Here's a better solution: 1) Invade Canada;
2) Annex Alberta; 3) cut off 100% imports from ALL countries; 4) up Alberta's tar sands production to meet all of the U.S.'s oil needs (Alberta's got enough for the next 600 years of U.S. consumption); 5) all the extra CO2 from the additional tar sands production will serve as fertilizer for the world's agriculture industry, thus helping to feed the poor of the world. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rf...@...> wrote: > > > Climate Bill Will Save Each US Household $5,600 Due to Reduced Oil > Imports: EIA > by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY > <http://www.treehugger.com/authors/index.php?author=matthewm> > <http://www.treehugger.com/feeds/authors/matthewm.xml> on 09.11.09 > Business & Politics <http://www.treehugger.com/business_politics/> > > [dollar bills photo] > > There've been many projections about how much American Clean Energy & > Security Act > <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/is-climate-bill-step-forward-or\ > -marching-in-place.php> could save (or cost) the US, but recent Energy > Information Agency <http://www.eia.doe.gov/> analysis is the first > really quantifying the impact on imported oil. Climate Progress > <http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/10/eia-clean-air-clean-water-clean-e\ > nergy-jobs-bill-energy-independent-oil-savings/> has a good breakdown > of it: > > According to the EIA, oil imports would drop by 590,000 barrels per day > by 2020 under ACES. Currently the US imports > <http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html> about 9.8 million barrels > of crude oil per day. > > So in terms of actually reducing US dependence on foreign oil that's not > really that much, but it does add up in terms of money saved. > Cumulatively though 2030 the US would save $658 billion -- or $5,600 per > household. Or, using the same cumulative math, $466 per household per > year through 2030 just from reduced oil imports. That's in constant 2007 > dollars, by the way > > [ACES oil import savings graph image] > > Savings Likely Higher as Peak Oil Really Sets In > Joe Romm notes though that these savings really could be greater, as in > his words the EIA "doesn't get peak oil" (unlike the IEA > <http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/iea-chief-economist-says-oil-su\ > pplies-running-out-fast.php> ) and the effects it could have on oil > prices -- Romm estimates that the savings could really be 50% greater > than the EIA projections. > http://snipurl.com/rtd4t >
