I favor R&D effort and dollars for alternative fuels as much as anyone. Eventually some combination of these will replace oil as our primary source of energy; but realistically this is at least twenty years down the road.
Here in the US, we are dependent on oil and we have an abundant supply. Talking of alternative energy sources does not address this truth; nor does it address the insanity of government policies that prohibit drilling here. That is the reason we are dependent on foreign oil.

President's since Richard Nixon have talked about the need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, yet we've only seen oil imports increase since the 1970's oil crisis. Everyone says it's a problem: our fate is put in the hands of our enemies and we spend billions a year having to import our energy supplies (another contributing factor in our high debt load). This is a problem that impacts many different areas, yet little is done to stem the problem.

In the short term, the goal has to be to increase domestic supply, but we have to also remember that oil is a finite resource and we don't have that much left here on US soil. I think that it's very clear that oil should be used less and less as a source of fuel. It is also clear to me that the internal combustion engine is a technology that's 100 years old and is due to be replaced. Adding pressure to these currents is the fact that growing population rates and economic development require more energy production, and our energy sources are limited to what's available here on Earth. We're assuming that one day, these finite energy sources will run out.

So what do we do? Under these conditions, the great imperative of human evolution and our times cannot be retrenchment or austerity, but rather innovation, invention, technological advancement, and discovery. If existing energy sources are insufficient, then through science, we will need to find new sources. New forms of solar energy might be a solution. Cold fusion is another area that shows great promise. This is something that we really need to put a lot of effort towards. The key must be living sustainably, but without the austerity that some, including Al Gore, believe would be needed in order accomplish this.

we should be drilling the shit out of the anwar, offshore and whereever we can find oil. all these dirtbags who think we shouldnt are total idiots. they drive cars, heat thier houses, but dont think we should drill, they are the elitist scumbags. al gore and his family has made millions from occidental petroleum, polluted the shit out of tennesee and now makes millions with his global warming bullshit. why are liberals so stupid? they just want more gubment cheese i guess.

In 15-20 years we'll all be driving cars that don't run on petroleum based fuel. This time line is not based on the technology alone, it will take years to put the infrastructure in place. 65% of the oil we use is imported, thats pretty dependent. The United States is sitting on more oil reserves than the entire Middle East. With todays technology, it can take as little as 5 years to get the oil to the market, and we will start seeing a decrease in prices even before that happens. Drilling here and now will help in the short term, which is what we want. BTW, it will also create a lot of jobs.

Screaming about 'foreign' oil versus 'domestic' oil is the cry of the uneducated.  It's a global economy and has been for years.  Foreign nations (especially the Chinese) have bought and sold your interests in ways you have yet to comprehend.  The time for nationalism and isolationism as it pertains to the economy and resources is over.  Attempting to use language to frame the issue as "our" little supply of oil versus those nasty dark-skinned Christ-hating foreigners with "foreign" oil does nothing to address the issue before our culture- we have done little or nothing to create a real energy policy that addresses the fact that oil is a finite resource that has been controlled by forces very interested in feeding people shite and keeping us in the dark.  The time for screaming about where the oil comes from is years past. . .you might as well complain about where the steel beams of the Titanic came from.  Oil will soon be the past.  America will be ahead of the curve or woefully behind.  Drilling for drops addresses nothing concerning this philosophical and cultural (not financial) issue that will clearly divide the thinkers of today and the thinkers of tomorrow.

We depend so much on foreign oil because of us, the consumers, not because of our government. Reduce the consumption and the dependence will be reduced. And so will the prices. But then, our bad habits will dictate that, because the prices are lower, let's waste. Supply and demand will always dictate the price, in everything. If we want lower gas prices, let's use less. And keep using less even if the price goes lower.

A frozen tundra of ice (ANWR) has 1.9 million acres and we need to explore and drill 2000 of those acres to provide 30 years of oil! More than 75% of Alaskans support this effort. There will be zero impact on wildlife, jobs will be created and a large tax revenue would be generated! The very next day after we begin drilling in Alaska the oil prices will instantly begin to fall, instantly! RFK Jr. and the Sierra Clubs of the world and more importantly, the Dems, need to step aside for the betterment of our country! 

(OM)It is pretty pathetic that we can't get a bill passed to drill an area comparable in size to a postage stamp on a football field!!! This would give us the equivalent to all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. People are always saying we need other methods,  this is it! We have been talking about it since 1980. What has been done? The area being contested is NOT a wildlife refuge, there are roads, a school and a military base on site. I hardly think a few oil wells are going to affect wildlife or the way of life in this massive area! The pros FAR outweigh the cons here folks! It reminds me of the alaskan pipeline debate in that it would be killing off the caribu. Before the pipeline there were 5000 in the herd, currently it stands at 30000. Where is the argument here? I agree that we need to find ways to become less dependent on foreign oil. More pressure needs to be put on the Saudis in the short term to increase production, so prices can come down here in the states. Long term solutions needs to be alternate sources of energy, as many have already stated, more efficient refineries and alternate drilling sites within the U.S. 

Dependance on foreign oil is a significant factor, as we need to be friends with terror inspirator Saudia and company. However, the strong oil-related interests inside the country are making all possible to delay the alternative energy sources development. Like some time ago, Bus companies killed electric transportation in California, these groups are trying to kill all the projects related to the competitive threat to oil and gas.

Not truly an issue when you take several sources and reasons into account that show that America can live on its own as far as soon-to-be-outdated petroleum is concerned.

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal with more high-quality oil than can be found anywhere (for example, Japan gets 95% of our coal from us). This coal, when converted to petroleum, would last us over a century.

The US also has the world's largest deposit of oil shale , 93% of which is already on US government land. This will supply us with over 3 decades of our own oil. Next, the US and Canada possess the largest groups of tar sand deposits, where 10 tons of sand each equal 1 barrel of petroleum. This would be enough to take care of BOTH country's needs for 20 to 25 years.

As of 2004, over ten thousand hybrid and one hundred pure-hydrogen vehicles were on American highways, which is expected to rise to over 100 thousand hybrids by 2010.

And, finally, the US has vast untapped areas of oil that can be found in the deep areas of the Gulf and Caribbean, the northeast shores, and the northern slope area of Alaska.

I will only state that all the oil in the Alaskan preserve, if drilled and used, would run our country for a few months. Dependence on foreign oil will not end until we get serious about developing alternate fuels. Fortunately, this is being done by private enterprise, with almost no assist from the government. I rate this issue as important because it effects our pocketbooks and because it causes our leaders to do nutty things to keep in control of the oil supplies on foreign soils.

I say we go tell these Rich, Crooked Arabs F$cks to shove it and look for better alternative energy. I think tapping into the huge oil reserves in the north would sustain us till we could figure it out. Anyting is better than giving those Terrorist A$$holes our money.

We need to start looking at renewable energy sources for another reason as well. Even if we had total control over every oil source and reserve in the world, it doesn't change the fact that this planet WILL run out of oil eventually. And since the rate at which we consume oil is greater than the rate at which the Earth PRODUCES it, I can see it happening in my lifetime, which is why I'm pushing for renewable energy NOW. And commenting on someone's earlier mention of a ration... A ration WOULD be an excellent idea to instate until that renewable energy source is found and harnessed. But it wouldn't WORK, because the general population of this country has become so lazy, so accustomed to getting anything they want, any restrictions nowadays would result in mass protest, mass riots, and a possible breakdown of civil order, sad as it is.

There are probably four major long-term threats to the U.S. at this time. In security, it's terrorism; politically, it's the lack of judicial restraint; financially, it's the increasing deficit from entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and economically, it's dependence on oil in general and foreign sources of oil in particular. In the short-term, not much can be done on the demand side as consumer habits are slow to change and industry has its necessities (and already has a profit incentive to find cheaper and more stable sources of energy). On the short-term supply side, most proven reserves are under foreign control (often somewhat hostile) and fossil alternatives are less economical to develop (meaning higher costs). Long-term strategies result in strategic alliances and positioning of the world's major economies (sometimes politically opposing) such as the U.S., the E.U., and China. There is no real doubt that this played as minor part in the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq (though this was not the tail that wagged the dog, notwithstanding some claims to the contrary). The bottom-line is that long-term viable energy alternatives will only become widespread when the consumers demand them enough to make them economically feasible.

Even though oil is a dreary topic, it is still the engine that drives economies, and affects everything involved in people making a living. There's no excuse for our present dependence on foreign oil when we have huge reserves in Alaska just sitting there. I am totally in favor of ANWR drilling. But even though I'm a conservative on most things (you will notice that my user page says nearly always), I also don't totally trust the oil industry. To their credit, they did bring the price of gasoline down substantially throughout the 1980s, when the Reagan administration deregulated them. But since then, they've jacked up the price whenever there was the least excuse to, and they seem to do it as quickly and as often as they can.

Considering how bad the little jackasses have raised the price, I'd say this is pretty serious.

This is obviously a major issue. It's been a concern in the past, but never really got the attention it is now. The good thing is people are starting to look harder at alternative fuels, the bad thing is not many people are changing the way they do things. There really is no reason for us to be that dependent on foreign oil in the meantime, but politics seems to enter everything anymore.

Dependence on oil in general.

We are dependant on foreign oil, there is absolutely no way around it. The US has approximately 22/23 billion barrels of oil in reserve (proven reserves) and we use about 7 billion barrels annually. Its not hard to do the math. The country is in peril because of our enormous consumption. Its obvious that we are not going to change our habits, so, what can be done? The cold hard facts are these: Our government is well aware of the problem and has taken steps towards maintaining our way of life. Good, bad, or indifferent (too many indifferent Americans in my opinion) that is EXACTLLY why the US is in Iraq. Period. The Middle East: Saudi Arabia (262 billion barrels), Iraq (114), Kuwait (98), Iran (95), and United Arab Emirates (80) are the top 5 oil reserve countries in the world. The next 32 countries (US is 12th) have about 360 billion barrels combined. Trinidad-Tobago (716 million) comes after the billion reserves. There are 54 other countries that have proven oil reserves. In case people are not familiar with geography, the top 5 countries are all connected by borders and are within 1000 miles. In addition, Qatar (#13, 14plus billion), Egypt (25, 3.8 billion) and Yemen (26, 3.2 billion) all border Saudi Arabia. Libya, #8 with nearly 30 billion, borders Egypt and Syria, #30 2.4 billion borders Iraq. Those are all FACTS. Another fact is the US is building no less than 3 large military installations in Iraq..Its blatantly obvious what our plans are. Anyone who has two cents can see it, crystal clear.

This country's dependence on foreign oil will be the down fall of its economy if some thing is not done to stop it. The goverment needs to do all it can to find and develop new sources of energy so that one day we do not find ourselves at mercy of religious fanatics.

This is very important in terms of pollution and funding islamic sects. but oil consumption should be stopped altogether. (bring on renewable energy and the electric car)!

The sooner we wean ourselves off the Middle Eastern tit the better. It's done nothing but cause political problems and pollute the environment. There are many other sources of natural energy available. We need more funding for research into natural energy. Sadly the oil companies are too greedy and corrupt to allow their cash cows to get away. As long as we have politicians whose pockets are lined by the oil companies we'll be forced to rely on foreign oil for energy.

I'm of the camp that says gas should cost more than it does today. Why? Because every time we fill our cars with gasoline, we are increasing our dependance on the five middle eastern countries that control 2/3 of the world's known oil reserves. And we are polluting the environment. And burning gasoline is known to cause health problems to humans. So here we have three compelling and diverse reasons for why we need to kick our collective gas habit. The diversity of the reasons is why we're seeing such odd bedfellows as hard core greens and right wing geo politickers getting together to lobby congress to get this conversion going. As far as becoming energy dependent by finding more oil sources in the US, such as ANWAR, the right leaning Economist magazine calls this concept ridiculous. Why? Because the US is the biggest guzzler of the oil in the world, and has only a tiny fraction of the world's reserves - including Anwar. We don't need a short term fix here - we need to kick the habit. Unfortunately, Bush and congress seem to be heading the opposite direction by piling on millions of dollars in tax cuts to energy companies... bummer.

We need to stop depending on other countries that don't give a damn about us, and are out to rob us blind. OPEC needs a swift kick in the you know where. We need to build more refineries. And we need to drill in ANWAR. Mabye the oil we could get from there wouldn't last very long, as Djahuti suggests, but the fact that we are making strides towards becoming independent with oil would be enough to scare OPEC.

We need to stop relying on oil, period, at least in the long run. If we are to do so, however, its going to require the publics effort to stop using oil in their cars at least. That also includes all of the environmentalists who drive SUVs and fly in jets, and also for their college following to give up their gasoline run cars. How many people will take up this challenge?

The fact of the matter is that right now the United States depends heavily on countries that have hostile feelings towards us. We cannot allow the U.S to become so vulnerable and always at risk. Common sense would tell you that to reduce that risk you have to find a new oil source, such as ANWAR. And Daccory, please spare us the lecture on how Halliburton is responsible for all the worlds problems... UPDATE: Ideally, these clean alternative energies would be wonderful for the environment and other aspects of our lives. However the amount of time, energy and resources it would take is much longer than the politicians let on. Meanwhile we will still be at the mercy of our philosphical enemies. And I truly am astounded how the very person who complained about the federal budget and how it was all Bush's fault is actually lecturing us to stop whining about the cost of conversion! But knowing how the left spins it web of deceit, I'm sure they'll find a way to make this all Bush's fault or better yet Halliburtons...

This is a source of financial woe and pollution and is supportive of Terrorists.We need to stop kow-towing to Oil Barons and get down to finding and employing Clean alternative Energies.The answer is NOT to drill in the few Nature Preserves we have left,which would only last a few years and solve nothing.The answer is not Nuclear energy-which produces the most dangerous waste and provides convenient targets for terrorists-and it is certainly not going back to coal.There are plenty of viable alternatives.Stop whining about the cost of conversion:it will be well worth it and create plenty of new jobs.

yeah we need to do something about this. we need to develop alternative fuels, that way we don't need to deal with the other warmongers across the Atlantic, anymore.

Lets start rationing fuel for automobiles. It's worked in the past.

if this isn't a reason to expand oil drilling in the arctic, i don't know what is.

Sheer fantasy and fabrication from Bush's scriptwriter there, Lance. How Halliburton taking over oil contracts and fields from a foreign country's resources to ensure America has a flow to keep on powering their SUVs is in any way helping to bring the world freedom is a pretty awesome, cockeyed piece of propogandist nonsense, however nicely you dress it up. All that money should be going into discovering new and renewable sources of energy so that there is less reliance on foreign oil.

Dependence on foreign oil is a large component of an even grander picture. America has a larger self interest in protecting its long term liberty and freedom for all of its citizens and future children. By limiting their perspective, globalization theorists haggle about the prospects of moderization and Westernization, the implications of such on the culture and its upheaval. They eschew the dominant theme that defines the clash between civilizations; that of societies of tyranny versus those that are free. They interpolate causative reasoning from this limited perspective and subsequently impute evil motives where none exist. Bush's motives exist as part of a larger agenda that is moral and just yet still grounded in the world of realpolitik. The Bush Doctrine and that promoted by most Neo-Cons is to bring liberty to the doorstep of all the world to (i) protect our liberty here and in the future as free people never attack free people people, (ii) to promote this agenda by exercising might economically, diplomatically and militarily if necessary. Freeing people from the bonds of tyranny is a moral act, yet is not an idealist fanciful altruism. To exercise might and acheive the grander objective in the real world, minimizing dependence on crude plays an integral part. To bring societies liberty we must fund the march of freedom. Toppling Saddam served various purposes; 1) he was a madman who could have given weapons to terrorists 2) he tyrranized his own citizens and attacked other nations in a quest for personal power and should have been deposed 3) his oil reserves in the hands of friendly free people will limit Saudi influence and strengthen our hand in marching freedom to their doorstep. These are all part of the grander objective. To continue the march of freedom it is necessary to fund the march. This march is not immoral but moral and limits our dependence on tyrannized oil that monopolizes the market which impedes that march. Free global oil markets, without cartels, allows competition to dictate and the free hand of the market will free more individuals world wide. The culture of freedom is the wave of the future. Tyranny will be left on the devil's doorstep. And the Bush Doctrine lays this out in no uncertain terms if people would just take their blinders off.

Sadly, the US will not increase its refinery infrastructure until it is reasonably profitable to do so: sweet, light crude at about $55/barrel, in order to justify the plant and equipment investment and start-up costs. So our dependence on foreign oil will continue for the forseeable future. Alternative fuels? Look at our track record and imagine the investment of the auto industry in combustion engine technology. We can all consider this high on our priority list for our political leaders but after eight years of a democrat president, are we any closer on any front? Even at $2.50/gallon it's cheaper today than it was 20 years ago when adjusting for inflation. Get your wallet out and ditch the SUV, not by government edict, by personal economic choice. This is what the greens have been praying for for years, now they have their wish. But government leaders at the federal and state (especially my state, NY) level have much bigger fish to fry.

Major issue. Liberals want the best of both worlds- they want to stay out of the Mid East, yet they don't want to drill in Alaska. Indeed, I hate knowing the fact that we have any trade agreements with King of Terrorism Saudi Arabia. But we buy it because its cheap oil in return we will never attack them. The Bush administration has tried to make Saudi Arabia look like a close ally, but they really aren't. I am for drilling in Alaska. It will give the oil that we need. To me its common sense. Why pay for something that we already have? I don't want the Alaskan wildlife to be affected, but I think in the long run well be better off. No matter what we do, we need to get the hell away from Saudi Arabia. They are currently holding us hostage. And also, if the Iraq war was all about oil, why are oil prices here so high? So when it comes down to it, get out of the Mid East, and drill our own oil, both saving money and we will stop supporting a country that supports terrorists.

This generally isnt a huge issue because neither major candidate is too far apart. Kerry wants to stop depending on foreign oil but he doesnt want to drill in the US...So, I suppose he is just going to pull barrels of oil out of his magic hat. Bush on the other hand realizes it is impossible right now for the US to supply all of its oil needs. So, Bush realizes it and Kerry does not, but in the end the result will be the same exact thing...we will continue to rely on foreign oil

Oil is up in ANWR...can't have it both ways, people. We either 'cultivate' what we've got or we're at the mercy of those who also have and demand our arms and legs for it.

This issue has little to do with how liberal or conservative you are. Corrupt officals on both ends of the short popular political spectrum get big kickbacks from the oil industry. There's a reason they call it black gold, and these is prospectin' times. Resources and money are equivalent; both are directly proportional to power. Power in this country is also political legitimacy. Power is an addiction, and like most, our culture is obsessed with it. Our country was founded on and continues to operate under imperialist principles. No matter what political system, or religion or popular ideal it hides behind, greed, pride and vanity are the cause of war. The United States of America is a proud nation, and is not willing to admit that it is under the spell of an unscrupulous, power hungry, self-serving administration. I would not place it below this group (including the corporations and old families which support it) to launch or incite attacks on our own soil in order to generate support for power grabs in the middle east or anywhere else. Ask Haliburton. Ask Haliburton's benefactor, Dick Cheney. Ask the Bush family. You won't get a straight answer and the majority of mainstream media won't cover it because they are owned by the corporations who benefit directly from the war. How do we take it back? Dropping out of the dependence cycle is only a start. The powers-that-be won't be so happy once independent and nearly-free energy sources start popping up all over the grid. This kind of freedom is ever more within our grasp. But the media and politicians on both sides of our binary (unary actually) system harp on the issue. This non-issue only keeps the public addicted to it's own consumption of energy. SUVs help substitute something powerful into our wanting self-image. We are a target market. Car companies have admitted to determining that the SUV consumer is selfish, vain, insecure and complacent. We are a nation of high ideals, hopes and priveledges. But we should use our priveledges carefully. Perhaps taking responsibility for our decisions as consumers should be the first step in boosting our resources. Who knows, putting an end to the slavery and war that our consumerism has caused might even give our country moral and political legitimacy again. Then we can work on generating our own piece of mind and put the pharmaceutical companies out of business.

When gas prices go up, this issue automatically becomes inthe minds of every U.S. citizen. Over the past few years, top stories have had some kind of link to this issue (drilling in Alska, Iraq War II, etc.). If there are no resouces in our own country or we are unwilling to tap our own, then we are dependent on resources from other countries. Some of our resouces and earnings (the country's) need t do into developing into a more efficient fuel souce. At the same time though, we are still dependent on gas fuels. We should only abandon then when another resouce is developed, ready for shipment, and can replace gas as the major fuel provider in the U.S.

Hmmm. the big problem here is that there is too much dependence on oil in general. Foriegn or not the dependence is the problem. What the American government, along with other governments around the world needs to do is to put more emphasis on alternatives to fossil fuels, such as hydrogen and wind power. I know that this will cost the Bush administration billions because they are backed so stongly by big oil companies but it is so much easier. Wind and hydrogen are around and free for every one. If there was to be more alternatives to oil, readily available, for people out there then oil could be phased out or at least used considerably less and there wouldn't be much of an oil dependency now would there.

Indirectly an issue. ANWAR could not be a more ideal location to drill for oil. No people live near it and few animals. No trees to speak of and in fact not a single blade of grass. From the air ANWAR looks like a complete wasteland. 80% of Alaskans support drilling ANWAR even for a cup of coffee. Fact is energy costs are extremely low. For decades the left has been telling us that fossil fuels are about to run out, in fact we are supposed to be out by now. Lies. Oil regenerates in perpetuity. It will always be there. Trust me. I will vote Democrat if and when a new energy idea arrives from somewhere else other than from a big bad corporation.