Mr. Barr accepts the problem of Global Warming but as there is no definite proof of the fact that decreasing emissions will affect Global Warming, he opposes hastily prepared government solutions to the problem.

Twiddling our thumbs, as you put it, is definitely more apt than sticking our feet into our mouths when all our plans (accomplished by huge investments of tax dollars) backfire and we are in more of a crisis that we started out with. What happens if your federal funding does not accomplish anything? So, in addition to still having a crisis, albeit one that is worse, we have spent taxpayer dollars and landed us into further debt.

Yes, federal funding of course will not immediately lower gas prices. But it will bring us a lot closer than if we just sit down and twiddle our thumbs and hope that the fuel companies will eventually realize that there is a problem. This is a very unrealistic approach that Mr. Barr is taking. We need to set standards to increase our energy efficiency and reduce our emissions.

Government will basically remove restrictions and let free market handle the energy sector. See, Ms. Liu’s topic for further clarification.

Who decides where to stop with the “limitations”? How can one presidential platform guarantee so many changes without the approval of Congress? Can one platform really take responsibility for all the precedents you will set by making these changes? You call Mr. Barr’s views on the traditional capitalist market radical while your candidate proposes instituting a “cap and trade” program and plans to “auction” off pollution credits?

I agree with you that fuel is a necessity. That is exactly why we must not rush into a hastily prepared solution. Any action taken will have far reaching ramifications. Your plans may (emphasis on ‘may’) lower pump prices for the present, but ultimately, all the excess spending that you propose will end up being the consumer’s responsibility or into our already enormous debt. I would like to see your response to Mr. Ettikkalayil’s question.

I would like to point out that federal funding for R&D will not immediately lower pump prices either. Even you use the word “ultimately” in the same sense that I used “sooner or later”. I would also like to point out that a certain Mr. T. Boone Pickens, an oil magnate, is very active in the alternative energy field even though you claim he has “absolutely no motive” to be doing so.

Mr. Barr does not say that Big Oil earning more profits will lower oil prices. He does not even claim he will lower pump prices. I think that is a point people are completely missing. Mr. Barr is being attacked here on the presumption that he says he will lower oil prices. He does not. It is not his job to say anything of that sort. He simply wants to allow the exploration of the abundant natural resources that the United States possesses and let the market come up with a solution. He says government interference will cause way more problems than it aims to solve.

You propose to provide short-term relief to the consumer by temporarily investing huge amounts of money into the energy field. Long term, the tax payers will have to take responsibility. That, to me, seems more circular than any response that you think Mr. Barr ever gave.

To Mr. Leung:

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I completely agree with you that candidates should not make promises they cannot keep. Mr. Barr’s proposal is a promise that will be definitely be kept unlike many others whose policies depend extensively on Congress.

It would not be fair to compare a crude oil product to many other consumables. The market will definitely regulate itself if “poor quality and unsafe” oil is sold to consumers.

I am shocked that you claim Mr. Barr believes the “government should play no role in the affairs of our nation”. Mr. Barr would never say anything of that sort. The government is set up to do precisely what you claim Mr. Barr does not believe in. The economy, however, is a different story. Bob Barr does not want to see small businesses crushed and mutilated but he definitely does not want the United States economy crippled beyond future recovery by incessant governmental interference.

Oil companies will not drill recklessly. It costs huge amounts of money to prospect, set up and drill for oil. No company would randomly pick a beautiful scenery and start creating holes in it. You seem to paint a picture of the oil company as a ravaging monster endlessly craving profits with no regard for the environment. They are simply businesses providing what the market demands. Current technologies ensure that oil can be extracted with very little damage to the environment.

Also, I take back what I said before about people’s mentality. You are right: people do want to earn money. However, it will be this need for money that will prevent businesses from finding an alternative energy solution. Without the incentive or push by the government to search for an alternative fuel source, businesses and people will be on a rampage to pursue profits–why would alternative energy be at the top of their agenda if they have good products out on the market? Let’s not forget about what government interference has done for us and that a candidate’s political views do not just impact the handling of the energy. If Mr. Barr believes the government should play no role in the affairs of our nation, then he better ask himself whether or not he wants to see small businesses crushed by the big ones or poor quality and unsafe products on the market. The government created the SBA, FDA, FTC, and FCPSC for a reason–to ensure that businesses feel a socioeconomic responsibility. In terms of energy, do we want to see oil companies drill recklessly and not be held accountable for any potential damages to the environment or other companies put out new energy efficient cars into the market without any checks on their safety? No. Government interference is necessary.

In addition, I threw out the “10 years” as a random number. Most of the candidates, Mr. Barr excluded I suppose, have declared that their energy plan will get America energy independent by a particular year in the future. Without any explanation for how their projections came about, I just don’t buy the promise to get us energy independent. I just don’t want our candidates making promises that they can’t keep.

I am having difficulty understanding your support of Mr. Barr’s radical laissez-faire views. Skyrocketting oil prices, in my opinion (and I think most Americans would agree), has a reached a point of critical mass. You say that “sooner or later” oil companies will be forced to look for replacements. Fuel is a necessity for most people–I really don’t think we are going to be seeing any significant decrease in fuel purchases during this crisis. So big oil is still going to be profitting greatly, and thus having absolutely no motive to search for cheaper and cleaner alternative fuels. We need our government to step in and help stimulate R&D in this crucial area. As I mentioned in the press conference, the savings will ultimately be coming back to the people. There is no reason why oil companies should continue to enjoy such exorbitant profits while so many Americans are suffering at the pump.

I realize that you feel government should not have any involvement in business. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mr. Barr essentially believes that government involvment will be hurting the economy even more, rather than helping it. How big oil profitting during this crisis will help the economy is what I fail to understand. You seem to continually be giving a circular answer, that this is “precisely what capitalism is”. I believe in capitalism, but there needs to be limitations. I don’t see any other solution.

The mentality of people (by which I assume you mean business) is only to earn money. That is all. If alternative fuels will earn them profits or greater profits than what ever they are investing in now, they will switch over.

Supply and demand does not say oil and gas prices will go down eventually. Quite the opposite. Prices will go up as the resource becomes more and more scarce. Sooner or later, we will need replacements. Oil companies will have to at some point or other look for alternate means to earn money. Oil is limited after all and oil companies know that they cannot sell oil forever. You say profits will be gained but socioeconomic endeavors will be sacrificed. But profits are gained through socioeconomic endeavors. It is called entrepreneurship. This is precisely what capitalism is.

The economy and the market is not governed by supply and demand alone. It is very complex and that is why government should not interfere in it. The apportionment of resources (scarce or otherwise) is also part of economics. It is not a job meant for the government. You say regulation is necessary but regulation has caused more harm than good. Government support for one industry or technology or resource stifles competition. Even when clearly superior technologies or means are discovered, the government sponsored ones are so deeply entrenched in society that it becomes very difficult to replace them. The failure of the Dvorak keyboard to replace QWERTY keyboard is a good example.

Mr. Barr does not say the United States will be energy independent in 10 years. Mr. Barr says it is not his job to say anything of that nature.

For the record, you do not make it clear whether we should drill for oil or explore locations where we think oil is present. I am talking about short-term drilling till alternate fuel sources are further researched. You criticize Palin for focusing too much on drilling and you seem to appreciate Biden/Obama for not while saying “our addiction to oil will devastate our non-renewable resources.” Then, later, under Nader, you say there is no way to turn America into ” an alternative fuel source nation without using current sources, such as oil, to supply our energy first.”

I would like your position on this issue because after all, if you are criticizing someone for drilling and some one else for not drilling, it becomes very confusing. You also say none of the candidates have any real solutions but I do not see any criticisms against the Obama/Biden platform. Can I assume you agree with the Obama platform?