Further comments from Energy Outlook

Im not talking about the conspiracy of the way alternative engines were bought by either the Automotive or Oil industries. let me put it like this. If they had bothered to offer alternatives to the ICE than i wouldn't feel the way I do know, but they decided to focus on one type of engine. In my mind the logic that would lead to that would be that it would undermine the return on investment of oil if there had been multiple types of engines on the market back in say the 70s. Now I'm not talking about complete change of the entire system, I'm talking about the ability to choose. It took all of a couple of years to make hybrids possible, but it wasn't till prices of gas went up that people actually started buying them. So its not so much conspiracy theory as a good understanding of the logic that drives America. I mean it is sound business strategy to maximize profits by buying up alternative fuel ideas and shelve them. The less there are to compete, the higher the price of gas, the better the return on initial investment for oil fields. Same for Car manufactures. It costs less to maintain one type of engine, than to offer multiple different versions. Less R&D involved. And so now we are paying for it because we have no infrastructure for the new fuel sources, mainly because those in charge wished to line their pockets. Well, their pockets are lined, but now everyone will have to go through hardships simply for the greed of a few. If that isn't just the way it always is.So if believing that Oil and Auto industries tried to maximize their profits by shelving alternative ideas makes me a conspiracy theorist, then thats what i am. But remember that my beliefs are based on sound business logic.

BTW try addressing what the content of my statements are, not just the verbiage. When i say that the EPA should not worry about its impact on the economy, i mean just that. Its not their role in our government to analyze the effect on our economy. That would be for the groups affected to work out. We don't set laws simply to make our society richer, we do it for the principle of the idea, which seems to be missed most when money comes into the equation. Whats more important, making money now, or still having a planet and environment in 100 years. A lot of what i say is biased by my very long scope on life, not just a live in the moment outlook. I think, what will be here in 50 years? 100? 200? will humans still be able to live here, or will we destroy the environment in our effort to get rich now. When i hear the term "drill here, drill now" I think "get rich here, get rich now" because that is all that will do. And that won't be everyone, that will be a select few who will profit from additional investment, since the poor can't afford to invest in stock, and even if they did, a change of even $45 from the original investment is not a big enough a gain for a person hurting on money.

The EPA should not be taking into account the Economical impact of reduction of pollution. That would be for an agency that watches the Economy. IMO it wont matter one way or another wether we kill our addiction for oil now or in the future. People will still go to work, get paid, make kids, have issues, etc. We don't need oil to maintain our lifestyles, we simply need options. That has been my biggest issue with oil and Automotive industries. The ability to make alternative fuel is not a new science(for the most part). It was simply shelved to make oil more profitable. If our past leaders and the voters of the time had bothered to deal with the problems when they emerged, than we wouldnt be facing global energy problems now. But that still doesnt excuse the EPA for failing to do their duty as a government agency and police the pollution of the country.The problem is that no matter when we actually get over the oil issue, we still have to deal with hardship while a new infrastructure is put in place, since so many of the older generations seem to think its not their problem, and they refuse to deal with the consequences of their actions. It is the people who have made decisions for the past 5 decades that should be held accountable for our current hardships, not the future generations that will have to deal with the likes of the people in here who cant even agree that there is a serious problem. Instead of coming up with the causes, we should be addressing the solutions. I know you have stressed your belief in the need for bi-partisanship on this subject, but i think that is not enough. We need the support of the people, we need to explain that no matter what choice we make now, it is too little to late to stave off the hardships that we all will face in the coming decades. You think the economy is bad now, wait till 50% of people cant afford to put gas in the car they are still paying off. Wait till public transit gets so packed that people will get to work late, or have to leave hours earlier to get there. We need action now! not in the future after weve realized how screwed we actually are. I mean how many more storms do we need to learn that our climate has changed. Not it will, IT HAS! how many years in a row do you need to read about Iowa getting flooded before you realize that it didnt matter if it affects the economy, because if we all starve, the economy doesnt matter. you cant eat money(well you can but good luck getting anything out of it)so trying maintain the status quo at this point is long term suicide.

This is but an excerpt from a comment conversation from energy outlook, the blog I often visit to see a biased view of the future of energy. I strongly encourage all my readers( the 5 or so i have right now) to read this blog, form some opinions, and start researching. The future is now, we need to start right away at making it a future we want.