Burning more oil is not the answer

Idea#3

Stage: Active

Campaign: Issues: Domestic

With all the debate around offshore drilling, ANWR, and oil prices, why isn't the debate clearly focused on the fact that we cannot pursue a plan that assumes we can continue to use oil until it is gone? If we do that, the impact on the climate will be catastrophic, so we have to focus on non-fossil fuel solutions.

Tags

Submitted by

Feedback Score

117 votes

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Disagreed
  2. Agreed
  3. Agreed
  4. Agreed
  5. Agreed
  6. Agreed
  7. Agreed
  8. Disagreed
  9. Agreed
  10. Agreed
  11. Agreed
  12. Agreed
  13. Agreed
  14. Agreed
  15. Agreed
  16. Agreed
  17. Agreed
  18. Agreed
  19. Agreed
  20. Agreed
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]

Assessment

Comments

  1. Comment
    libthink

    Since Congress is now in the habit of passing laws to benefit specific companies, maybe they could pass a law that defined solar thermal as a technology necessary for national security and intrinsically better for the environment than nuclear, coal- or oil-based power. Maybe they could bypass the environmental impact studies on this. I think I'd rather give up a few square miles of desert than the equivalent space on the continental shelves.

    This, of course, would require common sense. Does anyone think Congress has any of that?

Add your comment