• Should President Obama turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a national monument?

    Results with 100 short comments
    Total of 2,075 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

    56.9%
    Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.
    1,180 votes
    43.1%
    No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.
    895 votes
    Display Comments:
    No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

    There is no reason not to. Even in the event of a problem the area that is so large that it would be impossible to drill and mess it all up

    • 2 votes
     - smmfdmh
     - 6:40 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
    Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

    Our Natural enviornment which took millions of years to develp need to be respected, not destroyed

       - 6:45 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
      Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

      Here's an idea.. get away from relying on fossil fules to supply our energy needs. Stop ruining all the land we have in the name of oil.

      • 1 vote
       - 7:07 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
      Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

      I wish Obama cared this much about saving the Great Lakes from 75-pound flying fish. But I guess Chicagoans matter more than Alaskans, huh

      • 2 votes
       - Volucre
       - 7:10 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
      Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

      How dare Moriarty thinks that "it is our back yard and I find it offensive". It belongs to the people of the United States. All of them.

      • 1 vote
       - 7:10 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
      No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

      Lets keep buying and borrowing from nations that don't have our 'moral' conflict. Forget about the facts I guess, piety is good substitute.

      • 5 votes
       - 7:14 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
      Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

      A time and technology will come where they can reach it adjacently, might as well wait till later when the oil will be more valuable anyway

         - 7:21 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
        No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

        Take away the subsidies and hold companies responsible. The government has been granted enough power to enforce this.

        • 3 votes
         - jason70
         - 7:25 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
        Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

        "In the end we will conserve only what we love, love only what we understand, and understand only what we are taught."
        - Baba Dioum

           - 7:29 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
          No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

          Open this area for drilling now, this place is a deep freezer 11 months of the year

          • 7 votes
           - 7:38 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
          Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

          A no-brainer. There's enough oil there for Big Oil to fill its pockets, but nowhere near enough to make a difference re energy independence

             - 7:42 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
            Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

            I just hope the Republicans don't ever get in charge. They would drill in your backyard in a minute.

               - 8:00 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
              Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

              our desire for material possessions and power have blinded us to the pain we have cause Mother Earth, by our conquest for "natural resource

              • 1 vote
               - 8:07 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
              No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

              Screw the tree huggers. Ask Alaskan's where they want to drill.

              • 5 votes
               - 8:08 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
              Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

              Oil has spilled & gone unckecked on land in AK due to irresponsibility & profits of the oil companies that continue to whine. Conserve ANW

                 - meede1
                 - 8:28 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                The President & Congress should listen to the local people who've lived in the arctic for thousands of years and want safe drilling on land

                • 6 votes
                 - 8:30 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                The problem is the lies of the left! The pictures they always show are not where drilling would. Prudhoe Bay and ANWAR are desolate drill

                • 5 votes
                 - 8:31 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

                And how long will it take us to burn the 11 billion barrels? Then what? We should be focused on sustainable energy and renewables, not old

                • 1 vote
                 - 8:46 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                It won't be long before we will be paying $5.00 to $8.00 a gallon like the Germans do. We need to let our congress men and women know HWFee

                • 5 votes
                 - 8:47 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                The carribou will survive, you won't.

                • 1 vote
                 - 8:55 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                The Mideast can not keep holding the US hostage to their agendas.

                • 3 votes
                 - 8:58 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                Sure lets designate Another National Monyment errr Monument. Of course doing so fits well with Obama's plan to increase fuel tax collection

                • 1 vote
                 - 9:00 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                Drill, baby, DRILL!

                • 4 votes
                 - 9:04 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                Yes, certain places in the U.S. are too special to open up to development.

                Perhaps there are large oil reserves. We wold be better served by investing in "green energy" anyway, and leaving the wilderness alone.

                   - 9:08 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                  No, the priority should be to develop energy resources where available in the U.S.

                  This is a ridiculous idea to put the oil under ANWR out of reach. To get out from under our reliance on the Mid East, we need this resource

                  • 2 votes
                   - 9:09 pm EST on Sat Dec 4, 2010
                • Are you satisfied with the British panel's conclusion that while 'Climategate' scientists were not always forthcoming, their science was sound?

                  Results with 457 short comments
                  Total of 22,483 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

                  36.4%
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.
                  8,184 votes
                  63.6%
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.
                  14,299 votes
                  Display Comments:
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  but this will not satisfy the others who will believe what they want to believe what they want to believe anyway.

                  • 19 votes
                   - 12:02 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  True scientists don't manipulate complex data for to get a simple answer they want to achieve at the start. That's not science.

                  • 28 votes
                   - 12:03 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  Incredible people still think the data is still a sham. This is the 3rd report that has vindicated the data from the CRU!!

                  • 29 votes
                   - 12:06 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  looks like overwhelming evidence is hard to beat.

                  • 19 votes
                   - 12:16 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  It's inexcusable to engage in gamesmanship to refute ignorant partisan windbags and their followers, when the facts will do that themselves

                  • 19 votes
                   - 12:18 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  It's unfortunate the scientists behaved as they did. It fuels the ignorant as this vote shows. Climate change a matter of fact, not choice!

                  • 16 votes
                   - 12:21 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  It does not matter what you believe. Global warming (not the same as climate change) is past point of no return. Our time here is at an end

                  • 10 votes
                   - 12:23 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  Anyone who thinks the changes we are experiencing is "normal" is nuts. The scientists need to be 100% up front

                  • 13 votes
                   - 12:23 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  No. The e-mails clearly evidence collusion, hiding & falsifying of data, & lack of openness, all hallmarks of scientific scamming & lying.

                  • 23 votes
                   - 12:26 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  It is all guess work based on theory without any absolutes to build on.

                  • 15 votes
                   - 12:28 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  Climate change is real.

                  • 10 votes
                   - bobthai
                   - 12:29 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  Yes they were fair but only because Sarah Palin helped them. She is the oracle of righteousness and truth and must be obeyed...

                  • 2 votes
                   - 12:30 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  What it showed was scientists as advocates willing to manipulate data & intimidate dissenters. Hopefully a more open system will occur.

                  • 20 votes
                   - Q22
                   - 12:31 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  Competely fabricated and then coverd up.
                  They did this (read the e-mails) to cover their asses and to keep global warming funding.

                  • 19 votes
                   - 12:31 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  I don't think they fabricated data, but they revealed a deep set bias that likely colors their research and conclusions.

                  • 2 votes
                   - 12:32 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  It's not sound science to "unintentionally" discuss and then use a "trick" which makes graphs misleading.

                  • 18 votes
                   - 12:34 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made warming.

                  They only fudged all of the data "a little bit" to show climate warming. Is that like being "kind of" pregnant?

                  • 15 votes
                   - 12:35 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                  Yes, the panel was fair in reproaching their behavior while upholding key data.

                  You don't get a vote; it's not a beauty contest, the science is the science. There is global consensus.

                  • 11 votes
                   - Tarc
                   - 12:40 pm EDT on Wed Jul 7, 2010
                • Have you changed your life/consumption habits due to the oil spill?

                  Results
                  Total of 5,541 votes

                  34.6%
                  Yes, I'm trying to rely less on oil and other fossil fuels.
                  1,919 votes
                  65.4%
                  No, it's not practical or efficient given the world's still abundant oil resources.
                  3,622 votes
                • Gulf of Mexico Crude Oil -- A Toxic Brew

                   - 

                  Aerial view of part of the Gulf Oil Spill. Image from NOAA Emergency Response

                  NOAA Emergency Response teams monitor the chemicals in the Gulf of Mexico. Image from NOAA Emergency Response

                  Continue reading this entryContinue reading this entry ...

                • Do you have confidence that BP will be able to siphon off most of the oil before a relief well caps the blowout?

                  Results
                  Total of 10,544 votes

                  21.5%
                  Yes, engineers working on the fix will learn from earlier failures and find a way to contain most of the flow.
                  2,269 votes
                  78.5%
                  No, it's clear that BP is just grasping at technological straws.
                  8,275 votes
                • Should the federal government take away BP's lead role in the cleanup?

                  Results
                  Total of 10,558 votes

                  44.2%
                  Yes, it's clear that BP cannot be trusted. BP must pay, but the government should be telling them what to do and how quickly.
                  4,670 votes
                  55.8%
                  No, government bureaucrats will be less effective than the private sector in getting things done.
                  5,888 votes
                • Will overhauling the Minerals Management Service prevent another offshore disaster?

                  Results with 27 short comments
                  Total of 3,390 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

                  38.1%
                  Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.
                  1,290 votes
                  61.9%
                  No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.
                  2,100 votes
                  Display Comments:
                  Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                  Fool me once, shame on../, shame on you. Fool me, you can't fool me again.

                     - 6:28 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                    Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                    Given that there was virtually no protection extant when this latest catastrophe broke, any step is a step in the right direction.

                    • 3 votes
                     - 7:06 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                    No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                    Using oil for energy the way we do is going to cause greater disasters. We need only clean energy. Yes we can.

                    • 2 votes
                     - 8:12 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                    No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                    No drills---no spills. It's that easy. Wetlands, wildlife, sea life--all will be wiped out.

                    • 2 votes
                     - 10:05 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                    Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                    Drown Imhoff

                       - 10:31 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                      No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                      Even if they try their best there is no way to guard against another disaster. It's time for ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, people!!

                      • 1 vote
                       - rizzo51
                       - 10:59 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                      No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                      We all know this, we just choose to be ostriches. We don't want to pay $5/gal for our gas and if its not our shrimp boat, who cares.....

                         - 11:35 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                        No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                        With the current mindset - nothing will prevent these thoughless people from doing this again!

                           - 11:36 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                          Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                          Oversight will make it SAFER never safe. Exxon needs to pay for their desaster (they never did) and BP must pay for this one!

                          • 2 votes
                           - 11:44 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                          No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                          Anytime you get more Government involved just means more expense for the tax payers who get nothing in return. BP is not enjoying this.

                             - 11:54 pm EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                            No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                            I am sick at what is going to happen in the Gulf - a virtual Deadzone, not for years, but generations. Talk to AK where oil still washes p

                               - 12:45 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                              No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                              Drill, baby, drill!
                              Spill, baby, spill!
                              Kill, baby, kill!

                              • 1 vote
                               - 12:54 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                              No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                              Deep sea drilling is inherently unsafe - how many fires, explosions and deaths do there need to be???

                                 - 9:54 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                Why is this country continuing to pursue oil as an energy source. Wasn't anyone paying attention in the 70's? No more oil!

                                • 1 vote
                                 - Ric E
                                 - 10:00 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                1940's era blowout preventers are laughable BP, is very obvious now that you were cutting corners when you have record profits, goodby B

                                • 1 vote
                                 - 10:19 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                The corrupt private sector will find away around any law or regulation

                                • 1 vote
                                 - 11:28 am EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                The only intelligent thing to do now is explore green energy sources, not any more carbon fuels.

                                • 1 vote
                                 - 3:08 pm EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                I would love to think it would work, but these overhauls must be complete, exact, and lasting....Were just not capable of that...

                                   - KELLI2L
                                   - 6:08 pm EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                  No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                  OVerhauling MMS now is too little, too late.

                                     - 12:54 pm EDT on Thu May 20, 2010
                                    Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                    Neither answer is correct with the attached comment. Yes is the closest match.

                                       - 10:31 pm EDT on Tue Jun 1, 2010
                                      Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                      yes, but i wonder if there are any honest, ethical people left to employ here.. the love of money has corrupted many otherwise good people

                                         - djoy11
                                         - 8:53 am EDT on Fri Jun 4, 2010
                                        Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                        Will never be completely safe but can be made safer. Foolish to believe we will never need oil. Not just used for gasoline people.

                                           - 1:17 pm EDT on Sat Jun 5, 2010
                                          No, offshore drilling is inherently unsafe and no amount of regulation will change that.

                                          No the answer is to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again.

                                             - 8:51 pm EDT on Sun Jun 6, 2010
                                            Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                            Offshore drilling is quite safe when the appropriate procedures are followed.

                                               - 12:10 pm EDT on Mon Jun 7, 2010
                                              Yes, it just takes stronger oversight to make offshore drilling safe.

                                              No. Doing away with political appointments would though. Job quals, not political support should decide who is in charge.

                                                 - 12:56 pm EDT on Mon Jun 7, 2010
                                              • Should the U.S. halt all offshore wells until rules are reviewed and, if necessary, updated?

                                                Results with 59 short comments
                                                Total of 10,533 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

                                                26.5%
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.
                                                2,792 votes
                                                73.5%
                                                No, the economic costs to the U.S., not to mention the world, will be too great.
                                                7,741 votes
                                                Display Comments:
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                When will lazy consumers, greedy corporations, and backwards politiciains finally see we need to spend the $ on developing other fuels??

                                                • 4 votes
                                                 - 7:10 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                These wells have no economic benefit except to the oil companies, while the costs are borne by all of us.

                                                • 5 votes
                                                 - mcstowy
                                                 - 7:12 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                hello-there is flagrant sloppiness in many areas of drilling offshore-we have a special list/story picked upn from internet-the accidents/

                                                • 5 votes
                                                 - 7:34 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                The new figure for the spill is 70,000 barrels a day (2.3 million gallons). That's an Exxon Valdez every 4 days. Solar, wind, wave NOW!

                                                • 4 votes
                                                 - 8:23 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                Another rig sank off Venezuela today. "Insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Albert Einstein.

                                                • 5 votes
                                                 - Julkie
                                                 - 8:27 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                No, the economic costs to the U.S., not to mention the world, will be too great.

                                                I believe the necessary rules are in place but, as in many government oversights, the rules are not followed. Exceptions are the norm.

                                                • 4 votes
                                                 - 9:26 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                Right now there is no routine maintenance or testing of the fail safes for oil rigs. Every other industry has them, time for B.O to as wel

                                                • 4 votes
                                                 - Geowil
                                                 - 9:35 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                This is the wake up call we need. Time to switch to alternate fuels. We've needed to do this since the 1970's. Time for action, not talk.

                                                • 2 votes
                                                 - 10:57 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                NASA has batteries that last 20 years but are not available to the public that would be a good start

                                                   - 11:18 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                  The logistics of any hazardous operation should be defined by worst-case scenario. This clearly was a lack of definition for a worst-case.

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                   - 11:26 pm EDT on Thu May 13, 2010
                                                  No, the economic costs to the U.S., not to mention the world, will be too great.

                                                  drill drill drill gas is to high and affects my standard of living who can afford shrimp anyway

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                   - 12:38 am EDT on Fri May 14, 2010
                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                  We needed to move to a hydrogen economy ten years ago.

                                                  • 2 votes
                                                   - 12:50 am EDT on Fri May 14, 2010
                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                  Oh Hell yes. Our planet is dying as we type!.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                   - 8:12 am EDT on Fri May 14, 2010
                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                  Oil is killing our world, just as it is killing the Gulf for generations to come. STOP SUPPORTING OIL, Support SOLAR, WIND, and others

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                   - 9:29 am EDT on Fri May 14, 2010
                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                  I'd like to see independent analysis of this disaster below the surface. This geyser is a mile deep, and the surface oil is not the measure

                                                     - 3:14 am EDT on Sat May 15, 2010
                                                    Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                    Necessity is the mother of invention. The incentive to get serious about alternatives. Without price parity with oil, it's a slow go.

                                                       - almarae
                                                       - 3:47 pm EDT on Sun May 16, 2010
                                                      Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                      It's time for synthetic oil,ethanol, wind,solar, geo,hydro,and natural gas. Lets finally do something positive.

                                                         - 8:50 pm EDT on Sun May 16, 2010
                                                        No, the economic costs to the U.S., not to mention the world, will be too great.

                                                        We don't need to go back to the dark ages with energy. We would be better off to financially reward new innovations.

                                                           - 10:59 am EDT on Mon May 17, 2010
                                                          Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                          What happens if another one goes?

                                                             - 1:02 pm EDT on Mon May 17, 2010
                                                            Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                            This event is a clear indication that we have nowhere near the technology, nor integrity, to manage of the earth's crust. No more!

                                                               - 5:37 pm EDT on Mon May 17, 2010
                                                              Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                              This is sickening and never should have happened. This could/should have been cleaned up in a matter of days - NOT weeks. A larger tube.

                                                                 - not4me
                                                                 - 6:09 pm EDT on Mon May 17, 2010
                                                                Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                                BP and Obama are lying SOB's and to add further insult they suggest that the American public is so stupid that we can not estimate the flow

                                                                   - 2:12 am EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                                                                  Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                                  We and the rest of the world finally need to take a long term view regarding how our practices affect this planet.

                                                                     - 8:23 am EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                                                                    Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                                    I was (mistakenly) up in the air about off shore drilling. Until now. BP not in control and lacks ability to care for site.

                                                                       - 11:51 am EDT on Tue May 18, 2010
                                                                      Yes, granted it will be a shock but what better way to issue a wake-up call on the need to move away from fossil fuels.

                                                                      We can and must develop alternative fuels using green energy sources, for us, for the world.

                                                                         - 3:29 pm EDT on Wed May 19, 2010
                                                                      • Will the Gulf Coast oil disaster change America's energy habits?

                                                                        Results
                                                                        Total of 746 votes

                                                                        42.4%
                                                                        Yes, it will be remembered as the start of the revolution towards clean energy.
                                                                        316 votes
                                                                        57.6%
                                                                        No, like it or not the U.S. still needs fossil fuel, and will for decades to come. It's better to drill here as a way to reduce reliance on foreign sources and to ensure environmental safeguards.
                                                                        430 votes
                                                                      advertisement
                                                                      advertisement
                                                                      Top msnbc.com headlines
                                                                      3147,10
                                                                      advertisement