Why is it up to Obama to "break" our oil addiction?

[Political Tiger]

Why isn't it up to us, the ones who are addicted to oil?

Over half of the oil we use doesn't go for gasoline, it goes to make things like:

Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste

Maybe Americans need one great big 12 step program to stop our addiction to oil, that might help, but blaming Obama for it is a cop out, and nothing less than pure hypocrisy. Maybe instead of blaming Obama for our oil addiction and sitting on our hands demanding he stop it, we should take a deep, hard look at ourselves and become the change we want!

Are YOU addicted to oil? Take a look around your home and see just how many things you own and use that are made from oil sitting around. How many of these things are YOU willing to give up?

Obama didn't start this country's oil addiction, and he can't wave a magic wand to stop it. It's not up to him, it's up to us!

It's like drugs. The reason the so-called "war on drugs" has been a colossal failure is because where there is demand there will be supply. This country DEMANDS oil, and it's not just for our cars.

This country uses more oil than China, Russia, Japan and India combined!

A little over 300 million people live in the United States.

China and India have over 2 BILLION people, but their consumption of oil is minuscule compared to us.

This oil addiction is not an Obama problem, it's OUR problem, you and me and the other 300 million Americans who use oil like it grows from trees, so let's stop blaming Obama and put the blame squarely where it belongs, on ourselves!

[ampad]

1. Oh stop blaming the victim

I'm kidding.

[Martin Eden]

2. Pretty obvious ...

... that ultimately it's up to the American consumer.

[girl gone mad]

3. I think the word is..

leadership.

[hay rick]

4. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Good one word answer to the OP's question.

[treestar]

8. Such an excuse

So you don't have to do anything. Just point fingers at others.

Everyone is part of the problem. Oil is part of our lifestyle - we have to be the ones to make those changes. The POTUS is not our "leader" in that sense. He leads the executive branch, which enforces the laws. He is not responsible for the culture.

[Go2Peace]

17. some people on this site have the weakest idea of "government"

my God. You describe anarchy.

Come on, I can't believe that you have so little understanding of how movements and society wide changes work that you think 300 million people will just magically change course (I think you do know). It requires leaders. That doesn't always have to come from Government. But often it does. And in this case with that kind of change it will only happen when the government leads.

[treestar]

28. this obsession with leaders on a liberal board

sort of appalls me.

You'd think the grass roots never existed and the people are helpless. Leaders accomplishing negative things would have just as much power.

People do not just want to follow - they want to be part of things. Perhaps that makes it easier to "lead" them to believe they are just sheep. I'm sure you think you are not a blank slate just ready to follow any leader.

The US government is ill fit to such "leadership" since its power is divided so much - and that had a purpose, and that purpose is a good one. This is the government of the people, by the people, for the people, to quote Lincoln, not a government meant to just lead a bunch of sheep. If that were so, the POTUS would have been given monarchical powers.

[Go2Peace]

44. That's hillarious considering your positions on this board

you are constantly arguing that we should not argue and follow our leader :shrug:

[dionysus]

9. that lame old dog won't hunt.

[Go2Peace]

18. lame old dog? You think you can change 300 Million people without the government getting involved?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

we have some incredibly naive ideas in this country.

[vaberella]

26. And wouldn't the government be considered a Totalitarian state by telling us how to live?

Do you forget the crap we had to deal with when it came to health care because the GOP said the government told us what to do. Anything the government tries in order to stem the use of the products above will lead to them being associated with a Totalitarian system or China. That will go over really well.


We need low hanging fruit. The only thing I can think of is the things the Government can do---he can't tell households what to buy. You're nuts to think that as a suggestion. He can instill energy saving lights. In France in some towns after 10 or 11 pm they shut down all street lights to save energy. <---That won't go over well in America---however maybe in some locations he might be successful.

Forcing public universities and high schools to shut down their lights when no one is around or at least shutting 90% of them off when there's only security. Those are the only things he can do. He can't make people stop using toothpaste or pantyhose or lipstick and the such. And there are already non-petroleum based make-up but still---I don't think the government can really tell a company stop using petroleum based product in some of these cases.

[Go2Peace]

35. I appreciate and understand what you are saying

I agree it is not an easy time to do it. But the others were saying that it is "not government's problem" or that it will only happen when 300 million people somehow miraculously all come together on it. Well, good luck then, might as well expect a catastrophie.

By the way, European countries generally don't "dictate", they use incentives, programs, and policies. If you offered everyone a free retrofit (like Germany just did), people are happy to take it. We have some ways to go because we have been convinced that everything is impossible. Just look at how effective that meme by the Republicans has been even on a site like DU. But the necessity to find a way is still there. There simply is no other way.

[vaberella]

56. This I agree with.

Don't you see what I was always disagreeing with? I didn't see this being so hard. This idea that Obama is not being a leader. This has always been the point of my disagreement and my lack of understanding. If people didn't just dump "leadership" and expect all to understand----then maybe I wouldn't seem so upset over the term. Because from what I see it seems like a blame solely toward the president. Which is not the case, but by the initial post that I responded too...that was the case and it was said several times.

You'll note that my responses are mainly towards this statement of "leadership".

Now onto your statement. I think that's a brilliant idea. But again we have a exoskeleton (which I call Congress) that is missing some calcium. Obama is handicapped by them alone. I see Obama as a man who wants to do all he can for the US, especially to be energy efficient but a governmental body like Congress who's hindering for all the reasons we know. I think for Obama to even offer that during this economic disaster it wouldn't go over well. Why? Because it's not fiscally responsible even in light of this non-sense. Ugh...at the end of the day---my entire disagreement has always been against what I'm hearing above since it hasn't amounted to much for me. But I am pushing for eco friendly results and I think we have to be conscious of the full scale blame and not just attack the President, as I've seen here, because it's easy. This is a complex issue with many finger pointing and I think the President should at the end of the day receive the least, but I'm not saying he shouldn't receive it. I'm just tired of the "he's too weak" and he's not "leading" statements since in every avenue that counts so far, he's doing a great job. He could do a lot more, but his leadership has been on point.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. ...

:rofl:

[vaberella]

25. You make no damned sense. Thank you for wanting to push a Totalitarian government.

One in which the government tells us not to buy pantyhose. Brilliance.

[Go2Peace]

36. You sound like someone on Fox. Simply reaction. *You* are making no sense

That's bullshit. Like calling Obama a socialist. Are you sure you are on the right site?

[vaberella]

38. Actually I'm resounding the very view Americans will take if they look at the proposal on thss forum

Don't come here and question where I stand. I think just anyone giving the President the benefit of the doubt is on the wrong side of DU. But I will say this. We have a major responsibility to bear and it seems to me that many here think we don't. People want to point fingers at Bush at Obama and so on and so forth. We are dependent on energy and in particular oil. Check out the meager list provided by the OP. Until we get our fingers off that we can't move ahead.

Additionally we can't expect the government to control that. You saw the direction of health care. You can't sit there and tell me you think that if the government passed a law that no petroleum based products are allowed to sell that the American people will go for it. It's not even realistic. And the only statement coming out of the mouths of people is that the Government is telling us what to do, what to buy, and how to live. And I can tell you----maybe only 3 Dems in congress would probably go for it----until you find out that they buy Vicks vapor rub for when they have a cold.

Majority of our lives are based on petroleum based products, most of the bloody businesses in this nation use petroleum based products. I'd love to see how you expect Obama to sell (by his leadership) us not using such products. You're out of your mind. I don't know what form of leadership Obama can take, that he has not already. I sincerely cannot. And none of you have said anything besides "leadership" and expect something to stem from that. What I don't bloody know.

I hate off shore drilling like the next person. Many on here can attest to my standing by that and I saw it as a failure on the part of the Obama administration that this went on before I got as much information as I could on it. Now I see that it's wide spread blame and we play a major role in that blame. You can blame your leadership all you want, but at the end of the day----I wonder how much energy saving moves your making. Do you not have petroleum based products in your house? I think you do, if you don't---at some point or another you use something at least once a day that does need it. So yeah, we are hungry for it and until we get alternative energies functional to accommodate so many of our people---and we minimize our usage. WE play a role and some leadership has to come from us.

Obama even said in his election whenever he talked about energy saving methods. He can't do it alone, but I see most here on DU thinking he can.

[Go2Peace]

45. This is going in circles

I don't know where you have the idea that anyone is saying the President should dictate consumer choices. I don't know how old you are, but the government has used a lot of tools in my lifetime to make a lot of things happen. In fact it can be incredibly persuasive without ever telling people "no" difectly.

But this is going nowhere arguing about it. Because we can't seem to get off strawman arguments. I am heading out for some fresh air.

Have a nice day. Really.

[vaberella]

55. As I stated...

I'm responding to the statement of "leadership" that is in and of itself---doesn't make sense. In what area do we want leadership. Again, when I see the usage of that I see it saying to me that people want him to get out there and push/pass for laws that many would see as totalitarian. I don't know what you all are expecting from me to understand from leadership that the President has not done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

53. Totalitarian?

Look, when people on this board talk about leadership, they mean things like this:

Obama is a great orator; I don't think anyone here will question that. Following the UN's recent report that eating meat consumes more oil than transportation sources, Obama could very easily have drawn up some sort of initiative for Meatless Mondays (or something similar). No legislation required, no rules or fines, just make a series of speeches pointing out that the nation as whole would be healthier, more secure and more green if everyone made an effort to not eat meat on Mondays.

If you really, truly think that an effort like that is "totalitarian", why don't you go live in N Korea or Iran for a couple years and get back to us, k?

[gravity]

51. You still aren't taking responsibility

The problem is that getting off oil requires sacrifices which hurt our standard of living. It is much easier to start blaming someone for failing to take leadership than it is to actually wean yourself off oil.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. So you are claiming that it is all Americans, except for Obama

And that he, in the key leadership position, is the only American free of responsibility for making what has to be a systemic change? I do not even get the thinking displayed. It is all of us, but not him. And each of us must do what we each can, except for the President, who is not involved, and could not possibly be of use. This giving up over use of petrol, you claim, is purely a neighborhood issue? You claim people are 'addicted' to oil, not that they have no actual choice.
How can it be all of us but one, and that one the one in charge? Please, please explain.

[dionysus]

11. yes, it is obama's fault we all use plastic. next

:eyes:

[vaberella]

24. It doesn't make any damned sense. Even Liberals or Progressives don't want to take responsibility.

This is why I say, sometimes----I don't see the difference between this site and some place like FreeRepublic when it comes to the language.

[vaberella]

23. The poster never said that. However, we have to make some effort.

I live in France currently and you have no idea how energy conservative these people are. they will do anything and everything to conserve energy. I'm living in a house as an Au pair and the family is like please try to use as little hot water as possible, as little water as possible. They recycle everything---including ALL plastic in the US not all plastic is recycled. They don't use the lights when the day is out and have massive windows installed so they don't have to use electricity. The heating systems close at a certain time in the weather. All of Paris the people have pushed for energy saving street lamps. To the point where some towns have actually shut off ALL lights after about 10pm. So you live only by the light in your home or your car lights.

Do you honestly see Americans turning off street lights after 10pm?! Seriously? They can't live by their car lights alone. However we as a nation are not taking responsibility for our own addiction either. These companies that produce the products in the list above are dependent on petroleum and we help them by investing in their products. Let me ask you this?! Do you use Vicks, when you get a cold?! It doesn't matter if you do or don't. Millions use Vicks cream on their chest. <---Petroleum baby.

So yeah, we need to take responsibility and we're not saying the President doesn't have to push other products, but realize that when it comes to energy use we are EXCESSIVE.

[Go2Peace]

37. You need to learn a little about their history then.

And yes I have lived in Europe too. They got that way because of GOVERNMENT action. Europe taxed the hell out of petroleum and has for 30 years. When we were paying $1.25 a gallon they were paying $4-6. During the same period they increased the efficiency and breadth of their mass transportation system. That is why they have developed frugal habits. It's not because they are "superior" and figured it all out.

The other reason is WWII. They went through HELL and it is still fresh. We think we know what that is like but we don't. They had to rebuild everything. That gives them a different perspective that makes them more aware of the realities of life. In the US we lived in a consumer bubble and are only recently waking up from it.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Americans don't take responsability though. We take a hell of a lot of it. We still work harder than any other country even as we lose our prosperity. So the problem is not inherent in people, it is our society and awareness. And that needs leadership to change those priorities.

I have been around a lot of years. There have been plenty of environmental leaders. But it has been government leading, but in the wrong direction, that has kept us from being where we should be.

[vaberella]

39. And as I said...I doubt America would ever do that nor the American people will go for it.

And based on the rap sheet of this government there's no way to expect that will die a quick death. Look at the fiasco behind the climate change bill. Again, we play a functional role in how things move along and I'm not seeing enough of us taking some part of this responsibility and moving our neighborhoods or towns to efficiency. Sadly, I don't think the Government can do everything on their own.

[Go2Peace]

43. I don't think we disagree on that

but you are arguing instead for essentially an movement to develop through anarchy (individualism). It just won't happen. It never has in history. And doggone if that isn't exactly the approach that half the Republican party believes in. :shrug:

[vaberella]

54. That is not my statement. Ever.

My statement from the very beginning has been in counter to this idea of "leadership." People say "leadership" but what are they calling for? When it comes to response over the BP spill he's done all he could. I don't see what more in regards to leadership he can do----besides just straight ban on oil <---Which if we are all honest with ourselves is just not a sane move in regards to the hunger for energy people in America have. People want criminal accountability---he's sent in the FBI to search for it, to see if we have a case that can go to the Justice Department. People wants the US to handle it...we're not cleaning up the process if BP still hasn't managed to do it. He's met with physicists and scientists from the get-go. BP is saying they are cleaning it...well obviously they failed and unfortunately I don't think the US government has had any updates in regards on what to do with closing it up. The clean-up is easier. People have said they want the head of BP fired for his response on the matter---well he's not the owner of it so he can't do that. He's addressing the US people almost on a regular basis about this. If people want legislation in regards to this---he's unfortunately handicapped by Congress and I'm sure most of us know but always seem to forget this matter. Congress is not really Obama's back bone or a good exoskeleton---because if you're some Dems and most definitely ALL Republican's well you don't give a fuck about Obama and the American people---but care solely for those who feed you, ie Big Oil and Big Pharma. Obama could want a lot of things, but let's just say Congress hasn't been allied and Obama is not the only one making or passing laws. Everyone knows this. He's hoping that Congress will do it. Obama is calling for a cap elimination on liability to the federal Gov. You don't really see Congress on top of that. Obama is wanting Congress to add more regulation and restrictions on oil companies. <---Hah! All Repubs except maybe two are against it and I'm sure some of the Blue Dogs won't restrict their lunch money.


In the end of the day, I need to know what people are meaning by Leadership when they talk about this President. If people are wanting alternative Energy---Obama has been a strong proponent of Alternative Energy---he doesn't want it. At the same time he's contending with a mass public that lives on Oil and needs and won't really give it up and a Congress who loves it as well. We saw the response against health-care it would be the same here and it would stick more here than it ever could have on health-care---since we're talking about our needs and wants that we have on a daily basis.

What I'm saying is that we have to take responsibility. This is not a question of his leadership---because I think he's done the best he could. What I'm arguing and I think the OP has been arguing is that we need to bare some responsibility. I mean I don't like thinking of it, but I could have made a lot of changes in my life that was far more eco-friendly. We can't expect a government who is just as hungry and wasteful (ie Congress) as we are to pass a law that would seriously affect our social "well-being" as we know it and to expect it to pass.


I see a lot of finger pointing towards Obama. But when I see this oil spill, I see not only the smallest blame towards Obama (very small), but to Bush, to BP and ultimately to the American people. And I think WE need to be the one's showing leadership. If it's about being eco-friendly---we have FLOTUS planting, talking about healthy life measures. We have POTUS always talking about alternatives. But he's also said he can't do it alone.

I also think this has been the push by the OP of this thread that is being overlooked because people just want to attack the President because it's easier. That's been my point from the beginning. Blame is all around us and we can't expect the government to change measures if we the people don't seem to want to ending it. Until I hear about the Vick's company which I believe might be owned by Johnson & Johnson is going bankrupt because people have stopped used petroleum based products. We are as much to blame for this BP spill and we need to show leadership.

[Smashcut]

6. Collective action problems take leaders to accomplish.

I don't see Obama being the type of leader to make it happen. But it will require a movement led by someone who can tell the truth about our energy future, corporations be damned, and not merely a collection of minor changes by individuals. The problem is too great, and too enmeshed with our way of life, for "us" to make the changes on our own.

[treestar]

10. Anyone could take the lead on that.

why aren't you doing it?

The POTUS has the job of enforcing the law and is part of making the law. He's not in charge of the culture.

Any person politician or not could "lead" on this! And in fact it can start right at home - there is no excuse for continuing to live the way we do just because someone doesn't "lead" us.

It makes us sound helpless - we are going to wait for someone to lead us and continue to guzzle oil in the meantime, because we just can't stop ourselves, until we get a "leader!"

[Go2Peace]

19. sorry, the definition you are trying to sell of government is closer to RW than Democracy

and you need calling on it. Governments lead on this shit all the time all over the world. Do you think Europe is just "naturally" less oily? Getting 300 Million people to change their lifestyle is not going to happen the way you are imagining it. It will only happen when we get people in Washington that can LEAD and move the country.

I am laughing inside just entertaining the ideas that folks have here. Imagine the government never leading with the transcontinental Railroad, or with settling the west, or with the National Highway system, or with fucking SANITATION.

[treestar]

29. Other governments have more power, in the US, with its government

of divided and limited powers, the people need to lead - it is a government of the people.

Europeans have had all powerful leaders and they paid a price for that. Why have we done so well, and why are we the only superpower? Because we are self governing.

[Go2Peace]

40. OMFG- Naivety

You really think that about Europe vs the US? If we had fought WWII on our lands and had our cities crushed, our women raped, and our male population decimated, the way many European contries did, we would not be a "superpower" right now.

Parlamentory systems are not more dictatorial, in fact they are evolutionarily superior.

[treestar]

58. Well, we don't have a parliamentary system

We have a representative self government system.

We don't follow a leader and we give no one that power.

That's not naive, that's freedom.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Ok then just don't cry when Obama is seen as nothing better than a caretaker

Your libertarian view of the Presidency doesn't lead to much and this country is in desperate need of structural change. Business as ususal is a death march.

[treestar]

30. Try the Constitution

For my view of the Presidency. It's all right there. And it has served this country well.

If we want to get off oil, WE need to do something, not just sit and wait for Congress to do it. OMG! You'd have us at the mercy of any "leader" good or bad!

[Go2Peace]

42. entirely inconsistent

You are constantly trying to enforce discipline on this site and argue against any of what you see as "criticism" of the President. And you are trying to tell others that they are too attached to the idea of having the president lead? You do realize you are walking both sides of the line? Seriously, which is it? Your twisting into a pretzel trying to argue both sides.

[treestar]

57. What - I don't try to enforce anything

I simply point out that it's pathetic so many are looking for a "leader" like right wing, authoritarian followers. The constant demand that any President "lead" you - rather than you doing something. Our country does not have leaders. It has representatives. Self government is hard - you don't just sit and wait for the "leaders" to lead you to the promised land.

[TheKentuckian]

46. When this this view serve in reality? Washington? Not in modern times certainly

If wishes were fishes, treestar, we'd all cast our nets

[Smashcut]

48. +1

[Imajika]

7. China and India

"China and India have over 2 BILLION people, but their consumption of oil is minuscule compared to us."

Their oil use is soaring. For every cut in consumption we make, all of the worldwide reduction will be wiped out by the increased use by China and India. They have rapidly expanding economies once they moved to a market/capitalist systems.

"This oil addiction is not an Obama problem, it's OUR problem, you and me and the other 300 million Americans"

I agree with you. I wouldn't call it an "oil addiction" exactly. People do want to maintain their current standard of living and way of life, and moving away from oil would require major changes. Right now, people are just not willing to change their behavior. Your right though, Obama can't make people change. He can lead, show the way, try to convince people to think differently - but the process is very slow. Things like this oil spill might make people more serious about alternative energies though.

"Are YOU addicted to oil? Take a look around your home and see just how many things you own and use that are made from oil sitting around. How many of these things are YOU willing to give up?"

That's just the thing, people aren't willing to give up much of anything right now. Oh sure, there are lots of keyboard commandos who tell us all we need to change, but not very many people ever really do anything other than talk/type. I am guilty myself. I can't honestly say I've done anything to help the situation.

Your suggesting people change their entire way of life. Just look at your own list. It's just not that easy to do.

[dionysus]

12. i think the point is, some raise hell about it, but won't do anything to change their own behavior.

kind of like a get outraged free card or something.

[Go2Peace]

20. If you are going to sit and wait for 300 Million people to motivate themselves

you are going to wait a hell of a long time. The kind of changes you just described pretty much REQUIRE government involvement. Do you think that Germany would be the leader in residential solar if they just "waited" for everyone to get "motivated"? Or they would have the transportation system they have?

We have gotten so used to government not being able to lead except to war (and amazing how it leads there?) that we cannot even imagine it doing anything else.

Man, the latest "talking points" designed to protect the president's "image" are some of the most effective anti-government propaganda that I have heard used in a while. It even has many Dems even believing the inneffective and powerless government myth. Crazy.

We just got finished with a President that rousted the entire country into a war Frenzy, flags waving over highways and everything. That was..... LEADERSHIP... and it was POWERFUL and it CHANGED the face of the nation. Too bad it was stupid and evil, but I don't know how anyone can think leadership can't move 300 million people after what we just went through.

[amborin]

14. it's called Leadership

[vaberella]

22. What the F are you talking about?! Do you want Obama to put a ban on all those products?!

That's the only sort of leadership I can see him taking in order to make us stop using them. And even then this entire nation would butt ass crazy. Did you see the list?! Be realistic here...please! We are a nation that uses these petroleum based almost everything. I'm sure that would go over well that the government is going into your house and telling you what you should and should not buy. That is not leadership---that's a damned near totalitarian government---because that's exactly what you're suggesting with your absurd statement.

[amborin]

33. you're going to great lengths to try to defend a lack of leadership

nobody's calling for a ban on all those products and surely you know that; are you being deliberately obtuse in a desperate attempt? if you truly don't understand what leadership means, both in general and on this particular issue, then please read up on it

[vaberella]

41. I don't understand what you mean by leadership.

I see Obama doing all he can in regards to this oil spill. I saw his push for alternative forms of energy at the same time agreeing to this off-shore drilling (which I'm in disagreement with). I have a lot of problems with the way this was handled but I won't say the president needs to show leadership. He's shown a great deal. I don't know what else you'd be expecting. Is it an end to off shore drilling or drilling all together.

Because when it comes to the clean up there's nothing you can really do, besides what he's done.

[4lbs]

15. I'm old enough to remember the chaos that happened when Carter tried to move the country to the

Metric system.

Cutting our oil addiction greatly will be much more difficult.

[smalll]

16. You make a semi-valid point, BUT, the foundation of our contemporary economy is energy --

Ever since the industrial revolution began, technology and its efficiencies have advanced that have helped us all to live to 75 rather than 30, that have driven the powerful engines of modern production --

Especially in today's delicate world economy, the thing that could push us all over the edge would be more expensive energy.

Could we build nuclear? Sure, but even that takes a sizeable committment in capital, and an even more daunting committment in time to get it all working. Solar, wind, other green technologies? Hydrogen, perhaps? The Holy Grail of Fusion? They're still too highly inefficient and/or a glint in someone's eyes.

Face facts: we will be BURNING for energy for the next few decades: oil, natural gas, coal, Alberta's oil sands - we will be producing CO2 -- it's inevitable --

if we need to deal with global warming, (which we do) -- we'll buy some time as Myhrvold of Microsoft suggests, and shoot sulfur up to the stratosphere for a few decades, to buy us time to make carbon-neutral energy sources efficient enough to work.

Global warming will not be solved through hair-shirtism: it will not be solved through voluntary sacrifice, and even moreso, it cannot be solved through universal self-denial: let's put it this way: I'm a low-carbon footprint guy -- live in a city, don't own a car, etc. etc. -- but I live close to the economic edge, as most of us do. It's easy enough for overpaid latte liberals to be sanguine in the face of sacrifice -- maybe they'll have to start buying NON-organic arugula. Maybe they'll have to cut down to just ONE hiking vacation in Khatmandu a year -- maybe they have the money to buy a Prius. Most of us have no sacrifice we can make.

[vaberella]

21. Because we think that Obama is truly the messiah.

Millions upon millions of people use petroleum based products---don't ask them to give up the Vicks---they need it when they have a cold.

[treestar]

31. Note their word "leader" to substitute for "messiah."

They attribute the Presidency with complete power they would have objected to when Bush tried to exercise it (and make more of it than it was).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. I agree it is our problem, start by doing more recycling first

there's a lot of resources sitting in landfills unused before drilling more oil out

[harun]

34. Big difference between those products and gasoline. One, we burn

gasoline and it is done. Those other products don't contribute to the CO2 problem. The second thing is we cannot buy electric cars. Reason being it is more profitable (and easy) for them to keep selling us gas run cars. The gov't can give industry a push in the right direction for that. If we cannot purchase electric vehicles, we have no way to push. Once we can purchase them, we can push with our $$$'s. Third, cost effective high speed rail. Gov't can help push that industry as well. Individuals can't do anything about high speed rail compared to what the Gov't can do. Even if Obama can't get Congress to throw money at the issue, he can still talk about it and be an advocate for it.

[Jennicut]

47. Obama can make some pushes for good policy with alternative renewable energy

but one President is not stopping our addiction to oil. Not by a long shot. Time to look at buying alternative products too, if such things exist.

[freddie mertz]

49. If it is OUR problem, it is also HIS problem.

Why?

Because he is ONE OF US.

As an elected leader, he should do what he can to articulate the problem and work to develop and propose solutions.

It's not all up to him, obviously, but he has a role to play, along with the rest of us.

[Enrique]

50. anyone say this during the Bush years?

i read plenty of posts at DU about Bush and Kyoto, I don't recall anyone saying don't blame Bush, look in the mirror.

[tranche]

52. I need Obama to tell me not to be an asshole.

I need to be led. Until then, forget it.