Quantcast

Comments about ‘More U.S. drilling didn't drop gas prices’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 21 2012 6:02 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

I have been posting this explanation for a long time now. Drill, baby, drill may produce jobs, but it will not lower the price at the pump nor will wean us off of oil dependence. Oil, as the story notes, is a commodity sold on the market. And until that changes, prices won't go down no matter who the president is. America could be the world leader in alternative energy, but the oil tycoons will have none of that.

David
Centerville, UT

Nuclear fuel, hydroelectric project, and natural gas are some of the most predictable and inexpensive forms of alternative fuel.

Solar and wind is expensive and/or unpredictable in the US. We should look to Germany, which is on track to having 80% of its energy coming from alternative fuel sources (rather than oil and coal). How are they doing it? Do they depend upon massive subsidies from government to make their alternative energy marketable and affordable?

The ultimate goal must be American independence from Middle Eastern oil.

Obama appears to be contaminated upon this issue, as he rewarded "friendlies" with low-interest loans or grants. I would trust Romney, the analytical guy, to study this issue and lead the country in the right energy-policy direction.

I wouldn't trust Santorum nor Gingrich.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

@ David

The fuels you favor – nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc. – all receive massive subsidies from the federal government. Indeed, nuclear is the worst, with subsidies from start-up (check out how Utah’s proposed nuclear plant is seeking billions in federal start-up money) to water subsidies to waste management/security subsidies to government-funded insurance (a Fukushima-style disaster here in America would be paid for by U.S. taxpayers).

People often say that renewable energy wouldn’t exist without subsidies, but the reality is that oil and other fossil fuels wouldn’t exist without them either. Imagine if we didn’t send our military to the Mideast to guard oil fields and patrol the oil sea lanes. This costs U.S. taxpayers billions each year, embedded in the Pentagon’s budget. You don’t need military protection for solar panels on your rooftop.

Obama and the democrats are now proposing drastic cuts in oil subsidies. It will be interesting to see how republicans react. Will they oppose cuts to protect a highly profitable industry that hurts middle class Americans with high oil prices? Or will they say subsidies should be eliminated to let the “free market” rein?

Corn Dog
New York, NY

@ xscribe

"America could be the world leader in alternative energy, but the oil tycoons will have none of that."

None of the oil tycoons oppose alternative energy. Most of them are into alternative energy - BP makes solar panels, Shell owns wind farms, EXXON is doing research into algae, etc. It's the environmental groups that fight alternative energy - Cape Wind, solar power in the Mojave desert, etc

@ Baron Scarpia

According to DOE, renewables (wind, solar, biofuels) receive far greater subsidies than the total subsidies given to fossil fuels and nuclear. Renewables also have mandated portfolio standards, something fossil fuels and nuclear do not.

The US military protects all international trade. Besides insuring safe passage for the world's petroleum, the US Navy protects shipments to the US of solar panels, wind turbine towers, and rare earth elements from China and hybrid and electric cars from Japan.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments