We wouldn't have to conserve if Democrats and Republicans would stop working together with the oil companies to destroy affordable electric cars:

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Really? Is that why the Republican governor of Florida now has the same goal?

Solar IS expensive in terms of start-up costs, but over it's lifetime, the average solar system will more than pay for itself in saved utility costs. These systems last (and are guaranteed) for up to 40 YEARS. Furthermore, solar water heaters can be VERY reasonable (about $5k for installation and the system). And, your claim that it uses more energy to produce that it saves is just flat-out wrong.

If this nation had followed Carter's plan, it's entirely possible that we would not have had to intervene in the middle east starting in 2002 because we would have removed petroleum profits from the hands of those who most strongly support Islamic terror groups.

Something to think about.

I don't get why so many republicans have a knee-jerk reaction to these types of discussions without considering that until we stop our unhealthy reliance upon petroleum, we can't possibly hope to have any kind of club to wield effectively in the middle east aside from the blood of our service personnel.

And, i'm saying this as a person who supports the war, but wish it had been unnecessary.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

They go plenty fast in Japan, and there are large vehicles on the road there too.

umm, remarkable.....ya, right. lmao. pathetic would be a better word.

__________________

Join Bush Country - PoliticalForum.com's Largest Member Community

"Because he's the hero America deserves,
but not the one it needs right now...
and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it.
Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian,
a watchful protector...A DARK KNIGHT."

How old were you when he was President?

What do you base your opinion on? Just curious why you would speak with such disrespect about a former US President and Commander In Chief?

It's a fraction of the cost of hybrid vehicles, which people aren't exactly moving to en masse. Despite tax credits. Now solar has a payback period of several years. At the time Carter was Prez it used more energy than it saved. Link provided to back that.

I think it's as possible as Middle East peace. I think there is a zero chance that Carter's plan would have had anything but a minimal impact.

R's agree we need to give up reliance on foreign oil. They just don't agree with D's on how we go about it.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

And, had the government supported us shifting our homes to a sustainable, non-polluting energy form like solar during the Carter years, I have no doubt that it would have become afforable much more quickly as American ingenuity rushed to fill that void. European nations have been using solar since the 70s to a much greater extent and are pretty far ahead of us in that regard. And, solar technology is evolving all the time, but in a free market economy, sometimes, the market needs to be directed by government in socially responsible ways.

There is nothing socially responsible about the fact that many communities are still burning coal for power, including my own.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Billions of dollars went into R&D in solar as it was. Europe only passed the US in solar R&D in the mid 80's. And they are far ahead of us in usage, yet it still is a miniscule part of where they get their power. That's because despite the billions invested worldwide, steep price reductions have still made it far too expensive for people. Government investment in solar R&D would have had a minimal impact. Even today, a Cal Tech expert said it will take 10 years before solar can beat petroleum. And that is with today's technology including computers that greatly shorten the R&D cycle. And in the 1970's without computers and lower costs we would have greatly impacted prices? Doubful.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/ne...troleum_expert

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.