Is anyone buying the conservation approach to throwing off the yoke of foreign oil?

Which do you think is better:





--forcing American car makers to raise mileage standards to, say, 40 mpg minimum





or





--drilling?





Considering our population is growing, we all want cars, and we're not being told to drive less, how is plan ';A'; going to reduce our consumption of oil, long term or short term?Is anyone buying the conservation approach to throwing off the yoke of foreign oil?
Both together would make more sense, but even both together is not a long term solution to foreign oil dependence. Higher fuel economy would have to work hand in hand with efforts to encourage people to drive less.





And I would disagree that we have the same amount of oil that Saudi Arabia has, USGS surveys do not reflect that. Drilling only as a long term solution is going to lead us to eventual disaster.Is anyone buying the conservation approach to throwing off the yoke of foreign oil?
I think it is just another ploy by the white house to make us think that they really plan to get away from our dependence on foreign oil. It is pretty obvious that Pres. Obama is not interested in doing what needs to be done in all reasonable areas to find new energy sources. For example, using billions of dollars to ';weatherize'; national buildings. How about putting those dollars into developing our own energy resources...both natural and nuclear. You might as well face it folks, the Obama administration is going to be nothing but a dog and pony show. Say what's right...convince the people...and do nothing.
I think we really need to take better advantage of Iraq and take their oil reserves. Then we'd make Pelosi and other hollywood libs happy not having to drill off our shores.





I do think there should be a law on no home having more than three cars parked in front. It really comes down to excess which Americans seem to know too well. Plus, my neighbor across the street would appear less like a piece of WT.
Conservatives want to drill (short term), and also look into alternative sources of energy (long term). Liberals can apparently only think about 1 thing at a time. Alternative energy is not going to be a nationwide solution for probably a decade, so why not drill to ease the problem now?
Drilling is the short-term answer, but the ultimate goal should be the development of technology that decreases the US' dependency on oil, because eventually, it will run out.
American car makers already know how to make cars with 40mpg but they have money invested in the oil companies and earn money from the oil companies





no reason not to drill or make 40mpg cars but their are always politics in the way of actual progression
Drilling. Most people can't afford a new car so having a 40mpg car on the market isn't going to help anyone who has to keep driving their old one. Having more of our own oil is beneficial to us all.
We must decrease our usage. We do not have ACCESSIBLE oil reserves equal to Saudi Arabia. That is simply ridiculous. If that were true, why do we produce only a tiny fraction of the world's oil supply?
Do I have to choose one or the other?


What I think is best is to allow the free market (as free as it is) to regulate whether we use oil, or nat-gas, or horse poop to power our personal vehicles.
the only way we beat the oil coountries and for that matter, the oil companies, is to find something else to burn....we need to get weaned off the oil
I think Democrats just want to go back to the horse because they're fun to ride.
I tried inflating my tires, but libs still complain about global warming. I give up. Time to drill.
40MPG cars and 6 dollar a gal gas should do the trick !