ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Neither drilling nor alternative energy will save us. We found several hundred million years' worth of solar energy in a hole in the ground, and we burned through half of it in a hundred years. The only real solution for the long term is to consume less. Conservation is by far the most important approach to our long-term survival. That's what Obama was getting at when he talked about inflating your tires, and he got laughed at. People who think we can drill or tech our way out of a collapsing energy future are bad at math.

ulysses | 09/14/08

Uh, yeah, Ulysses. Whatever. How does that relate to Salty_Dick's theme for this Face Off that Hurricane Ike is good for Democrats and bad for Republicans? Swdowning - You're going to have your hands full keeping this debate on topic. I'm not convinced that Salty_Dick has a clear idea of where he's going with this. Good luck.

spepper | 09/14/08

You guys are killing me! Ulysses, just admit that your real objective is to destroy the capitalistic momentum that the US represents (and which, by the way, has increased the standard of living worldwide). For you, socialism is better than capitalism. SaltLick: Your title for this debate had something to do with a hurricane, did it not? Then you go off on this tangent that has nothing to do with the title. What gives? Also, you mention a number of alternative energy sources. To your credit, you include nuclear. But why exclude offshore drilling out of hand? True, we have to get off oil eventually, but if we can get off foreign first - as a stop-gap - well, why not?

stumeade | 09/14/08

To say that reducing energy consumption requires a reduction in productivity or "capitalistic momentum" is rather unimaginative, to put it mildly. So please stop making obtuse assumptions about my motivations. You don't know anything about me beyond what I've said. What I've said is that conservation is the key to long-term survival of our current civilization. How can you argue against that? And spepper, I'm not debating salty dick here, so I'm not responsible for keeping this nonsense focused.

ulysses | 09/14/08

Well, I guess that the old adage is true: The difference between a communist and a liberal is that the communist knows what he's doing.

stumeade | 09/15/08

Wow, Ulysses, I never implied that you bore the onus to keep this debate on topic. You'll see that my comment, if you take the time to scroll up, was directed at swdowning. Seems a tad self-absorbed of you... But since you persist in drawing attention to yourself and to the points you've made, I think we might as well dispatch them post haste. You write "We found several hundred million years' worth of solar energy in a hole in the ground, and we burned through half of it in a hundred years." I take this to mean that you think that the oil we've so far unearthed and used is the energy equivalent of several hundred million years' worth of converting solar power to the same ends as those to which oil has been directed. Is that what you meant? If so, I'd say that the solar:oil ratio would have to overwhelmingly favor oil production in this case. This must be so if we need only a century to burn the equivalent of "several hundred million years' worth of solar energy." I think that your comment on those who take an opposing view being "bad at math" is particularly poignant. Now, as to your point about consuming less being the "only real solution" that ensures "long-term survival," how would you have us do this? If it's voluntary, then we risk less than total compliance. Should the government enact legislation that imposes fines or other penalties for non-compliance? Should the world's beacon of freedom be legally constrained to consume less? And what would that do to production? If citizens are compelled to consume less, then there's a reduced demand for goods and services, which means our economic engine will have to slow down. This decreases the share of the global economy commanded by the U.S. This reduces our ability to use our economic might to, as JFK said, "raise all ships." Thus is the world more impoverished; thus is capitalism impeded. And isn't that, when we get down to it, really what you want?

spepper | 09/15/08

ULYSSES and IAMFRY: Please read spepper's comment and swdowning's argument. I know that you don't want to admit the possibility that these guys are correct. I don't blame you - I don't want to admit it either. But what if you're wrong?

stumeade | 09/16/08

Do both. Have companies advertise their alternative energy research. Make Americans feel smart.

Tamas | 09/16/08

Advertising is not cheap and would take away from the budget for the alternative energy research.

Salty_Dick | 09/17/08