Democratic Party primary election; Who would you vote for?

[Faerie Alex]

I'm curious. This will no doubt be a historic election, as we'll either have the first woman or first African-American backed by a major political party running for the office of the President of the USA. (*pant**pant* ) So what do you guys think? Who would you rather see run for office, and possibly become president? And do you have a particular reason for this?

Myself, I'd pick either. I think they're both strong candidates (as the results so far show, they're pretty close to each other, although Obama is leading), and I think either would do a good job running our country (better that the guy we have now, although that's not saying much ). But I'm under 18, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[gh0st]

well my decision was sealed the second i learned that both the clintons have been pressing to make the children the property of the state, yes it would mean that child abuse would come to a virtual complete stop but at the same time it just isn't right. for the other guy i'm having mixed feelings, i keep on hearing that he has bad plans for everyone but at the same time i'm pretty sure he'd try his best, although all this is wasted because i can't vote yet...

[Reese Tora]

what do you mean 'would'? My state already had it's primary.

Honestly, as a nonpartisan voter(who is allowed to vote in the Dem primary), I voted for Obama because I disliked Clinton's policies.  I don't care for either candidate (OTOH, I'm not to thrilled about McCain, either)

Why oh why can neither party back a candidate that intelligent people don't vote for as a lesser of two evils instead of as a competent candidate?

[Aisha deCabre]

I'd vote for either one...having watched the Democratic Debate a while ago, both candidates are striving for many of the same things,  some of the biggest issues being to get troops out of Iraq and to do something about the darned gas prices.  They respect each other and it would be awesome if they both ended up on the same ticket.  Clinton is an old pro at politics though, she stood out more, if only because she's a better public speaker.  But Obama also has some good policies.

Either of them would do for me.  Just get a Democrat in office already.   

[Ryudo Lee]

Clinton.  She's already had experience running this country.  What, you thought Bill made all the decisions?

[rabid_fox]

I never realised how convoluted the USA elections were until this run around. They really are very hard to follow for an outsider.

Still, I reckon my vote would go to Clinton. Her policies are positive, she's proved herself in politics and Obama, frankly, is a PR-creation, whereas Clinton is being assassinated left, right and centre by the press and still keeping a strong following. That's impressive.

[Sunblink]

I like Barrack Obama a lot, but since I'm under eighteen I can't vote. I like Hillary Clinton's policies as well, but I don't consider her to be as honest an individual. I feel she's become somewhat consumed by the desire to out-compete Obama in the presidential race... and unfortunately the same may be applying to Obama as well. It's kind of petty watching the two take potshots at each other.

But personally, I think it's better Obama or Clinton than McCain.

~Keaton the Black Jackal

[Zina]

Obama. I like his policies more, and I think his charisma is just the thing America needs right now.

As much as I would like a women president, I don't think it should be Hilary. There's too much baggage there. Everyone remembers the whole Bill and Monica thing. The fact that Hilary stayed with him doesn't show strength to me. And how much influence will Bill end up having once they're in the White House? I don't know if she'd be able to keep him from taking control from behind-the-scenes.
That and I honestly don't believe she has a chance at beating McCain. Obama does. Channels like Fox knows this, and have been ripping him apart.

[Tapewolf]

From what I've read, Obama seems to have the most understanding and sensible policies with regard to technology.  So were I able, I'd vote for him.

Instead, I have to work out who to vote for in Thursday's local elections.

[Reese Tora]

Originally, I had planned to vote Obama in the actual election, but he keeps making dumb statements (IMO) like going to war with Iran and this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131749320080411?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Whether he really believes or would follow through with such beliefs, I don't know, but the government should not be dictating how much Someone is allowed to make. (yes, there's minimum wage, and that's a lower cap, which I think is important for ensuring that people are making enough to pay for necessities, and that's not the same as limiting what's the most one can make!)

Yes, it's sickening how much some execs make, but it's the responsibility of the companies and boards of directors therein to maintain these things.  The government should be no more responsibility or power than it is entitled to. (Universal health care, another policy that's being thrown about, I think the same thing about it fort he same reasons.)

The state governments can make this kinds of laws, that's within their rights, but the Federal government shouldn't, because it isn't in the rights laid out in the constitution, and by extension, neither should the president.

DMV, USPS... healthcare?

[Valynth]

The thing I have problems with about universal health care is that it only works when the government forces everyone to go along with it at near-literal gun point.  As we have seen such actions tend to have negative economic effects as well as a lower overall treatment of patients due to doctors being over worked to hell and you DON'T want the nurses to handle anything that is legitimately medical(the nurses here are experts only in shifting the blame).  The only solution is to either work your doctors to death, or lower your standards on what it takes to become/stay a doctor.  Of course this problem is only applicable to high-density population areas, which Canada is a bit lacking in.

Quite simply if you're completely reliant on the government to keep you out of a deficit, you're doing it wrong.

[Alondro]

Ok, first of all, I hate charisma.  Charisma is what a sleazy lawyer uses to bilk his clients out of their settlements, or a used car salesman uses to get a customer to buy a car without an engine.  The more charisma someone tries to layer on, the more I suspect they're trying to hide.

And Obama has slipped up just a enough to show me what he's trying to hide:  numerous affiliations with Farrakahn-esque persons and one convicted terrorist bomber.  Plus, his statements recently (and the pathetic attempts to cover himself afterward) have shown his disdain for the regular people in the US.  I've heard no real plans from him, just copy-cat notions and vague messages of hope and change.  I've heard such rantings before, and those who depend on leaders who promote nothing more than change without specifying what these mysterious changes entail usually end up with nothing but change in their pockets and chains on their ankles when all is said and done.    

As for Hillary, she changes her positions as often as the wind.  She'll say whatever it takes to get into power and then do whatever she feels like doing, just as the rest of the Democrats did when they got control of the House and Senate.  Her plans to tax the rich more and spread out wealth smack of the same BS I've heard from people of the current socialist-style ilk of Chavez and Mugabe... and we see how well things are going in their countries.  It doesn't work anyway, because if the rich are still free enough to leave a country that's taxing them to death, they will.  Then who'll pay for all these grand plans?  Do you honestly think a rich person who's losing more money than they're making is going to stick around when they can afford to get out?   It's short-sighted stupidity.

What about cutting all the garbage pork spending and entitlement programs?  What about eliminating the excessive government pension system and only paying what a private company would pay for the same work?  How about eliminating the dying and grossly in-debt and inefficient Social Security and Medicare systems entirely and using that money instead to fund a more stream-lined health care system instead?

I'm disgusted with the lazy culture of America today.  Everyone wants everything handed to them for free and always runs to the government for help.  The government is not the answer.  The undeniable truth is that the larger and more invasive a government becomes, the poorer and less free the populace.  I stand by the true Conservative belief that the government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.  The government is there to protect and serve the country and ensure a stable infrastructure.  It does not exist to be a nanny and save us from all our boo-boos.  I could live quite well without government interference, thank you very much.  I come from a state in which every time the government does something more, we end up with less, so I'm quite experienced with how badly a powerful government runs things.

Plus, if you actually believe any president can significantly affect gas prices by doing anything other than telling the enviro-wackos to f#$% themselves and start building the new-era nuclear power plants, and start using all the oil and oil shale we have in our own country so we're no longer dependent on energy from our enemies while we're developing a feasible alternative energy source for the inevitable day when fossil fuel supplies become too limited, you seriously need a better education.  The crude oil prices alone make up approximately 66% of the price of a gallon of gas, and those crude oil prices are set by OPEC, other foreign oil producers, and a huge band of speculators in the market.  The government can do NOTHING about that.  A large portion of the rest is in taxes, and don't hold your breath on the government letting go of such a massive revenue source.  The profits gas companies are making in excess come from their futures holdings in crude oil and a mere penny or two they tack on extra each time there's a surge in crude prices.  When they're selling tens of billions of gallons of gas a year, a single penny per gallon seriously adds up.  Just think, 50 million cars, only 10 gallons a week:  that's 500 million gallons sold in ONE WEEK, 26 billion gallons per year!  And that's a low-end estimate of gasoline consumption, not even getting into the other oil derivatives.

If gas companies and filling stations made no profit at all, the gas would still be over $3 a gallon simply due to the crude prices and federal, state, and local taxes.

Oil shale and oil sands, of which we have enough for about 1 trillion barrels of oil, could be processed to give us gasoline at under $2.50 per gallon with current technology... as long as we build more refineries.  That is another problem.  The enviro-wackos (again!) and NIMBY's (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) have made it all but impossible to get permits for new refineries in this country.  We do not have enough refining capacity to keep up with demand.  Plus, the refineries we do have are old and wasteful, 30-years out-of-date.

I'm not impressed with the plans of anyone for a federally-run healthcare system either.  These are the retards who've brought Medicare and Social Security near to the point of insolvency with their waste, pork-barrel spending, and blatant selfishness and stupidity.  Now we trust them with absolute control of our healthcare all of a sudden?  Doesn't that sound just a wee bit naive?

I'm voting for McCain only because there is really no other choice for me.  He has major problems on a number of issues, not the least of which is standing for his own professed beliefs, but at least he understands that what we're facing in the Middle East has nothing to do with Western interference (the governments who oppose us, especially Iran, are mainly revolutionary governments who took over the legitimate governments with a minority of violent extremists and who control the majority of the populations with fear of death), but instead a murderous mindset to destroy everyone who will not bow down to their version of Islam.  If you don't believe it, you should listen to their own words now and then.  They quite openly preach to their followers that all who do not follow Sharia law must be killed.  

While I think invading Iraq when we did was a bad idea because as horrid as Saddam was, he was at least an enemy of Iran who'd keep them at bay for a time, dividing their attentions and we should have waited until the conflict in Afghanistan was over completely before doing anything else (plus it would've given Saddam the opportunity to do more stupid things and let us gather more and more evidence until it became overwhelming), we are there now and pulling out rapidly will be just what Iran wants, as civil war will certainly break out, and Iran will use it to justify an invasion.  Then we'll be in a much worse situation.

He believes in legalizing illegal immigrants, but so did Bush (the way in which they would do it is just as foolish as Democrat plans).  Fortunately, the American people at least stood up and shouted "NO" loudly enough that the government collectively shivered in fear of the people for the first time in decades and backed down.  It is obvious that something must be done to help those who genuinely want to become productive citizens in our country, as our current immigration system is a disasterous beauracracy.  But just throwing open the border and giving blanket citizenship to everyone already here is foolhardy to say the least.  The idiotic Z-visa would've offered no incentive to become a citizen, as it could be renewed indefinately under the abandoned plan.

That's just one issue, but I don't have the time to go into them all.

I had hoped Thompson would've gotten more support, he is one of the few politicians who has never grabbed for power.  He's taken his office almost unwillingly, out of duty.  He speaks his mind and isn't afraid of popular opinion (which is mass-appeal, something akin to mass hysteria in my opinion and no less destructive in the long-run as it makes the Presidency little more than a popularity contest).   I should've liked to see Condaliza Rice run, but she wishes to keep doing the job she's doing and doesn't feel she's qualified for the Presidency.  Frankly, that's often the best person to be a President.  We want someone who feels they are not enlightened and entitled to the Preseidency.  That is another reason I rooted for Thompson, he entered the race late, not because he wanted the office so much as he felt the candidates the party was supplying did not meet the values he stood for and thus he stood up as one who would.

I can only hope that we survive whoever becomes the next President, and hopefully enough people in America will wake up to the fact that we need someone in charge who stands for justice, law, and freedom and who believes that all the people of the world deserve the same freedom.  I want a President who will limit the government's power to tax me to death (and tax me after death, as I find the inheritance (DEATH) tax disgraceful, as I do property taxes.  You never actually own your land with such taxes!) , and force the government as much as is in his/her capacity to stop wasteful spending and work for the people instead of for itself.

[Cogidubnus]

Alondro makes good points, and I applaud him for it. I'm sorry to say that it is my opinion that none of those things will ever be fixed, or ever come about.

In the immortal words, here comes the new boss. Same as the old boss. They decide, and the shotgun sings the song...
I don't mean to sound like I'm anti-authority, or from the seventies. But I do think that no matter who we elect, things will simply not improve. But then, I've been told that people have felt this way since the 60's, and we're still around.

I'm a libertarian, so I've already lost. As far as the country, though, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. But I anticipate moving out of the country more than the situation improving.

[Valynth]

If you move out of the country, it definitely won't improve.  the only way out is to actually get involved and throw your own hat into the political arena and rally people to your cause rather than sit on your ass and declare it hopeless, because then you'll ALWAYS fail regardless of where you go.

[Jim Halisstrad]

Valynth, Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG.
Wanting to move out of the country due to political beliefs does NOT denote the quallity, aptitude, or skill of a person.
In fact.... if you move out of the country you pretty much have to either A: Get hitched with a foreigner,  or B: Have Mad Skills.


But to contribute to the original topic, I voted for Obambalamba.

[Alondro]

Interesting related note on the candidates plans for lowering gas prices, and why they won't work.

Burn Politicians for Fuel Instead!

As I said, we need to develop our own fuel supplies and stop relying on foreign oil!

Plus, fuel ethanol isn't the answer.  Food prices are already rising dramatically because of it.  Not to say that a good percentage of Americans couldn't afford to lose a ton of weight by eating less, it's mainly that the poor in this country and the ones in other countries who import our food are going to be hurt most.  Ethanol just can't fit the bill, and other sources of ethanol aren't working out like initially expected (big surprise).

I think we should try methanol from wood instead.  Use all the areas defortested all over the world and plant rapidly-growing legume trees like locust trees and other types which can also grow fast and either resist poor soil or add nutrients to it.  Many of these 'weed' trees can reach maturity in as little as 5 years, and some can be cut down and will re-grow in only a couple years from the stump and root extensions (the black locust is a prime example.  Trying to kill a grove of those things is an exercise in futility.)  They're useless for timber, but chipped and processed, they could be a highly sustainable source of raw material for methanol or the pressure-heat process to produce synthetic crude and natural gas, using less land area overall for a much larger yield of bulk biomaterial.

Still, it'll be just a fraction of the fuel demand, but at least it won't hurt food production.  Alternatives are going to require the use of every technology thought up to supplement oil.  None are going to be the magic bullet because they simply can't match oil's relative ease of use and high energy density.

Nuclear, of course, has the highest energy density of any energy source currently in existance.  But everyone's afraid of it.  Even though the new generation of reactors can't melt down because the fuel pellets are too far apart and too small to achieve critical mass and their safety system includes a gravity-fed water coolant which is actually designed to be crucial to sustaining the nuclear fission chain reaction by slowing the neutrons enough that they can interact with atomic nuclei in the proper manner to achieve a sustained reaction.  Empty the water, the reaction stops dead.  It's a brilliant design.  And the fuel pellets can be recycled much more easily than the old type, recovering virtually all the remaining useable uranium, and cutting the nuclear waste by almost 90%!

So there we have the best answer to the fuel problem:  develop our own oil reserves in an efficient manner, build newer refineries which will operate less wastefully, build the new types of nuclear reactors to supply electricity, build wind turbines in the places where they will work best (and tell the people who are worried about their scenic view, like Ted Kennedy, to go jump off a bridge), develop better ethanol sources, and begin mining the massive amounts of oil shale we have (as well as getting Canada to start processing their oil sands in Alberta).  These options, all exercised, would free us from foreign oil at least for a few decades, during which time all the money we'll be saving could be invested in research to hopefully find a feasible, low-cost, long-term energy source to match or beat oil and nuclear fission power.

Maybe fusion in some form will be possible, I see several avenues of fusion research that haven't been well-explored, including a type of lithium-deuterium fusion reaction which takes place at a much lower temperature and pressure (and is likely the type found in the early life of large brown dwarf-type planets/failed stars).  There is also solar power, which could be made much better with a new type of solar panel in development (a flexible panel that uses tiny chips embedded within it.  It's more durable, uses carbon nano-tubes, less heavy metals, and may deliver more wattage per area with a longer life-span.,.. at least those are the preliminary claims!  We shall see if it pans out in time.)  And there are likely even other ways to harvest the ample solar energy we haven't even thought of, but which will only be found if we cut our dependence on foreign oil and keep enough of our own money to fund the research needed!

No matter how you look at it, oil from every source will eventually run out.  There is no doubt that we should start working on the solution now.  The problem is that politics and evironmental loonies keep getting in the way of any real solution.  All the bickering, in-fighting, and fear-mongering does is keep us locked in the greasy fetters of foreign oil; while nations that hate us laugh their asses off and fill their coffers to overflowing with all the money of the world.

Hmm... you know something?  I should be President!   

Yesssssssssssssssss... preciousssss... we should!   

[Cvstos]

Some important points:

- US refineries are only at 85% capacity according to the EIA.
- Consumption of gasoline fell from 2005 while production was stable.
- Bush got a new refinery bill that Bush said would increase capacity despite Democrats' claims that it would enrich the oil companies.
- Congress ignored Bush's request to use old military bases as refineries because oil companies don't want to because the military didn't build them near pipelines.
- The Bush Administration has blocked Democratic measures such as the "Price Gouging Prevention Act". The Act passed the US House 284-141-7.  Only one Democrat voted against it - Collin Peterson, MN-07.  56 Republicans voted for it.  140 Republicans voted against it. Of the 7 "Present/No Vote", 2 were Democrats, 5 were Republicans.
- In 2000 Bush said that the next president should fight gas pricing by getting OPEC to increase production.
- US oil companies have increased capacity by expanding current refineries and when top officials at the five biggest companies testified as to whether they want new refineries, all of them said no.
- Alberta is processing oil sands as we speak.
- EIA: Drilling in ANWR would maybe reduce prices by $0.01 by 2025.  Whoop-de-freaking do. 

[Fuyudenki]

Without any other comments on the deeper fundamentals that drive the surface of politics, and not having read Alondro's 4+ screens of text(Maybe later...), if I could vote in the Democratic primaries(I believe they've already been held in Colorado), I would vote for Hillary.

She's a terrible choice.  Most everyone recognizes that.  That's why I'd vote for her.

If the Democrats get a bad candidate, there'll be more split votes, giving the Republicans a better chance at the office.

And as bad as I suspect McCain would be... at least after the first 4 years, we'll still have an America.  If a Democrat is elected this time 'round, I'm going to have to stock up on munitions for the coming revolution.



Now, giving comment to some of those deeper fundamentals...  Federal price-fixing is a fantastic way to manufacture shortages.  There's a minimum price for acquiring something, and a company has to sell it for that value minimum.  Any less, and they're taking a loss on every sale, and anyone with basic algebra skills should know, you can't save yourself with volume in that situation.  If the market price is fixed at a value below what the distributors can get it for, they're generally not going to sell it at all.

That, or they'll open a black market.

Don't believe me?  Look what happened in California when they tried to cap electricity prices.  Supply couldn't meet demand, because demand couldn't provide enough price for supply to keep up.

[Darkmoon]

Wow, it's republican a go-go. Maybe it's time time to take a vacation from your conspiracy-fear-mongering. It's not doing your arguments any favors.

[bill]

don't you get it

if a democrat is elected america is LITERALLY going to fall apart


RIP USA 1776-2008

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

... can we hope for that?

[Zina]

don't you get it

if a democrat is elected america is LITERALLY going to fall apart


RIP USA 1776-2008

LITERALLY?
Damn. I'm kinda glad I've lived long enough to see this.

[Alondro]

It will fall apart... giving me the opportunity I need to seize control and establish the Imperial Empire of Charlezakstan!   

[Darkmoon]

don't you get it

if a democrat is elected america is LITERALLY going to fall apart


RIP USA 1776-2008

LITERALLY?
Damn. I'm kinda glad I've lived long enough to see this.

Yepper, it'll become two seperate countries. The northern states will break off and merge with Canada, forming the United States of Canada. The rest will become Jesusland!

[Cvstos]

Ultimately the only real oil solution is to not use it.  We desperately need a switch to something else.  In my estimation, Obama is the best vehicle (no pun intended) for that.   I would have preferred Edwards' policies, though.  Obama's plans are good, but... not as dramatic as we need.  I like the ideas he has lined out.  I just don't think they go far enough, especially in the area of alternative energy.  For that, I look to a plan more along the lines of the Apollo Alliance.

Biofuels are nice for the heavies - airplanes and semis.   Smaller vehicles will likely be looking to electric and hydrogen.  The tech for electric just isn't quite there yet.  It's getting closer and closer but they need to cut the price into a quarter of what it is now and keep the efficiency.  They also need faster recharge times.  The good news is that the tech is progressing nicely.

Hydrogen is a much more viable option in terms of tech.  Like electric, it's not quite there.  Unlike electric, the point where it's viable is well within sight. BMW has an internal combustion engine that can use hydrogen, and the fuel cells are only a couple years to being fully marketable.  The problem here is infrastructure.

The tech for the hydrogen infrastructure is present and ready.  It just needs to be deployed.  That costs money, but it's money that is far more important for our future than more wars in the middle east.  Hydrogen is a nice and portable energy source, too.  The downside right now is that it's relatively inefficient in it's creation.

Another key component here is wind, geothermal, and solar energy.  All three industries are taking off.  Wind could really be huge. A proper investment in wind could yield a lot of power.

Solar is also being underestimated.  This is one of my favorite little rants, and it all starts with this picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area.png

See the black spots?  If we cover those areas with 8% efficiency solar panels, those panels would produce more than the total energy consumption of the world in 2006.  Now, you may be thinking "damn, that's a lot of land and a lot of solar panels".  You're right.

At 8% efficiency.  Most commercial panels you can buy today are around 15%-17% efficiency.  Which means we'd only need half as much land using those.

But that doesn't mean we have to stop there.

A University of Delaware project has produced a solar cell at a whopping 42.8% efficiency!  http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9752692-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog

Let's assume 40% efficiency for a nice round number, since a separate DoE project hit that as well.

The image above uses about 910,000 square km.  Assuming 8%, remember.  Divide that by 5, since 8*5 = 40. That's about 182,000 square km, which is a about 12,000 square km larger than the dot on the US.  (The US dot, by the way, is about 170,000 square km.)

That means that if we used those UoD panels, and build a ton of them in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California, we would be not only producing all the power we needed, but all the power the world needed.

Here's where it gets neat.  We don't need to panel up all of the American Southwest.  A lot of people are putting panels on their homes.  Now, obviously everyone doesn't live in an ideal area for them, but they still help.  Imagine if tomorrow we woke up and 25% of homes in the US had those panels.  Evenly distributed.  I'd imagine that if that didn't provide as much energy as that black dot, it would probably still produce a majority of the power in the US.

[Reese Tora]

IIRC, solar panels currently require more energy to make than their entire lifetime output (or do not produce more by a significant factor)

We'd need a lot of infrastructure that is not in place, and a more energy efficient manufacturing process to make solar a viable energy source.
(also there would be the potential for a lot of energy loss in conversion to AC for delivery from the plants, transmission through power lines to areas remote from the generation site, storage in batteries of some sort, and so on, this would need to be taken in to account.)

For not using oil, there's no reason not to use oil so long as it's available, so long as we have something in place to replace oil when it does run out.  Oil isn't useful for anything beyond what we use it for now, it's a resource, and it's the most efficient form of fuel we have access to.  It makes some of the best lubricants, it's essential to the manufacture of palstics and the like.  we shouldn't be dependant on it, but neither should it be disregarded as a resource.

[Cvstos]

IIRC, solar panels currently require more energy to make than their entire lifetime output (or do not produce more by a significant factor)

I have to disagree there.

A study by Pennsylvania State (Andrew Lau, Joshua Pearce) shows that photovoltaic panels pay for themselves in terms of "energy returned on energy invested" (or EROEI) in about 5 years, at most. 

From wiki, nicely sourced:

    * Crystalline silicon PV systems presently have energy pay-back times of 1.5-2 years for South-European locations and 2.7-3.5 years for Middle-European locations. For silicon technology clear prospects for a reduction of energy input exist, and an energy pay-back of 1 year may be possible within a few years.
    * Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[72] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years, the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30.

http://jupiter.clarion.edu/~jpearce/Papers/netenergy.pdf
http://www.ecn.nl/publicaties/default.aspx?nr=ECN-RX--06-016

As far as infrastructure goes, the tech is there, it just needs to be built.  I'm all for that.  PVs are a great job-intensive investment.  Let's build it already!

[Valynth]

Ultimately the only real oil solution is to not use it.

Here's the problem, once those vast oil fields reach a certain depth, they decompose into methane.  This methane can find its way to the surface and make global warming, what was it?  28 times worse than the same amount of CO2?

[Reese Tora]

Obviously, my information is out of date.  (odd, though, as I believe I picked it up from the wiki entry on solar panels last year... or maybe it was in the energy thread we had going here last year.)

[Darkmoon]

And that's just fairly current technology. I remember reading a couple of articles on Slashdot within the last few months that were discussing technology that would make solar panels up to 16x more efficient.