I didn't mean to come off as combative, if I sounded that way I apologize. But I do like a good debate.
Yes, we are and should be concerned about pollution.


"Recoverable oil estimates ranges from 600 million barrels at the low end to 9.2 billion barrels at the high end. They also reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain that could each contain "super giant" fields (500 million barrels or more)"

The truth is we don't know how much is really up there unless we do more exploritory drilling. How can we claim more oil reserves if we're not even allowed to look anywhere? It would affect only 8% of the 1.5million acres, in areas that more resemble the martian surface no where near the beautiful snow-capped mountains we've seen.

Indeed we do need to drill for more oil, surely not as a solution but to ease the burden of foreign oil while we develop alternative fuel surces.

I've never heard of Bob Brinker but find it interesting that he is suggesting hurting one of the major developers of an alternative fuel car, hydrogen.
Personally I don't mind if someone buys a large, powerful vehicle. As long as they don't complain in my ear about their fuel expenses.

I'm not sure what you mean by head in the sand as I have prepared for these high fuel prices long ago, and have moved my family into the countryside where pollution is minimal. (Among many other reasons)
And no, our President has not signed any extreme pollution laws.

H2's are averaging more than 6mpg. 10-13, a big difference.
Do a google search for Hummer MPG for confirmation.

"can you start with a review of the Kyoto agreement Bush refused to sign"

I'll start with these references:

It's interesting that some would put people's heath, wealth and the United States economy at risk while other countries get a free pass:

"China's pollution now second only to that of the US"

"Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S."

Where does all that oil go with China's modest at best pollution requrements & enforced standards?

I've read references to scientists who support the man-caused global warming theory claim to stop the effect we must reduce greenhouse gasses by at least 60%, to reverse the effect even more, which the Koyoto treaty would never dream to even close to.
But I guess that too doesn't matter, just that Bush didn't sign.

This is just one of those never-ending debates and I'll just have to agree to dissagree with some of the members here.
Nobody's mind is going to change.