High oil prices? Nobody's fault, right? Jimmy Carter tried to get Americans to understand the problem, but was buried by those who wanted no part of conserving. Nice article for people who have selective memory about this remarkable man.

Hear, hear.

__________________
Man up.

Some day the sun will turn into a red giant and consume the earth. Some day it will rain. Some day it will be sunny.

All Jimmy really did was make a prediction that has to happen, eventually. Is that something we should give him credit for? I don't think so.

He predicted this because he thought we were running out of oil, but we've not run out of oil. We have not had a single shortage since the 70's - with the exception of a few hurricanes. So Jimmy was wrong about there being a supply shortage, but he was right when he said we should diversify.

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

He did a little more than that, in that he tried to build administrative goals around his "prediction" along with legislation to back it. He came out and asked Americans to conserve and he's was roundly mocked for it. Who since Carter has stood for any kind of improved energy policy?--until it became so obvious the current clown in the WH may even be able to understand it, though I doubt it.

I'd rather not have anyone try to plan out the energy sector of the economy. Planned economies don't tend to work in the real world. While there may not be anything wrong with asking Americans to conserve energy, there would be something really wrong with trying to force them to conserve. I'll mock anyone running for political office who wants to come up with an energy "policy," the government should stay out of the energy industry wherever it can.

__________________

Well I don't think all policy is bad, but they should certainly not hypocritically make an effort to lower prices while they stop domestic drilling.

Carter is opposed to drilling domestic oil: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0203-01.htm

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

If we had held the line at 1977 import levels...LOL. Gee, he might as well have said I intend to create a cure for cancer as leader of the US. Then in five years some biased reporter can look back and say "see, if we had only created that cure that Jimmy wanted look how many millions of lives we would have saved?" His plan was impractical and would have had minimal impact on today. What would a 50 cent tax do other than increase gas for consumers? Conservation? Americans aren't to suddenly cancel all of their vacation plans because of a tax. And people have jobs to go to, they aren't going to stop driving to work. Taxes would have had an incredibly small impact. As ould have a tax on windfall profits. The cost would have just been passed on to the consumer. And this would have been used to develop synthetic fuels. Billions have been poured into R&D for alternative energy sources, but somehow the money from his tax would have had a magically different impact than the private money already invested?

A goal of 20% from solar power is the most laughable. "I declare a goal of world peace by 2010." I guess that makes me brilliant too, I mean that's a great goal right? Solar is expensive and uses more energy to produce than it saves. His goal was as practical as mine.

His fleet standard was obviously off target as well since even the best hybrid cars can't get 48 mpg. Yet that was supposed to be the average?

__________________
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.

Some Japanese cars can get around 80. The problem is that they can't meet our safety requirements, because in Japan they drive at lower speeds and don't have a large influx of power-obsessed yuppies and kids who can't drive transporting themselves via oversized death machines.
So it is possible... but we value our ability to get into more and deadlier accidents more than oil conservation.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Looked practical to me.

Untrue. Look what $4 gasoline is doing now: people are traveling less, carpooling, biking, taking mass transit, selling gas guzzlers and buying more fuel-efficient cars. Adjusted for inflation, a 50-cent gas tax would have had a somewhat similar effect. And it would have happened *before* we actually hit crisis mode.

Price something properly, and people will make rational economic decisions about it. A 50-cent gas tax in 1977 would have helped a lot.

Agreed that this was less useful, but it would have been additional money for R&D. And it would have reframed the argument, putting the *emphasis* on alternative fuels and away from oil.

So now you're belittling him for being ambitious and thinking big. It's still a worthwhile goal.

That wasn't even true back then. It's more expensive per kilowatt hour, but it's clean and energy-efficient.

Had we spent the last 25 years improving fuel-efficiency, it would have been practical. Never mind that car companies took most of the improvements from hybrids and devoted it to increased enginepower, not increased fuel-efficiency.

Isn't it conservatives who always complain that liberals always say "we can't"?

__________________
Man up.

Gas use has decreased by the largest amount in American history. That stunning figure? A whopping .4%. 4/10 will do incredibly little to impact US dependence on foreign oil. We use 7 billion barrels a year, .4% is 28 million barrels. We could drill in Alaska and have a 150 year supply of 28 million barrels. Critics say ANWAR will provide little, well increased prices provides a small fraction of ANWAR. 50 cents would have done little more than increase inflation even further and hurt the economy even more.

Additional money isn't the problem. There is plenty of money. Alternative energy is the hottest sector of the VC market and has been one of the tops since the tech boom. It would have been a waste.

I'm belittling him for being impractical and unrealistic. World peace is a worthwhile goal. It is equally unattainable.

Yes it was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n24919619

It is coming down quickly though. But it is still drastically more expensive.

For those where they did, like the Prius, they still fell far short.

__________________
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.