imo, the only rational national response is to turn oil into a non-strategic resource--to find alternatives that break the cartel's control of transportation energy.

The problem is it's not going to happen anytime soon - there's no magic bullet scientific solution; such fantasies are also political theatre. Any solution is going to be partial and inferior to what we have now in terms of its utility to the end user, and take a lot of time to introduce and adapt to. In the meantime...

"imo, the only rational national response is to turn oil into a non-strategic resource--to find alternatives that break the cartel's control of transportation energy."

There's another way to have a more immediate impact on OPEC, CO.

We can stop treating other oil producing countries like shit and threatening them with war everytime they dare do or say something we don't particularly like.

China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran produce significant amounts of oil (much more than Saudi Arabia). Problem is, US and US allied oil companies don't seem to share in the bounty of non-OPEC oil.

BTW, your interlocutor seems to favor nuclear power. I wonder if he favors Iranian nuclear power.

Did you know that the lead time on a nuclear power plant in the United States is actually longer than it would take to start withdrawing oil and gas from offshore and arctic fields?

If we had spent an amount of money equal to that which we've tossed down the Iraqi rat hole on alternative energy sources, we could be well on our way to energy independence by now.

Exxon, Shell, and BP wouldn't like that very much though.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you mean by the phrase "meaningful way" when you add the phrase "though not by very much" in the same sentence.

Sorry - that was poorly worded.

Meaningful meaning significant enough to impact the supply situation globally - Saudi Arabia, at least putatively, has the capacity to do that in a big way. The Saudis raised production by around 300,000 a day recently. Supposedly however, they could increase by up to 2m a day if they needed to (at least according to some).

China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran produce significant amounts of oil (much more than Saudi Arabia). Problem is, US and US allied oil companies don't seem to share in the bounty of non-OPEC oil.

Wrong, in many ways.

Firstly, Iran and Venezuela are OPEC members.

Secondly, while Russia is fairly close to Saudi levels, China doesn't come close. And the other two who you touted as non-OPEC are in fact OPEC.

Thirdly, Venezuela is one of America's top four oil suppliers, along with Mexico, Saudi and Canada. That's despite our rocky relationship with the leadership.

Did you know that the lead time on a nuclear power plant in the United States is actually longer than it would take to start withdrawing oil and gas from offshore and arctic fields?

If we had spent an amount of money equal to that which we've tossed down the Iraqi rat hole on alternative energy sources, we could be well on our way to energy independence by now.

And if the left hadn't politicized nuclear power to the ridiculous extent that it has for the last thirty years, we could have gone nuclear before the shit hit the fan.

Wind, nuclear, solar, distributed--all of these energy technologies are likely needed, but they will have zero impact on oil as a strategic resource. Because these technologies feed into the power grid, where oil's presence is minimal.

Oil dominates transportation. So the solution must be in transportation. Todd's comment is that "this will be difficult, and take time".

How difficult? How much time? I don't know. But the current political debate on these issues is so shallow, so maladaptive, so harmful to the national interest that we simply can't afford it. It is criminal. A congress that debates meaningless and empty measures such as opening new oil parcels for exploration--knowing that these measures are meaningless and empty--is a congress betraying its own country. American production is simply not the answer. As T-Bone Pickens says--"We can't drill our way out of this one".

I agree we could do some things to aleviate some pain, short-term. We could put some controls on the oil speculators. We could put real incentives on hybrids and hybrid plug-ins. We could get tough on CAFE standards, and insisting that vehicles be flex-fuel capable. By dropping US demand significantly, we could have some impact on world price, maybe, in the short run.

But this is all small stuff. We have simply got to get off oil.

"And if the left hadn't politicized nuclear power to the ridiculous extent that it has for the last thirty years, we could have gone nuclear before the shit hit the fan."

Shame on the left for insisting that our commercial nuclear plants be designed, built and operated with safety foremost.

"The Saudis raised production by around 300,000 a day recently. Supposedly however, they could increase by up to 2m a day if they needed to (at least according to some)."

Let's say they could. What would we do with it. Eat it?

Where are you going to refine all that extra oil?