well, ill bite. first off, global warming, climate change, lets get real they are the same. dont try to distance the two terms because one has a more favorable perception than the other. the planets climate is changing, specifically its getting slightly warmer--hence the term global warming. second off, you state that the american economy cannot depend on foreign oil OR suffer the costs of alternative energies,when both are non-optional choices. the US is incapable of supporting its own oil consumption. we statistically do not produce enough oil to not depend on foreign oil. you might argue that we should drill for more, and to do so would create jobs AND reduce foreign dependence on oil. to which i say, how is expanding oil production different from expanding renewable energy production, and how is it favorable to choose oil over renewable energy. perhaps the costs of investigating and harnessing new energy sources is expensive, but not more so than the hazards of oil. the BP gulf spill costed 3 billion to cleanup, and for what, a finite energy source, most of which won't even go to the US, but will be sold by BP in more favorable markets. alternative energies such as wind and solar offers american energy for american consumption created by american workers. lastly, no one is pissed for "wanting to help american families" that's what we all want. that last statement is just divisive and un-thought-out. sorry if im taking the internet too seriously but that whole comment just made my head hurt, i hope my reply sounds as rational as i tried to make it.
p.s. can someone post a link to the speech
