Should the federal government be encouraging new oil drilling, nuclear power, and new refineries?

Work on alternative energy sources, sure, but why not lower energy costs until we have viable solutions?Should the federal government be encouraging new oil drilling, nuclear power, and new refineries?
Yes , especially nuclear power and new refineries ! Economics 101 = Lower cost = less production = higher demand = higher price ..'; Just creates` a never ending cycle of the old mantra '; Supply %26amp; Demand '; , with Demand being the controlling factor ...Should the federal government be encouraging new oil drilling, nuclear power, and new refineries?
They are, drilling rigs have sprung up all over in western Colorado and eastern Utah. It seems to be OK to drill for natural gas in the southwest. It is not any less destructive than drilling for oil.
yes to all we should start oil drilling in the artic circle anything to bring the cost of energy down
I have ask this question many times but unfortunately we have one party that is in the pocket of the extreme environmentalist and that's the democratic party. You are going to get the same old tired response from the liberals we need alternate fuel choices, it GW and his oil buddies fault not one of them will look at their party in the mirror because is simpler to ignore it.
You could make an argument the the Fed should be encouraging energy growth in America, but there are some problems,





Oil drilling is really damaging to the earth, and on top of that we really only have one source of oil that is large enough to even put a dent in Americas oil needs and that's in the Arctic National Reserve, even that is not a permanent solution. So not many people want oil rigs in their back yards and even less want America to chew up one of the last great frontiers of unspoiled American land.


Refineries take years to build and without new supplies we wouldn't see any real benefit to having more refineries.





Finally Nuclear plants again take years to build, they're costly for the amount of electricity that's generated, Uranium is a rare substance and we still don't have anywhere to put the spent fuel. The people who don't want oil rigs in their back yard, really don't want a nuclear waste dump there.





So while high energy costs are terrible, you could make the argument that they will benefit America in the long run by encouraging people and industry to use less energy and produce more energy efficient products and to develop renewable energy. Even if we were to go after every oil reserve we have they're still finite and we'd eventually get back to the same problem of high energy costs.
Yes, yes, and yes.
You know I was thinking of starting a Consumer Co-op to buy oil futures. If we consumers joined together and bought the oil direct we could control the market prices, and share in the billions in profit that the oil companies are getting.
Oil drilling yes but nuclear no. I believe we should go to Alaska and drill their for oil. But all the tree huggers think we would kill the wild life.








First the oil areas in the ARTIC are not in peoples back yards. Its a open plains of nothing.





Second It would last america for about 100 years and thats enough for us to get off the ground to make better energy and green friendly.





You need to state all the facts not half of them.