Did anyone else catch that? Yea he said "Climate change" but hey thats just mincing words

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change

PS, when I say global warming, I mean what it means in common vernacular, humans effecting the climate/global weather system. (which is what it pretty much always means in the public arena)

What I noticed was that afterward individuals complained they didn't hear about their special interest in the speech.

Well he didn't talk about underwater basket weaving, albino eskimos or chigger populations either.

I am very glad that we are apparently on the edge of getting off of an oil dependency. That's why I actually watch the Set America Free Coalition. However, I'm also old enough to be skeptical that it will happen.

If I had it my way, we'd put an effort into it the likes of which we haven't done since we put effort into getting to the moon. I just don't think enough people with the money and position are really enthusiastic about it.

Talking is easy. Doing is hard.

If I had it my way, we'd put an effort into it the likes of which we haven't done since we put effort into getting to the moon. I just don't think enough people with the money and position are really enthusiastic about it.
I'm with you on that one. I think at the grass roots level, a lot of people are. You could probably get a lot of votes if that became your campaign theme.

Yup... passion like the race to the moon. It would be great to see. With dynamic leadership, the passion could eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil.

Why I am reading the: "less dependent dependent on oil" as less dependent dependent on foreing oil (not north american). Maybee it with the fact that Alberta is going to pass to 5 000 000 barils of oil (from 1 000 000) a day in the next 5 years.

It must because of this: http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/ZoneLibre/

The report is called : "Du sable dans l’engrenage". It is in french but even if you don't understand french the picture of massive destrution of nature worth seeing (lasting about 40 mins).

Very short resume: It show what relation between the high administration in Washington, Ottawa and Edmonton (Albeta's capital) about how to produce more petrol, the gib money inveted in this project and what are the environmental price payed (CO2 producted and enronmental sites destroyed).

Sorry for the french only thing.

Eridalafar

I listened to his entire speech that night. I thought for once it was a very well written and articulate speech. I thought it addressed the top three things that American's wanted to know about.

However, I couldn't help thinking, that it was all just words. Nice words, mostly - recoginition of the issues we have. But, is anything REALLY going to be done? In his energy part - he stated he wanted to increase the National storage - what's that called? - you know, the emergency storage we have of oil? - anyway - he wanted to increase that to 4 times the amount we have now. Why? If we really are going to get away from being so dependant on oil, why do we need 4 times as much in the emergency fund?

I think his speech was good and it did help the American people see that he just might be aware of some of the major issues we are concerned about. But his solutions were lacking and without any real power. The very first words out of his mouth, were the same ones we have heard for years and years and years.... "We must balance the federal budget." Yeah - ok then good luck with that.

Yup... passion like the race to the moon. It would be great to see. With dynamic leadership, the passion could eliminate the U.S. need for foreign oil.Do you think we would have ever gotten to the moon, if one of the biggest industries on Earth had constantly tried to drag us down?

It's hard to change public opinion about alternative energy and keep it there when the public only bases its opinion on gas prices for the last five minutes.

Why I am reading the: "less dependent dependent on oil" as less dependent dependent on foreing oil (not north american). Maybee it with the fact that Alberta is going to pass to 5 000 000 barils of oil (from 1 000 000) a day in the next 5 years.

It must because of this: http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/ZoneLibre/

The report is called : "Du sable dans l’engrenage". It is in french but even if you don't understand french the picture of massive destrution of nature worth seeing (lasting about 40 mins).

Very short resume: It show what relation between the high administration in Washington, Ottawa and Edmonton (Albeta's capital) about how to produce more petrol, the gib money inveted in this project and what are the environmental price payed (CO2 producted and enronmental sites destroyed).

Sorry for the french only thing.

Eridalafar

Even if we were really serious about being less dependent on oil, getting oil from friendlier/stable nations would/should still be a priority.

Will take us a long, long time to ween us off of oil.

That said I dont think we are (unfortunately) too serious about getting off of oil, but regardless, oil from friendlier nations is a good thing.

I listened to his entire speech that night. I thought for once it was a very well written and articulate speech. I thought it addressed the top three things that American's wanted to know about.

However, I couldn't help thinking, that it was all just words. Nice words, mostly - recoginition of the issues we have. But, is anything REALLY going to be done? In his energy part - he stated he wanted to increase the National storage - what's that called? - you know, the emergency storage we have of oil? - anyway - he wanted to increase that to 4 times the amount we have now. Why? If we really are going to get away from being so dependant on oil, why do we need 4 times as much in the emergency fund?

I think his speech was good and it did help the American people see that he just might be aware of some of the major issues we are concerned about. But his solutions were lacking and without any real power. The very first words out of his mouth, were the same ones we have heard for years and years and years.... "We must balance the federal budget." Yeah - ok then good luck with that.

The strategic oil reserve.

As for why? Well, I can think of one reasonable reason. Time and time again, when the price of oil has risen due to opec production shortfalls, people have started on the rather idiotic "tap the strategic oil reserve" bandwagon. The purpose of the SOR is to ensure the US has sufficient reserves of oil to fight a two front war for x number of weeks or months. Tapping that reserve is baaaaaad.

That being said, I think an economic oil reserve is a brilliant idea. Lets stockpile a few hundred million barrels of oil when the supply is bountiful, as a hedge against when the supply is low.

Even if we were really serious about being less dependent on oil, getting oil from friendlier/stable nations would/should still be a priority.

Will take us a long, long time to ween us off of oil.

That said I dont think we are (unfortunately) too serious about getting off of oil, but regardless, oil from friendlier nations is a good thing.

Canada is the largest importer of oil to the US.

Ironically, if I recall, the US is also the largest importer of oil to Canada. Sometimes this free trade **** is so very very strange.

Yea, I know we get the bulk of our oil from Canada/Mexico/Domestic, with the rest coming from Venezuela/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia/Iraq (and a few other minor importations)

my point was that reducing the 35%? we get from hostile/unfriendly/states in chaotic regions to a lower percent, is a good thing, and should be done, alongside reducing our overall oil consumption

The most important report on the science of climate change for six years is set for release on Friday 2 February, and leaks suggest it will be an alarming read.

The minimum predicted temperature and sea level rises will jump, according to media reports, while the blame will be pinned firmly on greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Its leading line is expected to be "there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change", mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

That contrasts with the last version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, issued in 2001, which concluded there was a 66% chance that humans were responsible for rising temperatures.
More here (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11049-major-climate-change-report-looks-set-to-alarm.html)