What Huntsman said is irrelevant, Steve. Unleaded gasoline is a commodity on an exchange. If the economy goes in the toilet its price will go down, if the economy is smoking it goes up.
Hmmm...who would you rather have protecting the sea lanes or oil supply? Or playing the roll we play? China, Russia or the feckless western Europeans, who could not move troops from France to the Balkans without the help on the US of A.
However, the subject is solar subsidization, not oil, not WW II. At least, that is what I have been told.
What are you willing to give up, for more expensive inefficient power?
I don't understand how it is irrelevant. Sure it is a commodity in its current state -- propped up by the current tax status and the current world order. But outside and above those props, WE are paying significant dollars to keep that present state.
If we had more solar power, more wind power, more electric power vehicles (and yes, more nuclear power, especially Thorium-based), we would NOT need to import millions of barrels of oil and give away billions of dollars to OPEC countries.
And by the way, how is solar inefficient? It's free! Burning gasoline is about the most inefficient use of energy -- 75% is lost in waste heat!
So what would I give up?
1. Paying big bucks to countries with lots of people who would like to see us die.
2. Paying big bucks for the military to ensure that they don't.
3. Lots of ozone and air pollution -- 50% of the air pollution in our state is vehicle based.
4. Worrying that there won't be any oil left in the future for my grandchildren.
I'm really glad there are incentives to move energy use towards solar and wind-power. I wish some of my tax money would be used to further the development of Thorium-based nuclear power. I would much rather see more used for those things instead of being used trying to get more oil at the cheapest rate.
