I have to get my mind off of Tim Russert. So, let me come back to a very lively topic that garnered 11 comments to my recent post.
I have posted the evidence that drilling in ANWR will not yield oil for 10 years and will only lower the cost of oil by a few dollars per barrel. I think it would be foolish in the year 2008, to start a multi-billion dollar project in the the very north of pristine Alaska to squeeze out a relatively small amount of oil compared to our overall consumption.
Instead, if the money spent to on the ANWR project went to tax credits to privately-owned companies that focus on non-fossil fuel energy sources, I think it would do a lot more for the overall energy picture. Or, at least shift over the $10 billion in government (tax-payer) subsidies from oil companies to alternative energy companies. It is absolutely ludicrous that these companies are still getting all these subsidies while making record profits at our expense.
I think it it foolish to try to increase the extraction and consumption of a natural resource that will eventually be depleted, when instead we can focus efforts on energy sources that are LIMITLESS (solar, wind, nuclear), clean, and easily attainable. It seems like such an easy choice. Plus, we can also work on decreasing consumption.
This is not a far-off pipe dream. GM is coming out with it's plug-in hybrid that can go 40 miles without using any gas, and can get 640 miles on only 12 gallons of gas. Tesla motors is coming out with an electric sports car that is 100% electric, goes 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, and gets an "equivalent" of 135 mpg.
What is not cool about that type of technology? Doesn't that feel better than burning oil? It is like non-fat ice cream...guilt free. You still can have your sexy fast car and not pollute the earth. And, remember, drivers of fuel-efficient cars are more likely to pick up women.