Is Nixon to blame for high energy costs?
397953
I think what you are saying is essentially true. However there have been 6 presidents since Nixon that could have helped or fixed the problem and nothing got done. Nixons move to allow the dollar to float has caused many problems with the economy. I do not remember his reasoning behind it but it was another bad decision by an repuglican.
1170857
If "experts" were correct in that renewable energy sources could be devloped by just spending the money I would argue that energy companies would be pouring money into these programs because they're the ones with the most to gain.\n\nOf course your line of argument is absurd, thinking that simply spending money on something automatically solves the problem ignores the science behind the problem you're referring to, but promoting throwing money at things not proven to work is certainly something expected from a wacko liberal like you. No offense.
688494
He doesn't control the price of gas.  He isn't up for re-election.\n\nRenewable energy in always going to be more expensive than the energy to produce it.  One of the reasons energy prices have been so low for so long is there are so many sellable spin-off benefits from oil.  Most synthetics come from oil.\n\nAs backyard energy generators solar or wind energy collectors don't create sellable spin-off benefits.  Most people that can afford to pay their energy bill 30 years up front are looking for a return ON their investment not a return OF their investment.\n\nThe entire world's production of solar cells is only $500 Million dollars a year.  Today the solar industry doesn't even pay the full cost of the energy to produce them.  They are purchasing the waste product of the electronic industry as their starting point of refinement.\n\nThe 2 governments that would be required to be partners to make renewable energy economically viable have been informed on both sides of the aisle.  At best in the US, they've praised themselves for doing what in the emails has been told them is inadequate to change the economics of renewable energy. \n\nIf the economics of energy don't change, prepair yourself for the economy of the 1850's in 2050 just base on energy.  If we wait until after the energy crisis collides with the cost of the baby-boomers retirement package to start the change over the economy will not recover.
423907
It was for the oil... But, it's also Bush's fault that gas prices are so high.  President Bush is an evil genius but, he's also a complete moron.\n\nscience_rebel: Oil is only one word....
245745
From the very beginning of the {Bush Ad min} I have been watching the Environmental Protection Agencies & what they have to say about the Bush Administrations waste. The E.P.A. never says anything when asked how & when, & what is the Bush Admin going to do w/all of the {Fossil Fuels} that he wants to waste in no time flat. It would auctually Cost the American Tax Payer a whole lot more money to build & Pay off the Alaskan Citizens w/incentives from those {Revenues form all that Oil}At the same time the Carribue Herd in Alaska would be re-routed from their original (Ancient Paths that have been around before Mankind can fix a date on.Changeing the Carribue & the Natural habis of getiing around is to cruel of an act that will only be around for a short while. The Republican Party has been a cold & calculative bunch that see;s no end th their lack of vision for our very planet, & it's atmosphere.
1173864
No. There are plenty of other theories. The EPA can't and hasn't proven any of their theories. Even a Harvard scientist said that we may just be recovering from a mini Ice Age that caused famine for 400 years (Ireland's potato famine). Who am I supposed to believe? I am not scared, although I do believe it is a good time to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Who knows what the cause of "global warming" is? Oh well. Let's just reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There's nothing harmful in that.
350224
The leading company in the field is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).  Yes, it might be a good investment if they can get real financial support from Washington.  Unfortunately, Congress and the White House can't screw a bottle cap on when it comes to energy policy.  The good news is that GM is making more cars that run on the E-85 alternative fuel, and higher gas prices are likely to chase car buyers toward those kinds of cars.  The ultimate problem right now with E-85 is supply.  They just can't make enough of it to supply the country from coast to coast.  It's a speculative play based on whether you feel that the government is likely to act or not.
322674
W is the worst!\n\nAt least Nixon knew when to step down.
468122
I'm tired as well.\n\nI'm even more tired of hearing its Bush's fault for the high prices, and then hearing how he is only in Iraq for the Oil.\n\n------------------\n\nalford, (below) give me a break, you can't really be that naive, can you?  The average profit on each gallon of gas is 9 cents.  The average tax on each gallon of gas is 50 cents.\n\nSupply vs. demand is what controls the gas prices.  Can you supply any evidence to your conspiracy theory that Bush is at the head of a table in a board room with all the oil executives plotting a master plan to raise gas prices?  Is he behind the high price of bottled water also?\n\nYou claim people dint know what they are talking about, while you make accusations without anything to back them up.\n\nBush wants to increase our oil supply (which lowers prices) by drilling in our own country, but your liberal hero's wont let him.\n\nBush wants to increase our means of refining oil (which would increase our oil supply) but your liberal hero's wont let him.\n\nYour a typical liberal, who has been brainwashed by the likes of Michael Moore, and Bill Mahr.  You obviously can't think for yourself.  If you could, you would be smart enough to look into the baseless allegations you make and realize they are ludicrous.
606196
If fossil fuels are going to start being expensive to the level that the economy is severely effected in the near term how will the 1st World retain their life style?  Even the “poor” feels they are entitled to their present life style to the level threaten it; they may riot.  Environmentalists for years have been selling the glory of “Free” Renewable Energy.  True the energy is free for the taking, but capturing, storing and transporting aren’t.   Some say that this “Free” energy may cost as much as 10 times the energy we purchase from the power grid (utilities).  \nAccording to the University of New South Wales in Sydney Australia the theoretical maximum conversion rate of solar cells is 27%.   They were quite proud to reach a 24% rate.  According to the University of Davis using electricity to isolate hydrogen then using the hydrogen to get electricity gets only 40% return of their investment of energy.  This doesn’t include storage, or lose due to leakage.  Speaking of storage to liquefy hydrogen consumes 40% of the energy in hydrogen.  The higher the pressure of hydrogen the greater the leakage.  All of these losses are reflected into the size of ones solar farm.\nThe cost is in the infrastructure that has to be paid up front.  The 3 different financial types relating to energy are: ones that can’t afford to pay for 20 years of their energy consumption up front, those that can, and finally those that choose to invest to create energy for the masses.  With at least the last 2 the numbers have to be run to look at our future energy availability.  They are looking for a return on their investment.\nNot only is the cost of the infrastructure to capture, store, and transport Renewable Energy, but the infrastructure to build it.  Many are caught up in the illegal activity of Enron and Global Crossing.  Their illegal activity didn’t start until they had to hide the fact that they didn’t have return on investment from investing in infrastructure that paying demand couldn’t support.  Their action warns of growing the replacement infrastructure too fast.  \nThe documentary The Cadillac Desert hints at the way to pay for infrastructure.  The movie implies the taxing the areas land paid the bill for bring the water to Los Angeles.  This is only ½ right.  The head of the chamber of commerce, Frank P. Wiggins, marketed Los Angeles world wide.  By populating the area he upped the quantity of water that would be consumed and increased the value of land.  The increase value of land increased the tax collected.  This solution is based on changing the value of land to subsidize the cost of Renewable Energy infrastructure.  \nToday environmentalists say 5% of continental (conus) land mass is required to power the United States with renewable energy.  Granted they assume distributed backyard energy collectors.  The closer to the poles the lower the energy collected.  They may also be envisioning lower conversion rate solar cells due to cost.\nThe build rate is very much a juggling act to get sellable spin-off benefits.  One has to consume enough hydrogen based energy to hydrate the area. According to government figures a family of 4 consumes 300 gallons of water a day.  To create this amount of water one has to consume 5000 KWh a day per family of 4.  Since the wire through isolating hydrogen back to electricity is only 40% return of investment, 12,500 KWh will have to be captured up-front.  This amount of energy is based on a web site energy equivalence calculator, www.shec-labs.com/calc/fuel_energy_equivalence.php and the information supplied from the University of California Davis.\nOne might think that if the 2 international governments quickly donated/invested a quantity of land large enough for the private investor to sit-up and take notice would be adequate to get started.  The way they show transferring land is the correct way to pay for
1005436
Well never know.\n\nFrom what I read, people didn't believe Nixon could have known about that watergate thing.
434907
the cause was that Nixon was paranoid because JFK had stolen an earlier election from him with help from the mob in chicago.  So basically he did something stupid (had the plumbers break into the democrats headquarters) because he thought something like that might happen again.  The effect was that he was forced to resign so that charges weren't brought against him.
403467
you probably can put the blame on the greed of the country's\ncorporate policy's of wringing everything they can out of the average workers income.starting with the oil companies who by the way are experiencing windfall profits while charging the average person the highest gasoline prices ever.the average person then has to take out more and more money out of your bank and put less and less into it.and by the way those gas prices are reflected in everything you buy.its no wonder then that anybody can survive.only when greed is done away with will people go back to putting money back in your bank.do you think that's going to happen?
645404
Nice argument.  It's almost like when you ask:\nOR\nWhy do we have more oil than Iran but can't touch it because environmentalists won't let us drill of the Atlantic or Pacific or in Alaska or off the coast of Florida?\nOR\nWhy did the secret Echelon Program (eavesdropping & call-logging) reach its peak during the Clinton era?\nOR\nHow is it that Bush "didn't do enough" to prevent 9/11 but now he's "doing too much" to try and stop another one?\n\nInteresting, isn't it?
1071855
The previous posted is confused.\n\n"Solar power is still the best alternative energy source, and it is because of that that it's still decades away from being fully researched and employed in our everyday lives"\n  --Solar energy is used with great success in the western US were large areas of land are available to be used for solar projects. \n\n"why,..because the Big oil barrons would be out of a job,...plain and simple"\n   --It is inefficient use as a large power source.  An overcast day can hinder generation from the sites, plus the large amount of area required focusing enough light to heat water cells or even PV cells.  Let's not count out nighttime.  \n\n"It's now 2006,.. Over 30 years since the oil and gas embargo of the 70's and we still have not learned our lessions, Oil company's and big business have effectively lobbied our lawmakers into doing nothing and here we are,.. now paying $ 3.00 and more . per gallon, $ 70.00 a barrel for oil, ask your parents about the gas embargo of the 70's,...then ask them why nothng has changed"\n   --Then why are cars getting more and more fuel efficient??  I'm all for driving big block Chevy's, but they seemed to have been taken off the market until most recently.  Why is that??  If the rate of inflation was applied to the cost of gasoline since 1970, the current price per gallon would be well over $5.00.  Oil has been somewhat stable up until the mid to late 1990's.\n\nOh, and don't forget to subtract the taxes your lawmakers have placed on each gallon of gas since 1970.
118034
I agree with you, unfortunately the oil industry has a lot of money and well you know how that goes. Currently there are several research and development programs going on relating to alternative energy sources. Examples are Methane, ethanol, and hydrogen.  Keep you fingers crossed that one of these experimental energy resources hits pay dirt.
279327
nixon and eisenhower?