Do you know any American citizen who is happy we are dependent on oil? (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

 

[Doug B]

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Actually, you guys on FB didn't have enough for a national "quorum".

Fact is, 999/1000 Americans never give a thought to this issue, ever.

 

[lod01]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Not you personally but, it's because what you want doesn't matter AND you'll still vote in the guy from whatever party you are a member of. Who you vote in could care less. They won't be a round in 50+ years.

 

[Jobber]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

You already know the answer, I'm sure. Cost.

I'm 100% going to get an electric vehicle to replace my 2003 Corolla. The problem is the Corolla is running strong, and we've got some other expenses we need to drop before pulling the trigger (replacement windows & a car loan). Once the car loan is gone, I'll look in earnest. Most likely a Ford Fusion EV.

 

[johnnycakes]

Does anyone know anybody who is happy about being dependent upon anything?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

 

[jonessed]

Cheap energy fuels the global economy and I'm happy we have access to it.

 

[shader]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

 

[B-Deep]

Wouldn't anyone with a significant investment in an oil company, or anyone employed by them, or anyone reselling their products, or employed by a company that resells their products, or anyone getting political support from a large number of the prior people NOT want to break our dependence?

That's a pretty large group of people, but more importantly a very LARGE amount of cash. Breaking our dependence on oil is the worst business plan an oil company could have. It would be like McDonalds wanting people to eat less fast food.

 

[Buckychudd]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

This.

Especially if one of the options is to raise gasoline taxes (which is one I personally am strongly for, but polls very poorly).

 

[lod01]

Wouldn't anyone with a significant investment in an oil company, or anyone employed by them, or anyone reselling their products, or employed by a company that resells their products, or anyone getting political support from a large number of the prior people NOT want to break our dependence?

That's a pretty large group of people, but more importantly a very LARGE amount of cash. Breaking our dependence on oil is the worst business plan an oil company could have. It would be like McDonalds wanting people to eat less fast food.

Exactly.

 

[Sabertooth]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I've seen people on Facebook all agree that we should not have any homeless or hungry people in America. If we all agree, why are we doing this?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

No. More realistic.

Just because we don't want to use oil anymore doesn't mean we could survive without it. Trust me, if a solution comes up that's cheaper and better, people will move to it.

 

[Sabertooth]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

No. More realistic.

Just because we don't want to use oil anymore doesn't mean we could survive without it. Trust me, if a solution comes up that's cheaper and better, people will move to it.

Are you saying that there isn't an alternative? Cost can be measured in a lot of ways I guess.

 

[Brony]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

This.

Especially if one of the options is to raise gasoline taxes (which is one I personally am strongly for, but polls very poorly).

+1. I'm in favor of higher gasoline taxes. Sorry transportation industry, it's a good idea.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

No. More realistic.

Just because we don't want to use oil anymore doesn't mean we could survive without it. Trust me, if a solution comes up that's cheaper and better, people will move to it.

Are you saying that there isn't an alternative? Cost can be measured in a lot of ways I guess.

What's the alternative?

 

[shader]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

No. More realistic.

Just because we don't want to use oil anymore doesn't mean we could survive without it. Trust me, if a solution comes up that's cheaper and better, people will move to it.

Are you saying that there isn't an alternative? Cost can be measured in a lot of ways I guess.

Yes there currently isn't an alternative.

 

[Slapdash]

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because, based on their behavior, they don't really care about it.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'll rephrase. Are you saying there is no way to survive without oil? Like the world would just die?

How the #### would I know what the alternative is. If I knew that, I'd be rich.

 

[jon_mx]

The reason we don't get anything done is because the solutions from each side is different. The left wishes for the total elimination of fossil fuels, while the right wants the US to produce more. The left makes it extremely difficult for the US to produce more fossil fuels, build new power plants, build pipeline infrastruction, and even build nuclear plants. The right fights the left efforts to go full green because it is too expensive and unrealistic at this time. This is one issue the left is very whacked out on. Taxing energy more is not an answer.

 

[jonessed]

I was having a facebook discussion with some people and all sides of the political spectrum agree that we need to break out dependency on oil. Does anyone disagree? Neo cons and dirty hippies alike think we should break our oil dependence.

So why doesn't it happen if almost every American would want it.

Because we don't have any viable alternatives?

Kind of a short sighted approach though isn't it?

No. More realistic.Just because we don't want to use oil anymore doesn't mean we could survive without it. Trust me, if a solution comes up that's cheaper and better, people will move to it.

Are you saying that there isn't an alternative? Cost can be measured in a lot of ways I guess.

There is no viable alternative right now. That's just the way it is.

A combination of natural gas, coal, domestic oil, solar, and nuclear might make it unnecessary in a few decades I suppose. That would be nice.

Global oil prices would still have a very large effect though.

 

[Sarnoff]

Yes. As far as I know, Timschochet.

 

[jonessed]

I'll rephrase. Are you saying there is no way to survive without oil? Like the world would just die?

How the #### would I know what the alternative is. If I knew that, I'd be rich.

The global economy would collapse overnight. It would be devastating.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If I had my way we would export zero from the middle east or anywhere else.

If you ask any American, "Are you happy with our dependence on foreign oil?" they are going to say "hell no."

If you ask them "What would you like to see in terms of the energy you receive and use?" people will say they want want cheaper gasoline, lower taxes and cheaper heating bills.

I will add that I believe I have heard (tv) that the US is actually a near net exporter of oil and/or gas, or will be soon. What are the facts on that?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101087815

Throw in Canada and Mexico into that too.

 

[timschochet]

Yes. As far as I know, Timschochet.

Link?

 

[Sarnoff]

Yes. As far as I know, Timschochet.

Link?

If it's an opinion that is commonly held, blatantly obvious, and about which no thinking person could possibly disagree, 99 times out of 100 you're on the other side deriding it as "populism" and screaming at the top of your lungs that we're all wrong and you're right.

 

[timschochet]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

Conservatives want oil drilling here, more fracking, and nuclear.

Liberals prefer solar, wind, water- anything except carbon based fuels or nuclear.

So the consensus really isn't a consensus.

 

[timschochet]

Yes. As far as I know, Timschochet.

Link?

If it's an opinion that is commonly held, blatantly obvious, and about which no thinking person could possibly disagree, 99 times out of 100 you're on the other side deriding it as "populism" and screaming at the top of your lungs that we're all wrong and you're right.

Only in those instances when it's populism, you're all wrong, and I'm right.

 

[TheIronSheik]

If I had my way we would export zero from the middle east or anywhere else.

If you ask any American, "Are you happy with our dependence on foreign oil?" they are going to say "hell no."

If you ask them "What would you like to see in terms of the energy you receive and use?" people will say they want want cheaper gasoline, lower taxes and cheaper heating bills.

I will add that I believe I have heard (tv) that the US is actually a near net exporter of oil and/or gas, or will be soon. What are the facts on that?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101087815

Throw in Canada and Mexico into that too.

Then ask those same people if they are in favor of allowing oil companies to drill for oil inside our borders. Get back to me on how that goes for ya.

 

[msommer]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

Conservatives want oil drilling here, more fracking, and nuclear.

Liberals prefer solar, wind, water- anything except carbon based fuels or nuclear.

So the consensus really isn't a consensus.

Kinda like when we go nation building in the middle east...

 

[Politician Spock]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

 

[B-Deep]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

 

[jon_mx]

Tim is quite the oppositie of populist, he is an elitist. Tim almost always sides with what ever the guy with the pointiest head is saying which almost always involves government action with little regard for what the masses think.

 

[jon_mx]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

 

[Dentist]

I strongly believe that we should break our dependence on foreign oil. Until I look to see how expensive it would be. And then I decide that foreign oil is just peachy.

This

 

[Dentist]

Cheap energy fuels the global economy and I'm happy we have access to it.

and that

 

[jonessed]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

Oil becomes harder to get, the price goes up, new technology allows the tougher to access oil to become cheaper, prices stabilize. It's not a grand conspiracy. The US has enough domestic shale oil to run for a hundred years. When it becomes economically feasible to tap it gets tapped (assuming it's in a region that wants the economic benefits).

Alternatives will emerge, but oil will always be in the mix.

 

[B-Deep]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happen

the fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

 

[TheIronSheik]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happen

the fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.

But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

 

[B-Deep]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

Oil becomes harder to get, the price goes up, new technology allows the tougher to access oil to become cheaper, prices stabilize. It's not a grand conspiracy. The US has enough domestic shale oil to run for a hundred years. When it becomes economically feasible to tap it gets tapped (assuming it's in a region that wants the economic benefits).

Alternatives will emerge, but oil will always be in the mix.

it cannot always be in the mix, as it will run out. maybe that is 200 years from now. It all depends on when the cost of oil is more than the cost of other energy. A limited supply or a more expensive supply to tap are two things that could speed it up. Limited investment in the other technologies would slow it.

You are right that more spent on evolving oli tech can get us more cheaply. And as I said before, there's a lot of money. a LOT of money that stands to be lost by people when the day comes that oil is not king. so much of that money is being spent to delay the day by tyring to learn how to squeeze every last drop of oil out of the earth. Thats not a conspiracy it is economics.

 

[timschochet]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happenthe fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

Because if the global warming people are right, we may not have that long. And because the Middle East is so unstable. These are the two main reasons.

 

[B-Deep]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happen

the fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.

But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

 

[dgreen]

Does anyone know anybody who is happy about being dependent upon anything?

I love being dependent. Why would I want to do everything myself? It's awesome when other people do things I like and then I do things I like and then I give them money (that I got from doing things I like) in exchange for the stuff they're doing. I do this all the time.

Now, I have no idea if it's worth it for the US to take on more oil production or if it's just better to continue to buy from others. But, in general, I see nothing wrong with being dependent on others.

 

[jon_mx]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happenthe fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

Because if the global warming people are right, we may not have that long. And because the Middle East is so unstable. These are the two main reasons.

 

[B-Deep]

The scary thing about them, they don;t need power. Lights, Heat, Nothing. That's their advantage. That's what makes them stronger.

 

[Politician Spock]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happen

the fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.

But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

Because our dependence on it is a HUGE national security issue.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Eventually we will. But first we have to agree on the alternative.

The alternative, in any form you propose, is more expensive energy.

So It's not even a matter of which alternative, but is instead whether or not we are willing to accept a lesser standard of living in order to afford more expensive energy.

And the transition to the more expensive energy will be a period of economic pain that will make the great depresion look tame. So people prefer to look away and pretend the issue does not exist.

If there is a finite amount of oil this will not always be the case. At some point if oil becomes harder to get and alternatives get more efficient one would think the lines would cross

but again, there's billions of dollars of oil industry who are incentive to delay this as long as possible, if they can

That is because there are decades and decades of oil reserves sitting on US land.

then in 30 or 40 years this may happen

the fact remains, it appears that oil is a finite resource, so unless we are planning for our extinction before oil runs out, at some point it will no longer be the cheapest form of energy. The quicker we develop other energy the sooner this will happen. If we spend our resources on getting more and more oil it will delay it longer. But it will happen no matter what either side thinks of it.

Unless we find out the oil supply is infinite

We ARE researching now.

But at this time there is no reason to switch from cheap energy to expensive energy that can't do everything the cheap energy can do. Hopefully in 50 to 100 years we'll have figured that out. But why get off of cheap energy until then?

Because our dependence on it is a HUGE national security issue.

Is it?

 

[Politician Spock]

I am not saying we should. Just that at some point oil will not be the cheap energy. there is a lot of debate over when that will be. My impression is that a lot more money is being spent to keep oil as the main energy source than is being spent to find new ones. As such the result is what we see, oil does not seem to be in any jeopardy of being replaced on the top of the energy food chain.

If the resources spent were flipped, if more was being spent on new energy and less on getting more oil, the date might be sooner. That's not realistic, however.

I've said it before, but Big Oil is not dumb. They know oil is a finite resource. They want to be the one's that figure out the next big thing. I would guess that they are pumping more money into looking for an alternative than almost anybody. Although, that's just a guess on my part.

You guessed wrong: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-alternative-energy-20130625