<p>McCain, Obama…doesn’t matter. They both are going to flap in the breeze and go whichever way the public opinion takes them. All of a sudden offshore drilling is an option for Obama…but only when public sentiment turned that way. Neither one of these guys are who we should want for the next POTUS. Unfortunately the system is so stacked against an honest person we may never see another one in office.</p>
<p>Both of them have to struggle with inconvenient truth: real world gas prices (i.e., something like those obtaining in Europe) although painful are probably desireable as they would make the US move more rapidly towards energy conservation and alternate fuels, as illustrated by the the 1979 oil embargo. That was one reason the oil cartel moved quickly to lower prices for a time, promoting our oil dependence. It would take a real leader to explain that and have the courage to urge communal sacrifice because there would be a huge backlash of accusation of lack of sympathy for the common man’s pain and of identification with wealthy oil interests. (I’m anticipating that this post will be similarly flamed). The rough analogy would be the street riots in Venezuela when the government suggested charging cost of production instead of the incredibly cheap, subsidized oil price.</p>
<p>There is nothing any of the two can do. Oil prices are not determined in DC, but in London, Chicago, NY and Hongkong…The only way the prices would come down in near future is to use less. WE should realize that WE are not entitled to cheap unlimited gas.</p>
<p>I don’t think for a minute we are entitled to anything. I lament the loss of $1.99 a gallon milk and .99 loaves of bread. While all of that continues to increase I’m very happy that I just paid less for 42" flat screen LCD TV than I did for a 32" tube TV 5 years ago. The computer I am using now that cost me $399 is light years ahead of the one I bought years ago for $1,900. Things change and we must adapt. When gas hits a point where it truly pains the average consumer enough to demand something else things will change.</p>
<p>We, as a country, have not done much to promote energy conservation. I’ve read of innovations in Japan and Europe that could be introduced here at relatively low cost, such as energy meters that record your energy use. It’s a little like the gizmo in Prius: it makes you more aware of how efficiently you drive in terms of gas consumption. There are other conservation measures we could take that don’t cost an arm and a leg and would not lower our standard of living.</p>
<p>I would like to get one of those wireless readers you can put on your electric meter. You go around the house and turn things on and off and it gives you that items load and calculates the cost to operate. They are a bit pricey but if I could find a place to borrow one I would definitely try to save $$$'s that way.</p>
<p>You don’t even know what the “Bush-Cheney” energy bill is. Quit gobbling up all of these talking points and make a real effort to become informed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oil Tax Breaks. Clinton’s ad faults Obama for voting in favor of the 2005 energy bill, which she voted against. She misleads, however, by describing it as “the Bush Cheney energy bill.” By the time Obama voted for final passage, many of the Bush administration’s original proposals had been stripped out, and in fact most Senate Democrats (including some of Clinton’s most vocal supporters) sided with Obama in supporting the bill. Clinton was one of only 19 Democrats to vote against final passage. Obama was among the 25 Democrats who voted in favor. </p>
<p>It’s true, as the Clinton ad states, that the bill "was called a pi</p>
<p>mallon: Idad is correct about the Exelon connection. You just have to google Exelon Obama for articles to come up. Here’s one:
[A</a> Bit More on Barack, By Ken Silverstein (Harper’s Magazine)](<a href=“http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/10/sb-a-little-bit-more-on-obama-1161881683]A”>Page not found | Harper's Magazine) The biggest criticism of Obama is his vote in 2006 regarding nuclear power, which it is suggested (but not proven) was influenced by Exelon. Since I am not categorically opposed to nuclear power, I don’t think his vote is a deal breaker for me. Just as I’m not upset that Hess is donating to McCain (the story about the manager who rents his house but donated $28k, however, raised my eyebrows).</p>
<p>In 1970 the U.S. utilized 67.84 Quadrillion Btu; by 2005 the U.S. utilized 100.51 Quadrillion Btu. This represents 48% jump in total energy usage. </p>
<p>But there’s more than meets the eye here. Consider these two additional ratios; Energy Usage Per Person from the same chart and the calculated GDP per Quadrillin Btu:</p>
<p>1970 Energy Usage Per Person: 331 Million Btu
2005 Energy Usage Per Person: 340 Million Btu…
A small 3% increase per person!</p>
<p>Now here’s the real kicker…how much more productive from a GDP point of view have we been over the same time period:</p>
<p>1970 Billion $ of GDP/Quadrillion Btu: 15 Billion $/Q Btu
2005 Billion $ of GDP/Quadrillion Btu: 123 Billion $/Q Btu</p>
<p>This represents a productivity growth in GDP of 708% for every Quadrillion Btu we utilize. Bottom line: we do use 48% more energy than 3 decades ago…but we also squeeze a lot more in GDP out of the energy we utilize.</p>
</p>