like i said, you should get an electric car if these prices are so troubling. but most people dont really like to sovle their problems themselves, they like to bitch until the government crushes their opponent, who in this case is evil oil companies that sell us a product that makes our lives much, much much better.
Actually, there are several nukes being constructed all over the country right now. New reactors at existing plants, as well as new reactors at new plants. Source 1 Source 2 The US has seen a resurgence in nuclear power, largely due to the environmentalists continued attacks on coal-fired plants via the PSD regulations. Biggest short-term drawback to nuclear power is the demand for cooling water supplies (aquifers and oceans with de-salinization plants). Long-term concerns are obviously radioactive waste by-products. If the environmentalists would allow the plants to make major efficiency improvements to benefit air quality without having to install major air emissions controls at huge expense and will only marginally improve air emissions, there could be short-term, incremental gains in air quality. Instead, the older units continue to run inefficiently, with higher air emissions because the current regulations (PSD) will not allow reconstruction without the new air pollution control devices.
The speculators are not a bunch of greedy traders scheming in a smoke filled room. They are actually the largest consumers of fuel such as airlines and large trucking companies. If they bet wrong, they lose.
In 2001/2002 (very early, not sure of the exact year), the Bush Administration added right around 50 billion barrels to the SPR. This was the start of how his administration manipulated the oil market. This increased demand (by pulling oil off the market) and started the oil price hikes. I remember this because in the aviation industry we tend to keep up with the price if jet fuel and the first jump right after 9/11 was a 10% jump. Shortly after is when the press began to question the members of the group who comprised the advisory panel. This policy continued up until the last days of his Administration, even increased the capacity of the SPR to over a million barrels. When the market is tight, this just pushes up the prices. This is pretty public knowledge. It started at $23 a barrel when he took office. A few months later it doubled and shortly after that it hit $80. The high was $120 in 2008. A few days before Bush left office, it was less than $50. Oil price hikes had nothing to do with Katrina. It was probably more Cheney than Bush, though. After all it's his signature on the National Energy Policy draft.
The last I checked there were no environmentalists elected to Congress or the Senate. Please feel free to name them if you can, but unless you're able to name 60% of the people elected, you're position of "environmentalists blocking Congress" is pretty inaccurate. The United States has nowhere near the supply of oil to become self-reliant. We import over 4 million barrels a day from outside this country's borders. We consume around a quarter of the world's used petrol every year. We simply do not posses those kinds of resources and haven't since the early seventies. Even if we started drilling tomorrow (we're not) and the next day someone finds a huge deposit (they wouldn't), it would be a decade before it hit someone's gas tank. Reduced consumption is the ONLY way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Alternatives like nuclear need to be embraced. The French has done this specifically because they lack the natural resources and don't want to reply foreign oil. What's more, they do it with US technology. Solar and wind need to be developed further, but the more conveniences we wean from burning oil the faster we'll reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
It is bad in large amounts (I have no idea what that amount is) like some of the gas giants. The co2 in their atmosphere traps heat and acts like a cooker. It could be eons before we get to that level of concentration. I haven't studied it enough to make a claim. I do however know that if we ever do reach it it will not end well for people. It just won't allow enough heat transfer and the cooking begins.
i could make a similar point to your earlier that co2 is bad for life, but i could argue that the lack of co2 is bad, because without it we would freeze because the earth would lose heat too quickly. so c02 isnt bad for life. too much or too little is bad. just like yunno, everything.
we should all solve our gas prices problems like cparso did, buy a motorcycle. but i know most of us cant be bothered to make changes. we just whine.
