Should the U.S. dedicate more resources to alternative-fuel sources?

by L.A. Times Posted 2012/11/12 19:54:00

2,293 votes
Read all 458 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	1,763 votes	77%
	No	530 votes	23%

The U.S. will soon briefly bypass Saudi Arabia in oil production. America will become the world’s top producer of oil within five years, a net exporter of the fuel around 2030 and nearly self-sufficient in energy by 2035, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.

Add a comment above

AL 2012/11/12 21:50:32

No

+10
Not when we have the largest supply of Oil in the world! Yet Obozo refuses to let us drill 40% of it on Government land anyway!
>> See Replies

More polls by L.A. Times

Thomas Accola 2012/12/10 09:42:16

Yes

there are a lot of eco-terrorist out there that insist on bulling any one who supports the currant gas car situation. guess what the current ellectric car can only get you about 200 miles and right now if we where to go out side i would more then like have a wind chill of -20 and that means battery drain. Solar and wind energy yeahhhh....l. wait... with all the massive amounts of space it take to pruduce energy from solar and wind rececievers how many threatened and endangered animals, plants, bugs, and birds will have to be moved. When it comes to a hydro electric dam you have to figure the same amount has to be moved, 10 miles up and down stream. and how many of you are only useing electric power when needed? not wasting any water,food, or other resources? this generation is at the start of the change the technology to make the change 100% won't be here for a while so instead of killing each other over it lets find equal to move forward on.

reply
Devil Woman 2012/12/07 18:03:16

Yes

+1
We need to have more money spent on developing renewable sources of energy. We need to use wind, solar, & any other renewable & safe sources of energies because the oil supplies will eventually run out.

reply
TheR 2012/11/24 11:39:17

Yes

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

reply
Tobias Lanzky 2012/11/20 15:37:57

Yes

+1
Green energy is the answer, the future!

reply
Sordido 2012/11/19 02:48:53

Yes

We've subsidized the oil industry for a century. It's time to let them sink or swim and start looking at approaches that will result in lowering our dependence on oil over the next century.

reply
tom C to Sordido 2012/11/19 15:49:14 (edited)

wrong...wrong ...wrong ...because Obama has NOT planned upfront....
first you need infrastructure to support the change to alternatives...
then you need a Alternative that can be viable...we still dont have one...
the closest thing is natural gas.....and there are very few ,,,NG pumping stations for cars...

It all doesnt just majically appear.....but then again..Obama thinks so..

reply
roxie 2012/11/18 01:28:51

Yes

Other Countries have been able to do this!

reply
senvestoj 2012/11/15 05:13:39

Yes

+2
But I have a wild and crazy idea. How about we stop with the corporate welfare and let the free market decide which technologies to pursue?

reply
t.eliot, topbard 2012/11/15 01:45:21

Yes

+1
It's a matter of life and death.

reply
SK-LIBE... to t.eliot... 2012/11/16 00:44:43

Alternative fuel only make up 1% of all recourses. would be a terrible investment. you don't have a clue about anything do you?

reply
t.eliot... to SK-LIBE... 2012/11/16 00:49:13

Uh, that would be resources, and it is a matter of life and death that we bring that percentage up , way up, and do it soon. You seem to enjoy being insulting. Is that because your ideas don't hold up to any serious scrutiny?

reply
SK-LIBE... to t.eliot... 2012/11/16 00:59:31

How do you propose we do that since all the RESOURCES are already there. what are you going to grow more wind? We have a surplus of a hundred years of oil and then some off the coasts and obie doesn't want to use it because it cuts into his growing big daddy government.

reply
Sordido to SK-LIBE... 2012/11/19 02:51:18

It's not about growing more, it's about harnessing more of it more efficiently and more safely and solving the problems inherent in using asynchronously generated electricity.

reply
SK-LIBE... to Sordido 2012/11/19 03:08:26

I was being a smartass. of course you can't grow wind...well then again the bigger the govt grows the more they blow. You can only harness what nature blows at you. what if their is a global wind crisis? I'm not saying we shouldn't try to use alternatives but it's not enough to wreak havoc on the oil industry.and we have enough to be self sufficient for the next 100 years.

reply
John 2012/11/14 23:38:07

No

It is not legal, under the Constitution for the federal government to be involved in research in this matter and to make any national policy on it.

reply
Wortmore 2012/11/14 22:27:11

No

Even thought I support going green energy, oil/coal/natural gas = jobs

reply
VoidSeed 2012/11/14 22:17:34

Yes

They should get At least as much as of subsidy as pollution causing methods of energy production.

Oil gets many billions tx subsidy .. why not nonpolluting kind?

Yes we need more solyndras ... though without the bankruptcy of course.

reply
senvestoj to VoidSeed 2012/11/15 05:15:00

+1
Or, we could stop all corporate welfare.

Just saying.

reply
Gwen 2012/11/14 21:01:11

No

at least not the gubment....been there done that....$500 million + down the toilet...

Solyndra.....

reply
Jade 2012/11/14 20:51:58

No

+1
No, we have invested enough by the Obama administration in these green research companies that have went belly up. Its time to invest in our coal miners, our gas workers, and oil drillers here at home. There are other forms of alternative energy already being used in Europe, we don't have to develop them, we should just need to apply whats their already doing, they are far ahead of us. They use geothermal, solar, wind and hydro technology and it is working for them, but we need to invest in our own natural resources to, it has to be a combo.

reply
roxie to Jade 2012/11/18 01:31:59

reply
Jade to roxie 2012/11/19 15:53:11

you people cant even debate with facts and figures, loud and crude is all you know. Neither which makes you right.

reply
Darnel 2012/11/14 19:19:24

Yes

+2
HOLY Spit!!!!
Why wouldn't we look to the future? OIL is not an unlimited energy source.

reply
flowerlady112 2012/11/14 17:05:50

No

+2
We have already wasted billions on companies like Solydra! We should leave it to the private sector.

reply
Kiosk Kid 2012/11/14 16:44:32

No

I walked up to my car the other day. I said; hey Buddy I have some renewable energy for you made from wind power. My car looked at me like I was stupid and said; blow it out your as*. I operate on gasoline and if you want to go anywhere you need to buy some. Otherwise, I am perfectly content resting in my garage.

reply
auron 2012/11/14 16:43:40

Yes

The whole idea of a self sufficent america is decieving. I'll just leave this here.

http://www.businessinsider.co...

and this is a good read.

http://news.yahoo.com/2028-en...

reply
Victor J Sardina 2012/11/14 16:32:20

Yes

+1
Yes but make it real, keep producing oil, gas, coal, and all other coal and oil derivatives, while exploring alternate sources, and let the private enterprise develop and produce that alternate energy sources, keep the federal Govermment out of it.

reply
usworker 2012/11/14 16:26:19

Yes

+1
Cut the oil co welfare and give it to alternative fuel development - not just to companies making solar panels but fund true research and start up companies in the new technology - and SOME will fail ... but texaco, shell, etc. executives don't need to go to those fancy balls we are paying for (else let them pay for them out of their wealth - redistribute those rocks stored in Swiss land... )

reply
Victor ... to usworker 2012/11/14 16:36:35

You sound so bad, look in Russia the communists redistribute everything and today the richest individuals in Russia are those that use to be in power during communism and redistribute the wealth what an irony

reply
Todd Parsons 2012/11/14 16:19:21

No

It should ... but now is not the time...we need to dedicate more resources to fixing the damn economy and jobs first...then we can screw around.

reply
Little Angel 2012/11/14 15:45:23

Yes

+3

reply
robert.goldsmith.14 2012/11/14 14:23:56

No

+1
The problem with doing so right now is that in such a poor economy, people cannot afford these alternatives. Why do you think Solyndra and other alternative energy businesses went bankrupt? It's because people cannot afford to purchase these products, thus there is low to no income generated. Get a stable economy first, then work on alternative energy sources when people can afford to invest their own money into them.

reply
iamnothere 2012/11/14 13:48:51

No

+1
People who have the cash flow to make investment in alternative energy will.. It is a supplemental form of energy. When I call the environmentalists and democrats Dumbocrats there is a reason

reply
Gartharun 2012/11/14 12:30:17

Yes

If a country has enough money and manpower to rival others, surely it has the same resources to research alt-fuels!

reply
Eh Politico 2012/11/14 09:59:37

Yes

+2
I've got one word for you. Hemp. You can make fuel from the seeds, plastic from the cellulose in the stalk, and 200 different products from the rest of the stalk like paper(which lasts hundreds of years longer than the more acidic woodpulp paper we use now. It's why the constitution and bill of rights haven't faded), bricks, paint, makeup, animal bedding, rope, clothing, I could go on but if you've read this far, you can just check out wikipedia (which while most folks may find it suspect, is at least footnoted so you can check the sources of the information) for a more extensive list, or look at this article http://web.archive.org/web/20... which details not only manufacturing potential but things like crop yield, environmental factors(requires no pesticides because it doesn't attract pests and no herbicides because it IS a weed, actually improves soil quality making it an excellent rotation crop for farms that grow soil decimating crops and it sucks in hella carbon, making the burning of the fuel somewhat carbon neutral). You can grow it and cut it down in a season and do the same thing the next year. It's a renewable resource. It's not the only solution but it is one solution. And there is no one solution.
“Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the ...

I've got one word for you. Hemp. You can make fuel from the seeds, plastic from the cellulose in the stalk, and 200 different products from the rest of the stalk like paper(which lasts hundreds of years longer than the more acidic woodpulp paper we use now. It's why the constitution and bill of rights haven't faded), bricks, paint, makeup, animal bedding, rope, clothing, I could go on but if you've read this far, you can just check out wikipedia (which while most folks may find it suspect, is at least footnoted so you can check the sources of the information) for a more extensive list, or look at this article http://web.archive.org/web/20... which details not only manufacturing potential but things like crop yield, environmental factors(requires no pesticides because it doesn't attract pests and no herbicides because it IS a weed, actually improves soil quality making it an excellent rotation crop for farms that grow soil decimating crops and it sucks in hella carbon, making the burning of the fuel somewhat carbon neutral). You can grow it and cut it down in a season and do the same thing the next year. It's a renewable resource. It's not the only solution but it is one solution. And there is no one solution.
“Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?”-Henry Ford
(more)

reply
Tpem 2012/11/14 08:00:29

No

+1
Let the market pay for it. We can't afford to prop up unsustainable energy companies.

reply
roxie to Tpem 2012/11/18 01:35:30

NO?
This has cost us a few dollars and a few lives!

reply
Tpem to roxie 2012/11/18 22:59:09

Exactly

reply
Thomas G Towns 2012/11/14 05:07:05

No

+1
The state-approved wind farm, built with federal tax credits, kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles, according to biological reports generated on behalf of the owners.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitec...

reply
sodabox 2012/11/14 03:09:24 (edited)

Yes

+1
We could keep our money HERE instead of over THERE where they hate us. They would bend over backward for us if they knew we could buy our energy somewhere else. We would be their customer and they would treat us as such. But now we are just a junky and they are the only dealer in town.

reply