Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
switching to more domestic production may not impact world prices, but it would impact the value of the dollar - and that would have an impact on the price we pay for oil. So there is some merit to the idea.
That's a misnomer as well. As I substantiated above any increased domestic production would not be seen for 10+ years, so the effect on the dollar would not happen for a decade at least. Any predicted effect on such a long term is speculatory at best.
A misnomer? Hardly - not even in the definition.

And while the 10 year number is debated - I'll give it you, cause I'm a nice guy and b/c I don't need it. Let's accept that it'll take 10 years before we see a rise in production. Better 10 years than never, which is the never explicitly stated option. And - as I'm sure you know - the price of oil is not only set by pure supply/demand, but also by anticipated future supply and demand (even if speculators are regulated, they won't be erradicated - nor should they be, the futures market is an important lever in stabilizing prices), so the effects would be seen much sooner than 10 years.

Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
As for the actual impact you may not be considering the greater effect that conservation and research would have on the dollar. If instead of investing in new domestic production we invested in renewable and green technology development we would have innovative technologies to sell to the rest of the world, the value of which would far exceed the value of our oil.
Really? Greater than the value of oil? Far exceeding? I hadn't heard that - perhaps you could site specifics (and please - not from a far-left blog) preferably from an industry source?

Like I said - I'm all for alternatives - but only if they're economically viable. There's not a lot of market elasticity in energy delivery - so real impetus has to be there for the consumer to switch. The current gas prices are starting things - and I'm well aware that those who push only solar/wind actually prefer high gas prices b/c it moves the consumer faster in their direction, regardless of the effect on the economy. Any initiatives to reduce the price of gas only lessens demand for solar/wind - hence the current democratic agenda.

Problem is - there's no basis for claiming that wind and solar are on the right part of the technology curve to be in a position to be viable in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years, that's not how technology development works. Great ideas often die b/c they come about long before the market is ready for them. Throwing billions at research may help - but it's no guarantee that we won't still need the same amount of oil in 10 years, so then where's the "no drill" policy gotten us?

And again - what were your proposed solutions, I missed them and can't seem to find them in anything above. Am I to assume that you are a pure party player and don't have a single position of your own?