McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
More pandering for big oil money and GOP support? How am I not surprised. He'll flip on his opposition on ANWR drilling too; just give him some time.

Good, a million barrels a day that's several hundred miles from any tress out on desolate tundra sounds like a good place to drill.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I'm not certain about off shore drilling specifically but I recall a lot of stories about tankers spilling oil and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. It is awful. I by no means a treehugger but damn...

would you rather have the chinese with no experience doing it or americans with lots of experience doing it?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ElFenix
cuba is going to have china drilling for oil closer to florida than the US allows it's own companies. something is definitely wrong, there.

This is patently false.

Cheney's correction:

It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there.

They are not drilling there currently. However, both China and Brazil have entered into agreements with Cuba to drill there. China has already been shipping the drilling equipment to do so. They aren't drilling there now. But they will be soon.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw I find Obama's response hilarious. Gee Barack, what is different from 2008 and 2000? Gee I dont know, maybe a nearly 500% increase in the cost of oil? That will change even the most ardent enviornmentalist's mind who needs to drive the kids to school.

And exactly how does a windfall profits tax solve our energy problems and lessen the load on american families?

Oh you mean divert the money taken from big oil and give to some alternative energy buddy so he can research how to make our food crops into fuel and raise the price at the checkout lane as well?

If they managed to come up with a solution which did not result in a lack of food along with minimal if any increase in prices in the checkout lane then would you support it?

I don't think anyone, conservative or liberal, would oppose a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels in the manner you describe. The key is that we maintain cost effective energy sources using the current technologies UNTIL the replacements are available and enjoy the same production economies of scale.

The current energy cost spike is due primarily to our dependence on foreign suppliers in competition with other large oil consumers driving prices sky high. The US environmental lobby has made us MORE dependent on foreign energy sources than we need to be by cutting off access to domestic reserves and refining capacity. I, and most conservatives, have no issue with exploring and investing in alternative and environmentally friendly domestic energy sources. We just want to see it done in a realistic manner that does not bankrupt the US economy or place an unreasonable burden on consumers BEFORE a viable alternative is available.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

I also think our technology is advanced enough today to help prevent any potential oil spills. Just look back at Katrina. Katrina cut through hundreds of oil rigs in the gulf but only three were destroyed and the amount of oil that was leaked out was so slight as to be insignificant and was not in any way damaging.

Throw in the fact that these rigs would be 50+ miles off-shore and there would be little to no impact on tourism. Rising gas prices will certainly affect tourism though.

If this is what the future holds for my home, then I really hope you are right. I am a huge supporter of using our latest and greatest technologies to break through barriers and solve problems which used to be impossible so I am definitely one that can be sold on this argument, but it's really scary since I don't actually know how good the tech is right now..

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I'm not certain about off shore drilling specifically but I recall a lot of stories about tankers spilling oil and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. It is awful. I by no means a treehugger but damn...

would you rather have the chinese with no experience doing it or americans with lots of experience doing it?

Obviously when given no choice I would rather see us get the oil. However, is it really that cut and dry? What exactly are the restrictions in place here? How close can the Chinese get before we are allowed to tell them to go home?

 

[lupi]

Speaking of this china thing, is there any international legislation which prohibits them from doing whatever the hell they want from 12 nm and out?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I'm not certain about off shore drilling specifically but I recall a lot of stories about tankers spilling oil and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. It is awful. I by no means a treehugger but damn...

would you rather have the chinese with no experience doing it or americans with lots of experience doing it?

Obviously when given no choice I would rather see us get the oil. However, is it really that cut and dry? What exactly are the restrictions in place here? How close can the Chinese get before we are allowed to tell them to go home?

As long as they are in Cuban waters. Pic

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

I don't think anyone, conservative or liberal, would oppose a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels in the manner you describe. The key is that we maintain cost effective energy sources using the current technologies UNTIL the replacements are available and enjoy the same production economies of scale.

The current energy cost spike is due primarily to our dependence on foreign suppliers in competition with other large oil consumers driving prices sky high. The US environmental lobby has made us MORE dependent on foreign energy sources than we need to be by cutting off access to domestic reserves and refining capacity. I, and most conservatives, have no issue with exploring and investing in alternative and environmentally friendly domestic energy sources. We just want to see it done in a realistic manner that does not bankrupt the US economy or place an unreasonable burden on consumers BEFORE a viable alternative is available.

Likewise, I don't think anyone wants the US to go bankrupt over the controversial issues surrounding drilling the oil off our coasts. I think it is more of a matter of trying to meet somewhere in the middle. That "somewhere" has yet to become realized, but I would hate to make a decision before giving adequate time to try and define that "somewhere". The solution most likely involves drilling for the oil, but also spending more money and man power when it comes to preserving checks and balances in order to ensure that nothing goes wrong and my coasts do not get ruined.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I'm not certain about off shore drilling specifically but I recall a lot of stories about tankers spilling oil and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. It is awful. I by no means a treehugger but damn...

would you rather have the chinese with no experience doing it or americans with lots of experience doing it?

Obviously when given no choice I would rather see us get the oil. However, is it really that cut and dry? What exactly are the restrictions in place here? How close can the Chinese get before we are allowed to tell them to go home?

As long as they are in Cuban waters. Pic

So wait a sec, since those are Cuban waters then we would need to get permission to drill there from Cuba anyways right? That isn't even "our" oil. That plus Cuba hates us. I can see why they would be willing to work with China, but are you certain they would make deals with us?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

I'm not certain about off shore drilling specifically but I recall a lot of stories about tankers spilling oil and I have seen the effects with my own eyes. It is awful. I by no means a treehugger but damn...

would you rather have the chinese with no experience doing it or americans with lots of experience doing it?

Obviously when given no choice I would rather see us get the oil. However, is it really that cut and dry? What exactly are the restrictions in place here? How close can the Chinese get before we are allowed to tell them to go home?

As long as they are in Cuban waters. Pic

So wait a sec, since those are Cuban waters then we would need to get permission to drill there from Cuba anyways right? That isn't even "our" oil. That plus Cuba hates us. I can see why they would be willing to work with China, but are you certain they would make deals with us?

There is more oil and natural gas reserves out there than just in the Cuban waters...

The point is is that China can drill 50 miles off our coasts but we can't.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

There is more oil and natural gas reserves out there than just in the Cuban waters...

The point is is that China can drill 50 miles off our coasts but we can't.

but you said yourself that they can only do it in Cuba's waters. Not in our own. Right?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Queasy

There is more oil and natural gas reserves out there than just in the Cuban waters...

The point is is that China can drill 50 miles off our coasts but we can't.

but you said yourself that they can only do it in Cuba's waters. Not in our own. Right?

Correct. Meanwhile, we've banned ourselves from doing the same along thousands of miles of our coasts.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ElFenix
cuba is going to have china drilling for oil closer to florida than the US allows it's own companies. something is definitely wrong, there.

This is patently false.

Cheney's correction:

It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there.

They are not drilling there currently. However, both China and Brazil have entered into agreements with Cuba to drill there. China has already been shipping the drilling equipment to do so. They aren't drilling there now. But they will be soon.

Well George Will is the one who got the ball rolling on this one and he issued his own correction:

"In a previous column, I stated that China, in partnership with Cuba, is drilling for oil 60 miles from the Florida coast. While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the United States."

So no one, including China, will be drilling closer to our shores than our own firms are allowed.

This is a non issue being hyped by the same people that brought us WMD intelligence in 2003, take one fact and twist it to hype the fear machine.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The US environmental lobby has made us MORE dependent on foreign energy sources than we need to be by cutting off access to domestic reserves and refining capacity.

Haven't they just saved us a bunch of oil/money? By hoarding our own reserves while foreign sources were cheap, we have a bit of a cushion to rely on now that prices have skyrocketed. I'd say we wait a little bit longer before we start using it up, but at the same time I don't want anyone else (those darn chinese *shakes fist*) sucking away at our stockpile.

 

[midway]

If our corporations and government could be trusted to be responsible, I would find legislation that allowed offshore drilling yet required measurable goals in mileage, and alternative energy sources be reached to be an excellent compromise. But once the prices came down everyone would forget about the requirements because they would think everything was peachy-keen again and be unmotivated to find alternatives. Americans never seem to plan for the future until it bites us in the ass and we have to try to scrape random stuff together to keep us going.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Hmmm I don't think I support this. I am tempted to support it but I am also from Florida and really appreciate the beaches and the water not containing oil. That plus I feel that offshore drilling is more of a bandaid solution until we find a suitable replacement. I kind of fear that if we apply a bandaid that is too big then it could result it delaying that replacement. Obviously I don't want high energy and food prices any more than the next guy, but it really is a tough decision when looking at the whole picture especially from a long term point of view.

I live in FL as well and totally agree with you.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ElFenix
cuba is going to have china drilling for oil closer to florida than the US allows it's own companies. something is definitely wrong, there.

This is patently false.

Cheney's correction:

It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there.

They are not drilling there currently. However, both China and Brazil have entered into agreements with Cuba to drill there. China has already been shipping the drilling equipment to do so. They aren't drilling there now. But they will be soon.

Well George Will is the one who got the ball rolling on this one and he issued his own correction:

"In a previous column, I stated that China, in partnership with Cuba, is drilling for oil 60 miles from the Florida coast. While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the United States."

So no one, including China, will be drilling closer to our shores than our own firms are allowed.

This is a non issue being hyped by the same people that brought us WMD intelligence in 2003, take one fact and twist it to hype the fear machine.

link

January 27: Brazil's state oil giant Petrobras, now boosting energy co-operation in Cuba, could team up with Canada's Sherritt International Corp. or Spain's Repsol as it moves to explore two new prospecting zones off Cuba, the Brazilian ambassador in Havana said. After passing on two zones earlier selected for it to explore in 2002, "Petrobras is waiting to find out its [new] designated zones to carry out deep-water offshore prospecting," ambassador Tilden Santiago said. "We don't know yet if we are going to do it with the Spaniards [Repsol], the Canadians [Sherritt] or alone," he added. (National Post, 31/1/05)
January 31: Cuba and China signed a contract in Havana providing for the Asian giant's participation in extracting oil from a deposit off the island's north shore, the press reported. The deal is between Cubapetroleos and the Chinese oil company Sinopec, said the official daily newspapaer Granma. In December, Fidel Castro announced discovery of oil at a site offshore from Santa Cruz del Norte, some 55 kilometers (33 miles) east of Havana. The deposit is believed to hold some 100 million barrels of "light" crude, or the equivalent of 14 million tons. (EFE, Prensa Latina, 31/1/05)
February 8: China's oil giants began cultivating their virgin soil in Cuba. China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), as the first comer, has inked a contract with Cuba Oil Company (Cubapetroleo) to jointly exploit oil in the Caribbean country. Under the terms of their contract, the two sides will join forces to prospect and exploit a potential oil-producing region. Chinese experts believe it is a significant beginning of the cooperation between China and Cuba in the petroleum industry. (SinoCast, 8/2/05)
March 22: Chinese oil drilling equipment has begun arriving in Cuba as state-run Cubapetroleo (Cupet) and its foreign partners prepare to significantly increase drilling along the northwest coast, industry sources said. "Four service units and a small rig have arrived and we are waiting for more," said a Cuban oil service manager, asking his name not be used. There are currently five rigs operating along the northwest heavy oil belt, an 80-mile (128-km) stretch of coast in Havana and Matanzas provinces from whence come all of Cuba's 70,000 to 80,000 barrels per day of heavy crude at 8 API to 18 API and with a high sulfur content. The poor-quality oil is burned in modified power plants and factories. Cuba imports a similar amount of oil and derivatives, with preferential financing from Venezuela. Canadian companies Sherritt International (S.TO) and Pebercan Inc. (PBC.TO), in conjunction with Cupet, account for 60 percent of the output, plus 2 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. (Reuters, 22/3/05)
March 29: Montreal based PEBERCAN Inc. announced that a new well in the Northern coast of Cuba, SEBORUCO 9, was successfully completed. This new well was drilled to optimize the drainage of the eastern part of the field. First tests show a good potential for this well with production ranging from 1200 to 1500 barrels per day. PEBERCAN Inc. is involved in the exploration, development and operation of oil reserves in Cuba. Its mining domain includes five concessions covering 6,055 km2. (CNW Group, 29/3/05)
April 6: The operator of China's second-largest Shengli oilfield is stepping up overseas exploration, spending more on such ventures this year as the world's No. 2 oil user grapples with falling reserves, officials said. Shengli Oilfield Administration Bureau, a unit of state-run Sinopec Group, will spend about $40 million drilling for oil and gas in Cuba, Iran and central Asia in 2005, company officials said. "This will be the heaviest spending in a year and we expect the pace to continue in the next few years," a Shengli executive told the press. Shengli, which is among the first Chinese companies to venture abroad, will sink a total of eight wildcat and appraisal wells this year, four in Kazakhstan, two in Iran, and one each in Cuba and Kyrgyzstan. (Reuters, 6/4/05)

Sinopec of China signed an agreement earlier this year to jointly produce heavy oil with Cupet in westernmost Pinar del Río province, with drilling expected to begin in 2006. (The Oil Daily, 27/12/05)

The point isn't whether or not China is actually drilling right now. The point is is that they can. Along with Brazil and Canada too. Meanwhile, we've blocked off 85% of our coasts from doing any exploration or drilling.

 

[Vic]

More election year pandering over an issue that will NOT be decided by the next President.

I'm luke-warm on this myself. It made sense to hoard our own reserves and buy foreign oil while oil was cheap. Now that it is no longer cheap, we should start developing more of our own sources. However, no amount of known reserves is going to get us off dependence on foreign oil. We will never be an oil producing nation, and always a oil consuming nation. So this would be a very short-term fix, at best, and would have little to no effect on global oil prices in and of itself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Queasy
The point isn't whether or not China is actually drilling right now. The point is is that they can. Along with Brazil and Canada too. Meanwhile, we've blocked off 85% of our coasts from doing any exploration or drilling.

Why would China risk an incident with the US over a mere 100 million barrels of heavy sour?

As ayabe keeps trying to tell you, someone is yanking on your fear chain.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Queasy

The point isn't whether or not China is actually drilling right now. The point is is that they can. Along with Brazil and Canada too. Meanwhile, we've blocked off 85% of our coasts from doing any exploration or drilling.

It's also worth noting that the coasts of these countries are too far away to be effected by the potential outcome of oil spills. They don't care. One may ask what we will do if their spills start to effect our coasts though. I doubt we will stand by and do nothing.

I'm sorry man. You know I support most of your opinions regarding energy based on our past conversations, but in the end I have to put my home first. Preserving that is more important to me than the increased prices we have been dealing with. On top of that, I really do believe that this solution will only delay an inevitable problem. I would rather deal with this issue myself rather than hand it down to my kids who won't be able to rely on oil off our coasts as a backup because we will have used it all. If the government can set in stone written promises with deadlines and checks and balances that they will transform the US into a nation which is not nearly as dependent on oil then maybe I would be more willing to give in here, but the fact is that McCain's position on the matter does not include any such promises. He just wants to drill.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Vic
More election year pandering over an issue that will NOT be decided by the next President.

I'm luke-warm on this myself. It made sense to hoard our own reserves and buy foreign oil while oil was cheap. Now that it is no longer cheap, we should start developing more of our own sources. However, no amount of known reserves is going to get us off dependence on foreign oil. We will never be an oil producing nation, and always a oil consuming nation. So this would be a very short-term fix, at best, and would have little to no effect on global oil prices in and of itself.

I partially disagree with the last bit. I think a major increase in the production of oil from the United States would be a big shock to the system. Especially to the oil speculators who are betting on prices going higher and higher. ANWR would be an extra million+ barrels of oil a day. Off-shore oil fields could be more than that. It would also help strengthen the dollar as the oil money and jobs would be coming here instead of going overseas.

No, we will likely never be able to completely provide all of our oil needs but there is no reason for us to continue to move toward being 100% dependent on foreign oil either. We are producing less oil now than we were 30 years ago.

We still need to work on higher mpgs and other dependable sources of energy but there is no reason why we can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
The US environmental lobby has made us MORE dependent on foreign energy sources than we need to be by cutting off access to domestic reserves and refining capacity.

Haven't they just saved us a bunch of oil/money? By hoarding our own reserves while foreign sources were cheap, we have a bit of a cushion to rely on now that prices have skyrocketed. I'd say we wait a little bit longer before we start using it up, but at the same time I don't want anyone else (those darn chinese *shakes fist*) sucking away at our stockpile.

This might be true IF we had been allowed to build the refineries and oil rigs that would give us access to the domestic reserves in question so we could quickly ramp up production when needed. That is not the case, we've been soaking up cheap international supplies but hindering our own investment in domestic oil gathering and refining thanks to our friends in the environmetal lobby.

It will still take years to ramp up enough production capacity to make a difference at this point which means we're still at the mercy of global suppliers and increased demand from competing nations. This has been a problem long in the making and will take years to un-make. Right now alternative energy sources are still in their infancy and can not hope to replace mature fossil fuel technologies in the near future. Reckless idealism is what we have here and the results are predictably painful for the average US consumer.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Vic
More election year pandering over an issue that will NOT be decided by the next President.

I'm luke-warm on this myself. It made sense to hoard our own reserves and buy foreign oil while oil was cheap. Now that it is no longer cheap, we should start developing more of our own sources. However, no amount of known reserves is going to get us off dependence on foreign oil. We will never be an oil producing nation, and always a oil consuming nation. So this would be a very short-term fix, at best, and would have little to no effect on global oil prices in and of itself.

I partially disagree with the last bit. I think a major increase in the production of oil from the United States would be a big shock to the system. Especially to the oil speculators who are betting on prices going higher and higher. ANWR would be an extra million+ barrels of oil a day. Off-shore oil fields could be more than that. It would also help strengthen the dollar as the oil money and jobs would be coming here instead of going overseas.

No, we will likely never be able to completely provide all of our oil needs but there is no reason for us to continue to move toward being 100% dependent on foreign oil either. We are producing less oil now than we were 30 years ago.

We still need to work on higher mpgs and other dependable sources of energy but there is no reason why we can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

Very well said, particularly the last 2 paragraphs.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
If the government can set in stone written promises with deadlines and checks and balances that they will transform the US into a nation which is not nearly as dependent on oil then maybe I would be more willing to give in here, but the fact is that McCain's position on the matter does not include any such promises. He just wants to drill.

McCain Speech at the Center for Hydrogen Research

As President, I'll propose a national energy strategy that will amount to a declaration of independence from the fear bred by our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule. When we reach the limits of military power and diplomacy to contain the dangers of that cauldron of burning resentments and extremism, energy security is our best defense. We won't achieve it tomorrow, but we must achieve it in our time.

The strategy I propose won't be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists. It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means. Those means are within our reach.

Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now. Flexible-fuel vehicles aren't futuristic pie in the sky. We can easily deploy such technology today for less than $100 per vehicle; and we develop the infrastructure necessary to take full advantage.

Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources that could benefit that rural farm economy of South Carolina and other states, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil. I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies.

America's electricity production is for the most part petroleum free, and the existing electric power grid has the capacity to handle the added demand imposed by plug-in hybrid vehicles. We can add more capacity and improve its reliability in the years ahead. I'll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids.

We have in use today a zero emission energy that could provide electricity for millions more homes and businesses than it currently does. Yet it has been over twenty-five years since a nuclear power plant has been constructed. The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting. The Savannah River Site has been instrumental in the development of new reactor technology that is more fuel efficient and safe. If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we? Is France a more secure, advanced and innovative country than we are? Are France's scientists and entrepreneurs more capable than we are? I need no answer to that rhetorical question. I know my country well enough to know otherwise.

Let's provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits. The Savannah River Site would be an ideal location to demonstrate that recycling spent nuclear fuel is possible in the United States. Other countries, such as France and Japan, already recycle spent fuel. We should do the same.

And South Carolina's MOX program reminds us that the expansion of the use of nuclear power will enable us to turn our swords into plowshares and make the world safer through the conversion of weapons grade material that can be used by terrorists or rogue nations into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors for peaceful uses.

There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact. The United States has coal reserves more abundant than Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. We found a way to cut down acid rain pollutants from burning coal, and we can find a way to use our coal resources without emitting excessive greenhouse gases.

We can also find ways to use new sources of power like hydrogen. My energy policies will rely on setting good incentives for firms, entrepreneurs, and households. But they will not shortchange the need for basic research to provide the pathway for new sources of energy, better materials, improved batteries, and other advances in knowledge that will be central to rising to this great challenge. The research being performed at Clemson University and the International Center for Automotive Research is unlocking the possibilities for hydrogen fueled automobiles. And research at the University of South Carolina and the Savannah River National Laboratory is advancing the potential for other hydrogen technologies.

America competes in a global economy where innovation and entrepreneurship are the pillars of prosperity. The competition is stiff and the stakes are high. We have the opportunity to apply America's technological supremacy to capture the export markets for advanced energy technologies, reaping the capital investment and good jobs it will provide. Our innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs and workers have the knowledge, resources, and drive to lead the way on energy security, as we have in so many other world-changing advancements. The race has always been to the swift, and America must be first to market with innovations that meet mankind's growing energy and environmental needs.

I have proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits. By reducing its emissions, a utility or industrial plant can generate credits it may trade on the open market for a profit, offering a powerful incentive to drive the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies; for automakers to develop new ways to lower pollution and increase mileage; for utilities to generate cleaner electricity and capture carbon; for appliance manufacturers to make more efficient products, and for the nation to use energy with maximum efficiency - building conservation into the economy in a manner that produces financial and environmental benefits.

As it always does, the profit motive will attract the transformational power of venture capital, and unleash the market to move clean alternative fuels and advanced energy technologies from the margins into the mainstream.

Some urge we do nothing because we can't be certain how bad the problem might become or they presume the worst effects are most likely to occur in our grandchildren's lifetime. I'm a proud conservative, and I reject that kind of live-for-today, 'me generation,' attitude. It is unworthy of us. Americans have never feared change. We make change work for us.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. America has both an obligation and a compelling national interest in fulfilling our historic leadership role. China's carbon emissions will soon exceed ours. As President, I will invite a collaborative relationship with China to make coal use cleaner and climate friendly. But, we should address the problem on our terms, and bring others into the fold of a common sense effort to solve it, while we sell to the world the technologies needed to do it.

Answering great challenges is nothing new to America. It's what we do. We built the rockets that took us to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. We've sent space probes into the distant reaches of the universe. We harnessed nuclear energy, mapped the human genome, created the Internet and pioneered integrated circuits that possess the computing power of Apollo spacecraft on a single silicon chip you can barely see. We can solve our oil dependence and become more energy secure. We can leave a cleaner planet for the next generation. You can't sell me on hopelessness. You can't convince me the problem is insurmountable. I know my country. I know what we're capable of. We're capable of unimaginable progress, unmatched prosperity, and vision that sees around the corner of history. We've always understood our times, accepted our challenges and made from our opportunities, another better world. My people are Americans. Our time is today. That is the country I ask to lead.