Have we? I don't recall that option ever being on the ballot in the US.

Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”

Inefficient regulation also incentivizes car companies to make larger less efficient vehicles because they can’t make the smaller ones efficient enough. And the public has no problem buying enormous vehicles… (Doesn’t everyone need an off road extended cab 4x4 truck for commuting to the office?)

Frankly, I do feel there is a segment that seems to over focus on conservation to the point of impracticality.

However, the “single use” consumption has got to end. I don’t even see the debate here. Plastic lids, styrofoam containers, gotta go. Maybe not outright ban, but the culture has to change. Ordered a pastry in a bakery — clerk put it into a large styrofoam container, inch thick stack of napkins, plastic grocery bag, plastic fork/knife.

Unfortunately I was eating it there… All that waste for one pastry baked there?

On the other hand, I wonder if Amazon is the devil we assume. If I drive my car around town to get a few items, maybe it’s more fuel efficient to just have them delivered with others’ ?

▲

pessimizer 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”

It's important to note that the other party's response to that was "Who says we don't want to drill!?" followed by a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (or "America" I think we're supposed to say now.)

It's never on the ballot unless it truly does not matter to anyone with any power.

	▲	tzs 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's also important to note that one party wants to drill while also greatly increasing development of renewables so we can reduce the need for future drilling, increase regulatory limits on emissions over time, provide incentives to adopt more energy efficient appliances, and recognizes that the world needs to reach net zero sometime in the next few decades and is trying to reach that gradually. The other party wants to drill while doing everything it can to discourage renewables, is eliminating as many limits on emissions as it can and stopping enforcement of those it cannot yet eliminate, and their views on addressing global warming are a superposition of {it is a hoax by the Chinese to harm the US, it may be happening but humans have no way to influence it, it is good, even if global warming is as bad as predicted and we get a few degrees rise it is no problem because we can increase fossil fuels enough to make cheap air conditioning available so we can get by fine just like Dubai gets by fine with an average temperature of 35F higher than that [1]}. They also want to eliminate funding for satellites that monitor the climate and eliminate emissions reporting requirements for the industries that do most of the emitting. [1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...

▲

azinman2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Well, one party’s stated solution for high oil imports was not to reduce consumption but rather “drill baby, drill!”

The idiotic lie here is that the US doesn’t really have the right refinement plants to handle US based oil, so they have to swap oil with other countries who do. Building out new refinement plants isn’t easy or quick, yet would be necessary to actually reduce oil imports and become self sufficient.

▲

MangoToupe 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is not a serious conversation. One party pays lip service while simultaneously trying to appease people who want lower gas prices by approving more drilling and pumping, seemingly assuming we can somehow entrepreneurship our way out of the pit we're digging ourselves. The other side actively wants to drive us off a cliff. No candidate for president in either party has ever offered even a serious evaluation about the threat global warming poses our way of life.

	▲	nerdsniper 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not in the last 25 years anyways. Al Gore perhaps.