It’s true. Despite that CNN says it, it’s true.

Energy resources are finite: eventually, you’ll use more than what you can produce. If you drill, you’re stuck with a finite supply; if you farm–currently–it might be worse as you’re looking at a net-negative source. Eventually, you’ll have to pay the piper.

If you want energy independence, you leave to live within your means in terms of production-vs-consumption. This is true even in oil-rich nations; it’s hard in a place like the US, where supply is completely outstripped by demand.

I’m not adverse to nuclear energy, but it is true that there’s a lot of money thrown at the supply side of the equation that could probably have had more effect when thrown at the demand side. The problem, of course, is that the vested financial interests are all on the supply side; demand-side reduction providers (contractors, consumers) don’t have nearly the clout.

Common Sense and Logic do not prevail in the Ethanol discussion. Don’t you know that “you can’t Ethanol your way to energy independence?”

Just like you can’t you cant (Drill, Nuclear, Coal, Wind, Hydro) your way to energy independence either.

The only solution is to conserve, because you CAN CONSERVE your way to energy indepedence. I know this because CNN told me so.

Crude oil in a finite resource the use of which at current rates and projected demand rates is unsustainable.

Why then insist that alternatives must be sustainable? Makes no sense.

Evidently sustainability like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To my eyes the model pictured is less than attractive, maybe even repulsive.

Actually, she’s quite principled, if you ignore the whole “march around without clothes”.

You can, of course, decide if that’s a good or bad thing.