Originally posted by YConnell:
So what's the answer? The fact is that oil is a finite resource, so whether or not you agree with the various environmental measures being taken, sooner or later, it's going to run out.
So do we carry on regardless, guzzling the available resource until it runs out, assuming while we do so that science will produce another source of energy just in the nick of time? Or do we try and make what we've got last as long as possible - which you could say is just postponing the inevitable in any case?
The thing is, taking steps to use less oil is generally not just better for the available supplies and the environment, it's also better for our health. If we all walked more and cooked from scratch more than bought pre-packaged foods, we'd get more exercise, we'd eat more healthily, and we'd use less oil. For example, alongside all those single-occupancy cars travelling to and from the shops, think of all those plastic containers, plastic bags, and plastic bottles we throw out every day.
However, it's a complex issue. Our entire social structure, our transport systems, our lifestyle - even the way our towns and cities are designed - would have to change to make a significant dent in consumption. I don't think that's going to happen in my lifetime. 
Yvonne There are three schools of thought on this issue. On one side are the environmentalists who advocate only clean energy sources such as geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, hydrogen cells, and government-mandated fuel economy standards, believing that only conservation will solve our energy problems. On the other side are the advocates of unlimited oil exploration (drilling off-shore, ANWR, shale oil, etc), clean-burning coal, and nuclear power who poo-poo cleaner solutions as too expensive until we've exhausted all efforts to obtain new sources of oil. A third way combines both approaches. We continue to locate additional sources of fuels while at the same time fostering new, cleaner sources of energy while at the same time modernizing electrical grids to prevent the sort of blackouts California experienced just a short while ago, converting oil-consuming power plants to natural gas, and others.
Unfortunately in Washington, D.C. politics on both sides have prevented any sort of energy policy at all for decades, so advocates of both the first and second approaches are preventing compromise on the third approach, so nothing at all gets done. I can't speak for other countries since I haven't lived there. Over the last 30 years, the US went from a 30% dependency on foreign oil to the current near-60% dependency. This short-sightedness is only now starting to make itself apparent with ever-increasing costs of energy, likely to the detriment of long-term economic growth. There is no magical solution that can give us $1/gallon gasoline overnight, nor is there an answer that can solve all of our problems. Anything proposed and enacted today will still take years before benefits are seen, so high gas prices are probably here to stay.
Each side insisting on their own solution simply leads to gridlock and inaction. The left cannot get over their fears of global warming, still unproven as half the world's environmental scientists believe it exists while the other half don't, though universally believed to be absolutely true in the press. (As an aside, a single volcanic eruption like Mt. Pinatubo a few years back put more pollutants into the atmosphere than every car ever made in history and altered the weather patterns of the entire west coast of the US) The right believes proposals like Kyoto are designed merely to destroy America's economic power, while excluding the real polluters like China and India.
I don't know where the right balance exists. Admittedly, I lean heavily towards the right and believe that we should definitely try to satisfy current growing energy demands, while at the same time advocating policies that eventually lead toward alternative fuel. I, for one, would love to get one of those new hybrid SUV's. I suspect that any proposals I make will be supported heavily by conservatives and decried by liberals, so I'm not sure if I should bother.
But hey, what the heck.
For problems in our own back yard, I would advocate a number of proposals to satisfy current demand for oil. I'd open up ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for those non-Americans) immediately. I find it ludicrous that a handful of porcupine caribou are what stands between us and 18-50 billion barrels of oil, especially when nearby Prudhoe Bay has proven that the caribou thrive near pipelines and love the warmth they provide. And the development kills off the insect parasites that end up reducing the herd population. Contrary to the pictures shown on the evening news of a pristine white wilderness (within ANWR, which is bigger than many states, but nowhere near the proposed drilling site), the actual 2,000 acres in dispute are in a swamp, full of those caribou-killing insects.
I would immediately remove the regulations that I deem unnecessary and ineffective that prevent refineries from being built or supplies from being distributed to where they are needed. I would reduced taxes or give tax incentives for the development of hard-to-get oil sources such as shale. I would permit off-shore drilling far enough away as to be invisible from shore. I would give incentives for switching electrical plants from oil to natural gas. I would accelerate the building of refineries and modern, safe nuclear power plants. This country would go a long way once the last oil-burning plant is converted into using something else.
Much of the northeast of the US heat homes using heating oil. I would support programs whether through subsidy or direct payments to convert those homes to natural gas heating or electrical heating. Refineries usually have to scale back production of gasoline in preparation for the winter months and increase production of heating oil. If no one used heating oil anymore, refineries could continue to produce large quantities of gasoline, therefore reducing the price at the pump.
On the conservation side, I would give incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient means of transportation. I don't believe in mandating fuel economy as the tradeoff is lighter vehicles and higher percentages of traffic fatalities. I would exempt from energy taxes any consumers that switch their accounts to cleaner fuel sources. My local electricity provider, Portland Gas and Electric, has a program that allows you to opt into electricity produced solely from clean sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric at the cost of a higher electric bill since that energy is far more expensive to produce.
On the alternative fuels, I would encourage research into those fields. I don't normally approve of government subsidies into these areas since it usually involves government micromanagement, but if the latter could be avoided, I'd be all for research and development grants into alternative sources like hydrogen fuel cells, clean-burning coal, or even the panacea of cold fusion.
As you can see, there are a lot of things that can be done. Practically none of those are being done because of petty partisan bickering. Only now is an energy bill on the verge of passage and enactment. Many of the items I mentioned above are included in that bill. It merely took taking ANWR off the table to enable passage after five years of filibusters in the Senate. We'll see whether those proposals will have significant effects in the future. Unfortunately, very little in the bill will do anything for current prices. There's not much that can be done short of eliminating state or federal taxes on gasoline (federal tax in US is 18.4 cents/gallon while state taxes vary). Releasing oil from the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do nothing as the amount available is dwarfed by total worldwide fuel consumption. As seen, increased production has little effect on futures prices, as the Saudis have learned. Price regulation is probably the worst of all solutions. It was tried in the late 70's, leading to gas lines, fueling on alternate days depending on whether your license plate was even or odd, and the advice to put on a sweater as national "malaise" set in.
