I listened to tonight's presidential debate where high gasoline prices were used as a political football. Both candidates talked about the America's need to produce more domestic fossil fuels and Obama was taking credit for increased production over the past few years. Both were critical of higher gasoline prices, but it seems they don't understand that higher prices are a big part of the reason why domestic energy production is up. Take the Bakken Shale, in North Dakota, as an example. The Bakken Shale has lots of oil, but it's harder to tap than oil of years past. As oil prices go up. Bakken Shale oil becomes more viable.
In the debate, neither candidate mentioned global warming. What's the matter with people?
Both candidates did mention the need to promote green energy, like solar and wind as part of the mix, but Obama gave green energy more emphasis. Good for Obama.
Both did discuss natural gas and I've heard that converting to natural gas could, at least temporarily, bring down the cost of operating an automobile, but who knows. After people convert, those prices could go up also. Remember, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. It's still a non renewable fossil fuel.
Higher gas prices are a blessing in disguise. They might help to push us toward greener energy in the future. Also, in the meantime, they make more of the American fossil fuel resources that are still remaining viable.
Romney talked about new technology for fossil fuel production, like (I'll fill in the blanks) fracking. Maybe fracking isn't the end of the world, but global warming could be if global warming truly accelerates.