Hi Tommy,

   Thank you for this Article from "US News & World Report".  I feel it's most interesting, because it comes up with facts, I never considered before!   Shelby

HI Ed,

   Thank you for your comprehensive post.  JIHF agrees with you, for she posted a great video which I think you will appreciate.  Firstly, I am copying her post in MIND BLOWING VIDEO EXPOSES.   Shelby

Here is an eye opening video about what is happening to our oceans, as global warming is occuring.  Everyone in the world depends on our oceans's ecosystems.  Please, watch with an open mind, and let me know - after you watch it - what your thoughts are. 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/527/oceans-climate-change.html

Governer Sarah Palin (GSP) claims:

--------------
GSP: Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources

Eds: Of the approximately 6,000 million kWh of electric power consumption, only 7 million kWh (0.116 percent) was generated from non-hydro renewable sources. All the rest (literally the entire 20% claimed) is hydroelectric power. Her claim sounds good until you look at the details. Alaska ranks 48th among all states in the generation of non-hydro renewable energy. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=AK

--------------
GSP: ... the federal government shouldn’t push a single, universal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska,

Eds: The electric vehicle is the best answer for urban living (the environment for most of the population). However, I have seen no statements from the government or environmental groups that preclude development and use of hybrid or hydrogen powered vehicles. It appears that GSP is setting up a strawman argument which she can then criticize.

--------------
GSP: Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can

Eds: Not unexpectedly, Palin says not a word about climate change. I don't know what her real position is, but before the 2008 election she denied warming was occurring. During the election she changed her official position to human activity might be one of the things influencing climate change.

There is no doubt that we need fossil fuels in the interim, but to ignore human caused climate change is unethical. We should not be dumping trash into our neighbors yards, but we are by dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is owned by all nations. The result will be increasing global temperatures and huge uncertainty as to the consequences. As one of the richest countries in the world, we may be able to adapt to changes. However, there is no guarantee the US could adjust to catastrophic changes without huge changes in our society. The poor in the world are those that will suffer the most. Sea level rise could make half of the land in Bangladesh (one of the poorest nations) uninhabitable.

http://earthfirst.com/7-places-global-warming-is-smacking-the-crap-out-of-the-earth-right-now/
Six remote villages, including the Yupik Eskimo community of 400, have been named as the most vulnerable and are getting millions of dollars of aid from the government in an attempt to protect them in the coming year. Earlier this year, a tiny Inuit village sued some of the world’s largest oil, coal and power producers, saying global warming was

www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com.
Many communities on Alaska’s western and northern coasts are being seriously threatened by
global warming, for four reasons: 1) melting permafrost; 2) more intense storms; 3) less
buffering from sea ice; and 4) rising sea level.
In response to a Congressional request, in 2006 the Army Corps of Engineers issued a report
detailing relocation needs for seven Alaska coastal communities. The report estimates that
Shishmaref, Kivalina and Newtok have only 10 to 15 years left at their present stormbattered
locations, and predicts that it will cost as much as $355 million to move them.
Shishmaref, Newtok and Kivalina are federally recognized tribes. A senior planner with the
Corps of Engineers firmly believes that these communities should be moved as communities.threatening the villagers’ existence.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june08/bangladesh_03-28.html
It is believed that in the coming decades the rising sea level alone will create millions of refugees in Bangladesh.

Thanks for your thanks, Littlemite and yes, both sides should be heard...

We all agree that it is important that President Obama should have a solid Energy Policy which makes this country totally independent upon foreign oil. 

I am concerned that we are taking too long to develop oil independence and feel we should not limit ourselves but use all available sources like offshore drilling, additonal nuclear power plants and all available resources before we have another Jimmy Carter Oil Crisis.....

I would much prefer the oil companies make a profit if they help us lead the way to total energy independence..... . Here is an interesting article from US News and World Report

Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills

Don't knock Big Oil for not needing a bailout, writes Robert Bryce

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/02/11/exxon-big-oil-profits-evil-only-until-you-weigh-their-tax-bills.html

I asked, "So are you suggesting that Exxon should not make money?" I went on, "Would you prefer that Exxon be like AIG, or Citigroup, or one of the big Wall Street outfits that's now asking for a government bailout?" That quieted her down. But I couldn't help myself. I asked, "Did you know that 52 percent of Exxon is owned by mutual funds, index funds, and pension funds?" No. Nor did she know that about 2 million individuals own Exxon stock or that company insiders hold less than 1 percent of the company

FOR THE COMPLETE ARTICLE USE THE LINK ABOVE

Hello Tommy,

   Thank you for your Article.  It represents the side of oil rich states, and oil company's interests very well, and both sides should be heard!   Shelby

Interesting article from a very knowledgable source on off shore drilling.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

Sarah Palin from artilcle in National Review.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can

Your welcome!

HI Jan,

   I'm sorry not to have gotten back to you sooner, and thank you for your post.   I didn't remember the Oil Spill along California's Coastline in 1969, and it could have been even more devastating than that. 

    Were was the Rig located that caused such horrific damage?  Then too, what happened thereafter to prevent such happenings thereafter?  Shelby