"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers,
and have them under US control rather than beholden to the
instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a
MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR.

ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated
this.

If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak.

A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high.

So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan?

Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet?
What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled
power plants?

Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the
****ING thread.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster
about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering
in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't
around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most
(not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size
& shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the
boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel.
They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that
of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers'
needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.