreement when some of them did not.

[barabg]

Well first of all oil is endable, weve probably already reached peak oil which means we have less than half left in the tank, its only going to get more expensive. A few years ago a 40 dollar barrel wouldve been laughably expensive.

Besides that it releases greenhouse gases which is changing our climate at an unnaturally high pace.

And Im not defending those activists, the bigger picture must be the focus. That doesnt mean green energy is dead.

[Watcher3223]

They only get around to thinking about it when it starts to get underway.

As for drilling for more oil, it actually would not help in the short term but, in the long term, when supplies get online, that's more production capacity that will affect the availability of that commodity.

Why not concentrate on *all* possible avenues of energy?

[Watcher3223]

Actually, I just read up on how animal rights activists are blocking efforts to build a solar power station in the Mojave desert because it could affect the tortoise population.

I also recall similar efforts that stopped the building of windsail power stations off the California coast.

The green options are being limited by the very same kinds of people who would normally push for it without thinking how the building of *any* energy infrastructure will negatively affect surrounding ecology.

[barabg]

Jeez, oil is in no way a good solution to the problem of energy prices. Even if the US drilled everything they could that wouldnt lower the price long-term. The only solution is renewables, the US has desert, coast and loads of wind, they could all be used but the oil lobbies are too strong. Screwing the country over.

It would also create massive amounts of jobs.