PDA

View Full Version : lofty ideals go out the window when $4 gas causes pain ...



Melonie
06-17-2008, 01:49 PM
(snip)Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned.

McCain is expected to formally call today (Tuesday) for the lifting of the federal moratorium on states being allowed to explore off their coasts for oil and gas deposits. While acknowledging it is only a short-term response, he has described it as a good first step toward reducing U.S. energy dependence on overseas sources.

The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits. Barack Obama, McCain’s opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate. He argued that it was only a short-term solution. National Democratic Party leaders and most environmental organizations for years have strongly opposed efforts to explore for oil off the coast of the U.S.

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.

Women are more skeptical than men about the impact such drilling will have on gas prices: Nearly one out of three male voters (32%) say prices are very likely to go down, a view shared by only 23% of women.

Four out of five Republicans (79%) think prices are likely to fall thanks to offshore drilling, a view shared by only 55% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of unaffiliated voters expect it to happen. "(snip)

Melonie
06-17-2008, 01:53 PM
of course this would let a 'big secret' out of the bag ...

(snip)"The Energy Policy Research Foundation concludes that aggressive new drilling and development of our oil shale reserves and withdrawing 200 million from the 700 million barrels of oil in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve could cut costs 37 cents a gallon in a relatively short time. And that doesn't take into consideration the price reductions that would result in the market when oil price controllers realize they don't have an oil monopoly over us.

And if we are even more aggressive with drilling, we can drive down prices like a pile driver. More than 100 billion barrels of oil are available off the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts and under Alaska, and that's not counting the oil shale reserves across the Midwest that rival the reservoirs of the Middle East. They alone could satisfy America's need for gas for 13 years! But it's going to take those political pantywaists in Washington to get off their gas, get a little backbone against environmentalists (who now prevent 85 percent of drilling off our coasts), and pass an emergency resolution to drill here and drill now. Even President Bush consented before he left for Europe, saying domestic drilling will "give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period by finding more supplies of crude oil, which will take the pressure off the price of gasoline." "(snip)

from

Melonie
06-17-2008, 01:59 PM
of course, the underlying reasons for this new poll's results are obvious to most people ...

(snip)"The other day in southwestern Fresno County, a poor part of Central California, I talked with a number of folks at a rural gas station. Most drove second- and third-hand pickups, large cast-off sedans or used SUVs. Their general complaint was twofold: They didn't have the cash to buy a new fuel-efficient Honda or Toyota. And they were now spending a day or two of their wages just to fuel their cars for their long rural commutes.

But I also fill up three hours away on the San Francisco peninsula near Stanford University, where I work. High-priced hybrid cars and new more-efficient SUVs are everywhere. Mass transit is available and crammed. After listening to these quite different motorists, I can confirm an obvious rule about energy use: The wealthier and better educated seem less concerned about the price of gas.

Indeed, from my informal conversations at two very different gas stations, I would go even further: The wealthy, particularly those who are politically liberal, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies.

But what these elites don't seem to realize is that the energy policies they tend to advocate are for the present paralyzing almost everyone else in the country -- and that the truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema to traditional liberalism.

The debate in Congress over more refineries and nuclear power plants; drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts; and developing oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal has been usually a predictable soap opera: Grasping Republicans supposedly wish to enrich energy companies, while idealistic Democrats want only to protect the environment. But those black-and-white positions, hatched in the good old days of $1.50-a-gallon gas, should now be revisited on the basis of far different moral considerations.

One is fairness to the poor and middle class. Like it or not, radical environmentalism (and those behind it who provide the lobbying, funding and influence to block energy legislation) appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up -- since fossil energy use goes down.

But a paradox is that most environmentalists think of themselves as egalitarians. So, instead of objecting to the view of a derrick from the California hills above the Santa Barbara coast, shouldn't a liberal estate owner instead console himself that the offshore pumping will help a nearby farm worker or carpenter get to work without going broke? "(snip)

from !

LadyLuck
06-17-2008, 07:37 PM
Oh yeah, it's such a fab idea to further and maybe even PERMNANTLY destroy the environment and eco system for a mere 4 years worth of oil ( onshore) and 3 years worth (offshore) that we won't even see for nearly 10 years. Much better than say to reduce the use of oil by a variety of different options available and being developed.

!!!!!!!!NOT!!!!!!!!!


"In a report last week, the federal Bureau of Land Management stated that at current U.S. consumption levels there are four years worth of oil "



"The federal Minerals Management Service said an additional three years worth of oil and gas is in offshore areas"

Melonie
06-18-2008, 03:20 PM
for starters, the 'official' government estimates of US oil and gas reserves arguably fall into the same category as 'official' unemployment figures and 'official' inflation figures for accuracy. Many other estimates place reserves at far higher levels. Of course, the true amount of oil available off the Florida coast will be proportional to the amount that the Cubans / Chinese are able to pump out before we do.


Much better than say to reduce the use of oil by a variety of different options available and being developed.

this actually circles right back on topic. Indeed there are a variety of different options available for most Americans to reduce their oil consumption. Here's a few that immediately come to mind ...

- a new social welfare program that subsidizes the cost of high mileage imported cars (in addition to hybrids) so that 'poor' people can also get 30+ mpg.

- expanding social welfare program / unemployment benefits such that more 'poor' people can quit working and thus stop buying gas to commute to work.

- a new social welfare program providing subsidized urban housing to suburban residents, so that their commute to work is drastically shortened and the heating / air conditioning bills for their sprawling suburban homes are reduced in the same proportion as the floor space of their new urban apartment.

obviously I'm being facetious, but the point remains that unlike yourself a large cross section of Americans are NOT willing to make large and fundamental changes in their lifestyle as a consequence of forced reductions in fossil fuel consumption (stemming from high prices for the moment at least - rationing will probably come later). That large cross section of Americans is NOT willing to give up their current standard of living / their current suburban lifestyle / the ability to save for retirement / the ability to save to send their children to college etc. as a result of skyrocketing energy prices (and taxes) sucking up every available dollar of their discretionary spending budget. Regardless of how you or other 'dedicated liberals' may feel about the issue, when election time comes around a whole lot of Americans are going to cast their votes based on their pocketbook. And this year's presidential election is certainly serving to point out the additional costs to their own budgets that directly stem from particular energy / environmental policies - for essentially the first time.

LadyLuck
06-19-2008, 12:52 PM
the point remains that unlike yourself a large cross section of Americans are NOT willing to make large and fundamental changes in their lifestyle .
That large cross section of Americans is NOT willing to give up their current standard of living / their current suburban lifestyle / the ability to save for retirement / the ability to save to send their children to college etc. The changes we’ve made in our household are fairly small. Most of it has been just substituting a greener option instead of the old fashioned thing or way of doing something. It’s quite easy really. Not to mention these changes have IMPROVED our lifestyle on so may levels. We are healthier, happier and are saving money too.
Regardless of how you or other 'dedicated liberals' may feel about the issue, when election time comes around a whole lot of Americans are going to cast their votes based on their pocketbook. And this year's presidential election is certainly serving to point out the additional costs to their own budgets that directly stem from particular energy / environmental policies - for essentially the first time.Quite true. However based on mid term elections, many State and local elections they are voting more for what you describe as dedicated liberals. I predict this years Presidential election will mirror that trend as well.

Melonie
06-19-2008, 02:09 PM
The changes we’ve made in our household are fairly small. Most of it has been just substituting a greener option instead of the old fashioned thing or way of doing something. It’s quite easy really. Not to mention these changes have IMPROVED our lifestyle on so may levels. We are healthier, happier and are saving money too.

I'm glad that you and your family are able to make those sort of 'investments'. However this arguably makes you an 'elite minority' per my third link ...

(snip)"I would go even further: The wealthy, particularly those who are politically liberal, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies. (snip)

(snip) Like it or not, radical environmentalism (and those behind it who provide the lobbying, funding and influence to block energy legislation) appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up (snip)

G-Real
06-19-2008, 04:43 PM
Ok here's what I don't get overall. Lets face it oil is going to be going away, its not a finite resource, I think we can all agree with that.

I also think we can all agree that we don't want our money going to more corrupt governments that have large oil supplies.

So while we need to ween ourselves off oil, why not become the leader in the world in alternative fuels? The investment in the us would be great, as well as that chance to sell this technology to other countries, thus alot of the $$ going to the middle-east would be funnelled away.

I can understand the issue of drilling, really I do, but, even if we get to peak in 5 years, people want results now, not in five years. Its the equivalent of being in a 50 foot hole with no way out, so you continue to dig down to get out.....

In reality, the cost for drilling, research and exploration for the oil companies has to come from someplace, so while its nice to think the gas can go down quickly, its highly unlikely as they will just pass the cost along to the consumer.

LadyLuck
06-19-2008, 05:29 PM
In reply to Melonie


LMFAO! Oh so now I'm an elitist. That is the funniest sh*t I have read all day. To bad it's so unoriginal and right out of the Karl Rove playbook. You're not Rove in disguise are you? Just kidding ofcourse ;) But seriously, you are so far off the base that you are not even in the ballpark with that comment.

Since when is turning off lights when leaving the room, unplugging the blender when finished using it, making some homemade and natural cleaning products and other similar things make someone an elitist? Your accusation of my hubby and I being an 'elite minority' is just downright silly.


Sorry but no matter how you or other Neocons attempt to spin it, being well informed and giving a damn does not an elitist make.

In responce to G-Real,

Spot on post.Thanks for joining the discussion.

I just wanted to add that Bill Richardson (who was ofcourse a recent Sec. of Energy) just explained yesterday that even if we did do all the drilling that Bush wants it wouldn't have a positive effect on the price of gas for 30 YEARS!

Melonie
06-19-2008, 10:07 PM
Since when is turning off lights when leaving the room, unplugging the blender when finished using it, making some homemade and natural cleaning products and other similar things make someone an elitist?

It's not these attributes that make you an 'elite liberal' ... for the record I also do these things including making my own bar soap and growing / preserving much of my own food. What arguably makes you an 'elite liberal' is your ability to absorb the price increases at the gas pump / in your utility bills / in all energy intensive consumer products from groceries to hybrid cars / in rising state and local taxes etc. without feeling any real 'pain' in your lifestyle ... and your ambivalence towards 'poorer' people of all political pursuasions who do ( not to mention the 'poorer' people whose future employment is being put at risk due to similar price increases being borne by their US employers ).

Circling back on topic, it is this latter group - who are experiencing some seriously stressful economic decision making now that weekly commuting to work costs them an entire day's pay, now that weekly groceries costs them another entire day's pay etc. - who are now the most likely to vote for ANY measures that promise to lower their energy related fuel / food costs and lower their taxes (or at least stop their taxes from increasing) in the short term. In other words, many people are finding that they can no longer afford to continue being 'politically correct' when the costs of doing so begin to threaten their current lifestyle and economic future.

LadyLuck
06-19-2008, 10:45 PM
Sorry but there is not even a smidge of elitism about me. Either you don't understand the term or you are intentionally using a false description of me- kind of like how you recently tried to pretend that silly weatherman was a Dr. when he is not a Dr. at all.

And you dare to say I have ambivalence towards 'poorer' people? Like the elitism label you just attempted to put incorrectly on my back, you couldn't be more wrong. But I think you know that already.

You are resorting to a site acceptable form of name calling because you simply can not win this debate on any sort of measurable level.

I mean seriously, are effn kidding me? Your trying to pretend I could care less about poor people is really quite something coming from you of all people.

Do yourself a favor and don’t use those two little lies you’ve fabricated about me in your head today anymore and just stick to reasonable forms of debate.

Tauries
06-19-2008, 10:57 PM
Do yourself a favor and don’t use those two little lies you’ve fabricated about me in your head today anymore and just stick to reasonable forms of debate.

Did it ever occur to you that you might get treated a lil' better around here if you stopped insulting people and "ordering" them around?


To Mel; I tried the stumbleupon.com website that somebody mentioned out in the lounge...and stumbled upon this;

Seems there is yet another black mark on the environmental benefits of Ethanol/Bio-fuel...wonder what else that is supposedly green will turn out too good to be true?

Melonie
06-19-2008, 11:27 PM
I mean seriously, are effn kidding me? Your trying to pretend I could care less about poor people is really quite something coming from you of all people.

if this were really the case, then how can you continue to advocate energy policies that will put people's jobs at risk, that will make it impossible for people to save for their own retirement / for their children's education, that will force people to give up their current standard of living / suburban lifestyle in favor of a small urban apartment with access to mass transit ...

Actually there's no point in arguing ... the answer to the question is very likely going to show itself in the results of the next election. That is, assuming that people are smart enough to connect a few dots in regard to their current financial situations and the factors that created their current financial situations. That's not something that can be taken for granted though, since a large segment of mainstream media seems to go out of their way to try and cast the 'blame' in other directions.



Seems there is yet another black mark on the environmental benefits of Ethanol/Bio-fuel...wonder what else that is supposedly green will turn out too good to be true?

these days it's only politically correct to pay attention to carbon being extracted from the depths of the earth and released into the biosphere. Vastly increased release nitrogen / phosporus / potassium i.e. the fertilizers that are absolutely vital to all of the biofuel schemes apparently don't matter ... nor does actual accounting for the increased CO2 emissions necessary for the production of fertilizer, for farming, for biofuel distillation / refining etc.

LadyLuck
06-19-2008, 11:31 PM
Did it ever occur to you that you might get treated a lil' better around here if you stopped insulting people and "ordering" them
That is some seriously hilarious stuff from you the guy who calls people who oppose torture terrorist lovers but LOL.. whatever!

And actually with this one exception by Mel (and ofcourse you, but then again you flame plenty of people besides just me so) I get treated just fine around here. I probably don't need to point this out there are far more opinions being expressed that are in line with mine than not.

I think Mel just got frustrated and let it get the best of her. It happens to the best of us sometimes. I'm sure she will return to true debate form soon enough. You on the other hand, none of us are holding our breathes I'm sure. In fact, some of us are taking bets on when you are going to get yourself banned ;)

LadyLuck
06-20-2008, 12:17 AM
if this were really the case, then how can you continue to advocate energy policies that will put people's jobs at risk, that will make it impossible for people to save for their own retirement / for their children's education, that will force people to give up their current standard of living.What I am advocating does nothing of the sort. What you advocate - ie status quo- is what will and already is resulting in those events. I guess by your standard that makes you the elitist now doesn't it? ;)

if
Actually there's no point in arguing ... the answer to the question is very likely going to show itself in the results of the next election. That is, assuming that people are smart enough to connect a few dots in regard to their current financial situations and the factors that created their current financial situations.True. And thankfully people are connecting the dots and have already started voting accordingly. They did it in the mid term elections as well as many recent State and local elections. They are voting AGAINST the status quo you advocate because it just doesn't cut it anymore. As I mentioned somewhere in one of these topics I predict that that trend will continue as well.

People are voting with their wallets too which is why there are tons of new green businesses and products too.

Sorry but you just can't wish it away, no matter how hard you try. People, places and things are going green, even if you don't like it.

Your side has held progress up for almost 10 years now already. You've all had your chance to ravage the planet and make profits off it’s destruction for hundreds of years. However, the rest of the world has started to become more enlightened despite the best efforts of people who share your mindset. We are not standing for it anymore. The masses have figured out that ALL of our well being depends on NOT doing the very things you advocate.

Gotta get some sleep now. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening :)

BrodieLux
06-20-2008, 12:44 AM
Off-shore drilling is a horrible idea. It's delaying the inevitable, and risking the environment, which is already imperiled, and so means risking our very survival. The health of the planet is not something separate from us -- we are part of it, from our food to our weather to all of our resources. The food chain, the eco system, our water, etc. If we fuck it up, we fuck ourselves, and then all the money in the world can't keep anyone alive.

And the economic argument is total baloney -- there is sooo much money that is misspent in the government that could be put toward subsidizing a shift to better technology, or off-setting the price increases at the pump (though that's not my preference). The misspsent millions and billions are infuriating. God, look at the disgrace that is the farm bill, or any number of other pork projects that do the opposite of serve the public good.

It's just irresponsible to frame the debate as "either ruin the environment OR screw the poor." There ARE alternative options.

If you're concerned about killing a pretty evil industry and cutting jobs in said industry -- that is, oil -- consider once again that the gov't could subsidize the shift to a greener line of work -- that is alternatives. Win-win there. Obviously a good investment.

Also, I want to note that as much as paying high gas prices sucks, it's actually a great thing because it also forces the country into being 'greener.' While many people support the idea of acting greener, most of us won't do it until it's actually in our best interest. That's what high gas prices do.

Native Americans had this incredibly wise tradition of making decisions in terms of the outcome they'd have on the seventh generation from the present. Consider that litmus test, then see what you think the better option is here.

Melonie
06-20-2008, 03:37 AM
If you're concerned about killing a pretty evil industry and cutting jobs in said industry -- that is, oil -- consider once again that the gov't could subsidize the shift to a greener line of work -- that is alternatives. Win-win there. Obviously a good investment.

by definition, when the government takes money from one place and spends it to subsidize another place, there are winners and there are losers. The gov't does not create wealth out of thin air, as it must to actually create the win-win situation you imagine. Even if the gov't tries to create new money out of the blue, this is not the same as creating new wealth ... as today's rapidly rising price inflation and US dollar devaluation clearly illustrates.

As to killing the US oil industry, keep in mind that the very same oil industry has been the source of reliable incomes for a host of public and private sector retirement funds, individual 401k's and IRA's etc. If that reliable income from the private sector becomes history, it must be made up for somehow ( by even higher taxes and even higher gov't payouts to retirees I suppose ?). Of course, in truth, it's impossible to kill big oil - but it IS possible to prompt US based oil companies to become non-US based oil companies, with associated loss of US jobs and US tax revenue but with no effect whatsoever on the amount of oil the US imports from the world market.


Again trying to circle back on topic, no matter what individual members of this board think in regard to expanded oil drilling off the US coasts, in oil shale states etc., what matters will be what the majority of registered voters think. According to the new Rassmussen poll, since the price of gasoline has gone over $4 per gallon 67% of all voters surveyed, and 57% of Democratic voters surveyed, now support expanded oil drilling ! So even if there is no convincing certain members of this BBS that expanded oil drilling can ever be looked upon as a 'good' idea, that really doesn't matter because the majority of registered voters have already been convinced (by $4 oil and associated high electric / gas bills) that it IS a good idea.

BrodieLux
06-20-2008, 11:16 AM
Melonie,

I think you must agree with me that the government does a shameful amount of wasteful spending. So when you say that funding, say, a switch to alternative energy requires taking money away from someone, consider that that may be a really good thing. Again, there's so much pork in the budget. We've all heard about stupid earmarks like multi-million dollar funding for random ass bridges, but the farm bill is my favorite example of corruption -- the subsidies all go to wealthy farmers instead of to small farmers, those for whom it is nearly impossible to earn a living wage. It helps those who don't need any help, widening the gap between the small, local, organic farmers and corporate agribusiness. This negatively impacts the public, as it keeps the healthiest, freshest food the least affordable.

Consider further a counterargument to the claim that keeping gas prices high is an attack on the "poor": How many poor people do you know with cars?? Broke folks do not have cars because they cannot afford to pay for them and cannot afford the insurance on them. Those who find that negatively impacts their ability to earn money simply move to cities or to places with adequate public transportation.

Consider also the costs off off-shore drilling: A spill would not only fuck up the very last pristine wilderness we have, it would also be tremendously expensive to clean up. And consider the impact on tourism. Imagine if those crystal-clear waters off the coast were ruined. It wouldn't be a short-term problem.

If it comes down to a question of "what's worse, job loss or killing the planet?", the answer has to be job loss, because that's reversible. It's something government can actually do something about. You'd probably find this POV too "left", but we can actually absorb job loss if we want to. We can compensate for it, can subsidize the shift to alternative fuels, can provide a "safety net" of food stamps and health care and section 8 housing. But if we destroy the physical basis for civilization, there's nothing we can do but die.

It seems to me that a shift is inevitable, and it's just a question of how quickly we must make the transition. The oil industry may just have to suck a dick.

LadyLuck
06-20-2008, 11:20 AM
Melonie,

I have a question for you. Just how long do you want this back and forth between you and I to go on? The reason I ask is because I am concerned that it seems that I am overly focused on you or something and honestly, I’m not. It’s just that we are both very interested in many of the same subjects, albeit from completely opposite points of view.

However since I have realized that Tauries is downright targeting me for personal attack I am concerned that I might be mistaken for doing the same thing with you. I just wanted to say that is sooooo not my intent. I just enjoy a good heated debate.

I guess what I am saying is that I don’t want you to feel under attack so anytime you just want to do the agree to disagree thing please just let me know.

Melonie
06-20-2008, 04:05 PM
well we have always agreed to disagree. Basically, our exchanges mostly serve as food for thought for other BBS members, and an implied invitation for them to join the discussion.

As to either of us actually convincing anybody to accept our point of view, arguably A. it really doesn't matter and B. I don't expect it to happen. As I have posted earlier, the ONLY thing that I expect will actually cause people to be more accepting of my point of view is 4 years worth of Barack Obama and Democratic congressional majorities that will enact his proposals. I harbored the same sentiments when gas was climbing towards $3 a gallon last year, and lo and behold at $4 a gallon a 'tipping point' in American public sentiment re oil and gas has suddenly arrived !


But if we destroy the physical basis for civilization, there's nothing we can do but die.

if this is true, then we are all dead no matter what we decide to do (or not do) in America.

The reason for this is that the Chinese / Indians / Vietnamese etc. outnumber us 20:1, that they are pursuing environmental policies and fossil fuel energy policies that are absolute minimum cost driven - and in the process are creating several times as much pollution and CO2 emissions per unit of production as American companies were before they outsourced / relocated. Following 'responsible' environmental policies, we're clearly headed towards super high unemployment plus widespread bankruptcy plus just as much pollution as before being blown back to America from China / India / Vietnam as used to be generated by outsourced / relocated former American production facilities (in addition to the huge pile of pollution which remains behind in China / India / Vietnam.

As unfortunate as the truth may be, no amount of 'cleanup' in America is going to counterbalance the 'dirtying up' taking place in China / India / Vietnam. And the enacting of ever more expensive and ever more stringent environmental regulations does NOT serve to lower total global emissions ... instead it provides yet more reason for remaining American companies to shut down production, which is promptly replaced with Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese production which generates far more emissions than the American facility that closed down !!!

Where does the real answer lie ? Damned if I know ! Invade China and impose EPA equivalent regulations on all industry in that country ? Invade the entire world and impose EPA equivalent regulations in EVERY country ? Because, failing the ability to bring Chinese / Indian / Vietnamese pollution regulations to some sort of 'responsible' level, the main effect of tightening US regulations will only be to destroy American jobs and increase prices ... and produce much smaller American 'piles' of emissions while the Chinese / Vietnamese / Indians produce HUGE 'piles' of emissions in their place.

The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the New World Order crowd is preparing to use pollution / emissions disparity as a lever to push for a Global Government ... which would supposedly have the authority to unilaterally impose equal emissions regulations throughout the world. The 'Nostradamus' crowd will tell you that any such attempt will precipitate the beginning of World War 3. Whatever eventually happens, short term unilateral US actions will have extremely little impact / value towards solving the real problem ... but they WILL have a major negative impact via the 'unintended consequences' i.e. sky high US unemployment, declining US standard of living due to US dollar devaluation, and a host of other indirect stuff.

!

LadyLuck
06-20-2008, 04:22 PM
well we have always agreed to disagree. Basically, our exchanges mostly serve as food for thought for other BBS members, and an implied invitation for them to join the discussion.
</p>
Glad to hear you feel that way because that is the way I look at it too. I just know I can get intense on these subjects because I feel so strongly. I just wanted to do a check to make sure everything was kosher.

Melonie
06-20-2008, 04:30 PM
I just wanted to do a check to make sure everything was kosher

was that a Freudian slip ? Just joking !

FBR
06-20-2008, 04:32 PM
</p>
Glad to hear you feel that way because that is the way I look at it too. I just know I can get intense on these subjects because I feel so strongly. I just wanted to do a check to make sure everything was kosher.

I enjoy the exchanges between you and Melonie. While I fall more in line with Mel than you, I appreciate your passion and once in a while you give me food for thought!

FBR

Tauries
06-20-2008, 05:55 PM
I am concerned that I might be mistaken for doing the same thing with you.

Glad to see you finally figured it out. Sometimes it is easier to see the folly in others than in ourselves...especially when they go out of their way to make that apparent. This "meanie" would like to take a vacation...so play nice and make some friends...there are some really cool people on this board. Thanx for flyin SW airlines and enjoy your stay;) .

Melonie
06-20-2008, 05:58 PM
^^^ truthfully FBR, I think that one of the fundamental things which affects our thinking was the fact that we are both old enough to personally remember (barely) what the Carter years were like, and what the 'misery index' did to friends and family. Sure, we have all heard 'stories' about the great depression etc., but the vast majority of people who visit this BBS are too young to have personally experenced the S&L crisis or the Asian Contagion, let alone the Carter Years. Perhaps the only way to drive home the negative effects of unrestrained liberal 'tax and spend' policies is to actually pay the high taxes and experience the high inflation and high unemployment first-hand ?

LadyLuck
06-20-2008, 08:27 PM
So the problems in the Carter years were all his fault but yet the good time under Clinton had nothing to do with him? I see a pattern here -that no matter what if it's a Dem then you don't like it. That's as partisan as it gets.

It reminds me of the whole Yankees vs. Red Sox feud. So many of their fans refuse to acknowledge that the other team has some good plays or players no matter how impressive the play or players record.

Just for the record I know there are some good Republican's out there. I like Ron Paul for example.

My problem is with this fairly new Neocon movement. Add in the "religious right" because they violate the separation of church and State. Add ofcourse obviously I take issue with Bush and his ilk because they have trampled on the Constitution, started a war on lies, violated the Geneva and so on and so on. I'm rambling but you probably see my point.


I'm curious, can you acknowledge some good Dems or good Dem policies?

G-Real
06-20-2008, 09:05 PM
It reminds me of the whole Yankees vs. Red Sox feud. So many of their fans refuse to acknowledge that the other team has some good plays or players no matter how impressive the play or players record.

Not to threadjack.....but I will......Yankee's suck......you can't buy a championship.....

/threadjack

}:D

Honestly, do I think the dems/liberals are perfect, no, and you need to see the other side to improve the outcome overall. Its like any good arguemnt, you need to study the pros vs. the cons to make a complete argument.

Melonie
06-21-2008, 07:12 AM
a picture is worth 1000 words as usual ...


http://www.loleconomy.com/images/inconvenient_truth.jpg




So the problems in the Carter years were all his fault but yet the good time under Clinton had nothing to do with him? I see a pattern here -that no matter what if it's a Dem then you don't like it. That's as partisan as it gets.

permit me to call bull$#!t on the attempted Carter vs Clinton analogy. The vastly different issue of course was that Carter had de-facto Democratic control of both houses of congress thus he was able to actually enact his liberal tax and spend policies. On the other hand, Clinton only had a de-facto Democratic majority for the first two years of his first term (during which he also raised taxes and tried to raise gov't social spending). But for the remaining 6 years of Clinton's terms, the American voters had the good sense (after Clinton's historic 1993 tax increase) to elect Republican congressional majorities. It was those Republican congressional majorities and their 'contract with America' which not only blocked Clinton from passing additional tax and social spending increases, but which eventually browbeat him into cutting the capital gains tax rate as well as reducing 'welfare' spending.

Arguably it was one single event, i.e. the cutting of the capital gains tax rate, which was responsible for the majority of economic growth in the mid-90's. Today it is also arguable whether the long term result was positive or negative (i.e. the incentive to shift savings / stable investments into speculative investments - in other words trading dividends for stock / home price appreciation in order to save hugely on taxes), but there is no arguing the economic effect was positive at that time. Also, Clinton's decision to scrimp on defense spending in the aftermath of the 'collapse of communism' was the second major factor which produced positive domestic economic development ... at least up to the 1999 dot.com bubble burst (at which point Clinton's HUD subprime housing initiatives had already begun to create a new bubble).


Circling back on topic, it remains to be seen whether US voters will 'connect the dots' in 2008 as they did in 1993, or whether we'll have to wait for 2010-2012 .... and in the meantime endure another Carteresque situation in Washington where a liberal Democratic president plus Democratic majorities in both houses of congress have a 'free hand' to institute tax increases and social spending increases and environmental policies. Like $4 gasoline becoming a 'tipping point' for the average Voter to turn away from liberal environmental policies in favor of policies that will relieve the Voter's immediate financial stress, it also remains to be seen whether high food prices / rising state and local taxes / rising federal taxes (via the expiration of the temporary GWB tax cuts if nothing else) causes average Voters to similarly turn away from liberal economic and social policies when november's election rolls around. My personal guess is no ... that this will require 4 years worth of unrestrained liberal tax increases and social welfare spending increases and environmental policies, with the associated 4 years worth of economic erosion / inflation / unemployment / high interest rates / economic fallout from energy policies etc., for average Voters to become sufficiently pissed off a la the Carter years.

~

LadyLuck
06-21-2008, 11:09 AM
Well that settles that since you were not able to list a signal positive Dem or Dem policy. It's all about party loyalty for you.

I don't think it would matter what a Dem or liberal person did or didn't do or say, you're going to be against it simply based on their party affiliation.

You're not alone in that respect however. I see it all too often on both sides. It's quite non productive though, which is most unfortunate. Espeically in these unstable political and economic times.

bem401
06-21-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm curious, can you acknowledge some good Dems or good Dem policies?

Kennedy might have been OK. He was a tax-cutter, which is always good, and he stood up to the Communist threat ala Cuban missile crisis.

Johnson biggest legacy was the Great Society and Vietnam, both bad things.

Carter's biggest achievement was that he was so incredibly bad (coupled with a Dem congress) that he set the stage for Reagan.

Clinton's first two years saw him try to advance the liberal agenda with the Dem Conress. It was such a disaster the Republican Congress of 1994 and the Contract with America was born. Clinton realized he was powerless to effect his agenda so he stuck his thumb in the air to determine which way the wind was blowing and championed whatever cause made him more popular. Welfare reform, balancing budgets, whatever, he co-opted these causes and made them seem to be his own, all in the interest of securing his popularity. In that way, he was much more of a follower and less of a leader. He was a very deft politician but devoid of any character or principle whatsoever.

Obama is just plain scary.

I support nearly every Conservative position except two. I think drugs should be legalized, not because i do them but because it would make gang life less alluring to kids and because money spent fighting drugs is just wasted. You can get anything you want 24/7. All the money spent on crop eradication, police forces, prosecutors and jails and you can still get it 24/7. Now there is war that has been lost. I also oppose the death penalty. Let them rot in prison with no possibility of parole. IMO, that's worse than death.

BrodieLux
06-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Melonie,

Global warming and pollution are two different things. Global warming is not environmental destruction, it is climate change. I'm much more concerned with pollution. Because while climate change means severe weather, crazy storms, and thus population control, pollution means destruction of the ecosystem. It means the end of life on the planet. That said, every single chemical will eventually break down, meaning that the earth will recover when we stop poisoning it. It's just a matter of how long it will take, and whether mankind and the rest of life here will be long gone by then.

Back to global warming -- the fact is, the more CO2 emissions there are in the atmosphere, the sooner we'll feel the effects, the longer the effects will linger and the more intense they will be.
So regardless of what other nations do, what we do does matter and does have an impact. In any case, the idea that it's acceptable to shift responsibility to other people's shoulders strikes me as a cop-out.

On the topic of the drilling idea -- I saw in USA Today that the difficultly in reaching the oil in the offshore locales is expected to be so expensive as to negate any short-term gain. And it seems to me that this -- the issues of drilling through tough rock, and other complications -- means the chance for a disaster is higher. Cost/benefit analysis would seem to favor the environmentalist over the oil baron.

BrodieLux
06-21-2008, 12:46 PM
BTW I love the cartoon!

Melonie
06-21-2008, 03:19 PM
Well that settles that since you were not able to list a signal positive Dem or Dem policy. It's all about party loyalty for you

It's not my fault that the Democratic party hasn't really put forth a 'positive' policy since JFK was in office !!!

As to party loyalty, no way ! GWB and the current Republican members of congress are all on my s#!t list ... for instituting a new social welfare program (prescription drugs for seniors) just like Democrats and for spending money just as fast as Democrats.


So regardless of what other nations do, what we do does matter and does have an impact. In any case, the idea that it's acceptable to shift responsibility to other people's shoulders strikes me as a cop-out.

I suspect that you are missing my point. Yes it would matter if we (meaning America) did anything that actually reduced global levels of pollutants or CO2 emissions. But my point was that, by enacting expensive US pollution control laws, by enacting a future 'carbon tax' on CO2 emissions etc. that yes we will be successful in reducing the amounts / levels of pollutants and CO2 emitted by American industries. Viewed from that narrow prospective, it would appear that those expensive to operate American pollution controls and expensive in every sense 'carbon tax' on fossil fuels are helping to 'clean up' the planet. But in point of fact they are only helping to 'clean up' America, but in the process are causing other parts of the world to become far 'dirtier'.

We are now in a global economy, but many American politicians, environmentalists etc. seem to still think that America is an 'island'. In contrast, American businesses are fully aware of their international options. Thus as soon as new pollution control laws and a new 'carbon tax' makes producing things in America more expensive, American companies may respond by reducing their pollutant and CO2 emissions to zero by closing down American production facilities ! Then to fill the void, new production facilities in countries that lack pollution control laws will come online ... usually powered by very 'dirty' but cheap energy sources. As a result, where the American factory used to emit X pollutants and Y carbon dioxide per widget produced, the new third world factory probably emits 5*X pollutants and 2*Y carbon dioxide for every 'replacement' widget produced.

Thus as long as Americans are still buying widgets, albeit they're now buying imported 3rd world widgets instead of buying American made widgets, in reality the strict American pollution laws and expensive 'carbon tax' (or related American green measures that increase US energy costs) wound up INCREASING both the total global level of pollutants released by industry as well as the total emissions of CO2. Put simply, by ignoring the global implications and ignoring the action = reaction by private industry, well intentioned but ineffectual US environmental policy has in fact INCREASED global pollution levels ... while at the same time destroying US jobs and businesses.

The ultimate irony here is that, thanks to the trade winds and ocean currents, 'cleaning up' our own back yard via the enacting of strict American environmental laws has now reached the point of being ineffective on American pollution levels as well. In fact, the state of California is having problems trying to meet air quality standards DESPITE HAVING THE STRICTEST ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN AMERICA ! Research has revealed the reason for this ineffectiveness ... pollution generated in Asia now constitutes 25-33% of overall California pollution levels, and the amount of 'imported' Asian pollution continues to rise ...

(snip)"The Associated Press cited an Environmental Protection Agency study that says 25 percent of the particulates in Los Angeles air originate from China. Within 15 years, the NRDC says that pollution will quadruple.

"NRDC and other environmental groups recognized long ago that unless we help China solve some of its problems, everyone in the world's going to end up suffering from it," said Daniel Hinerfeld, a spokesman for the NRDC. "The world is a lot smaller than we realize. Our atmosphere is so thin ... industrial activity in China can blow across the ocean and affect our air all the way here in Los Angeles."

According to the EPA, China also accounts for 40 percent of the world's cement production, a major source of dioxin in the air. Additionally, the University of Washington has detected ozone, carbon monoxide, mercury and particulate
matter from Asia at multiple sites in the Pacific Northwest. "We understand that China is an emerging and vibrant member of the global economy," said EPA spokesman Francisco Arcaute. "We are working with China to see they reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases."

While the EPA works with its counterpart organization in China to limit dioxin and coal-plant emissions, it's a delicate balance. The American economy relies so heavily upon Chinese manufacturers, asking too stridently for constraints on its factories could produce a chill on low-cost exports that keep prices low at the mall.

"We're exporting our manufacturing pollution problem to China," said Schlageter, "then importing it right back in." (snip)

from


You are incorrect in assuming that I do not support the reduction of pollution and/or CO2 - based on elementary common sense I do. However, I clearly do NOT support policies that purportedly will reduce pollution and CO2 emissions at a very high cost in terms of American jobs, American store prices, American energy prices etc. but which actually CREATE MORE POLLUTION and CO2 EMISSIONS on a global level than would have been generated had these policies not been put into effect in the first place !!!



saw in USA Today that the difficultly in reaching the oil in the offshore locales is expected to be so expensive as to negate any short-term gain. And it seems to me that this -- the issues of drilling through tough rock, and other complications -- means the chance for a disaster is higher. Cost/benefit analysis would seem to favor the environmentalist over the oil baron.

well, at the moment, and following the same progression as above, cost benefit analysis DOES currently favor the China option, where the burning of high sulfur oil as well a dirt cheap coal are unrestrained. According to news stories, China is starting up two new unscrubbed coal fired power plants every WEEK to supply energy to newly constructed production facilities.

It is true that with every American industry that stops consuming oil / gas (or stops consuming oil / gas generated American electric power) by outsourcing / relocating to China, AMERICA's demand for oil and gas is reduced. Environmentalists are happy with this outcome, but the unaccounted for side effect is that Chinese demand for high sulfur oil and coal and natural gas increase even more - a development which more than offsets the original reduction in American oil / gas demand !

As above, the environmentalists achieve an APPARENT victory as long as their narrow view is limited to America, but on a global level they will have actually precipitated the opposite result - higher total global oil consumption thus higher global oil prices ! If the number of widgets produced in China remains the same as those which used to be produced in America, China will consume more oil to produce the same number of widgets - since there are no gov't regulations and little financial incentive for Chinese production facilities to invest extra money to achieve the higher energy efficiencies which were in fact achieved by American industries prior to their closure. Of course the Chinese gov't subsidized below market price for 'domestic' oil / gas etc. only further discourages investments to achieve high energy efficiencies for Chinese production operations !

Also, while I'm certainly not an expert and not privy to oil company cost projections, I have to believe that with the future trend in oil prices headed ever higher there will be no problem coming up with venture capital for offshore drilling. Well I will add one proviso - that venture capital won't be a problem as long as there are reasonable guarantees that, once the investment is made and the well is drilled and the oil is pumping and the revenues are finally coming in, that the US gov't or state gov'ts won't reverse policy and shut down offshore oil platforms. However, based on the poll results which started this thread, the majority of American voters will not allow that to happen as long as the high price of gasoline / heating oil etc. are still putting a heavy strain on their family budgets, and threatening their standard of living / suburban lifestyle !

~

she sells sanctuary
06-22-2008, 11:29 AM
sorry, i didn't really read most of this thread...

i live in the tampa area, a 10 minute drive from the gulf beaches. i was born and raised here. i love it here.

and i was pissed off the last time drilling wasn't approved. i'm sick of people from out of state bitching about how much they want the pretty beaches. i'm sick of people talking about the risk to tourist dollars when we already risk losing tourist dollars because of hurricanes and ever-increasing costs of everything. sure, there might be an oil spill, but the technology seems to be advanced enough to make it worth the risk.

alternative energy will never have a chance if the economy is stuck in the current situation because of insane gas prices. we need something affordable to sustain us in the meantime.

of course, i am a libertarian (more or less)...but i'm a libertarian who hasn't cut her gas usage at all in the last year, maybe even increased it. i'm not hurting over gas now...but if we don't do something about it soon, our economy will dip so low, we'll essentially be in our very own dark age, as we long for the indian or chinese dream.

drill everywhere we can...if we don't pull ourselves back up, all those beautiful natural resources will just get fucked up anyways.

not to mention all the good-paying jobs available on oil rigs. when those dudes get time off to spend on the mainland, they love strippers.

LadyLuck
06-22-2008, 12:58 PM
Drilling for oil that we won't even see for 10 years and that won't even last 10 years is not going to improve the economy.

Not to mention our former Energy Sec. explained that prices wouldn't be reduced by that small supply of gas that won't even be available for a decade for another 30 years.

So what we have here is that drilling would have zero positive effect on prices for over a quarter centery and not even last until that time comes. In other words, it is a pointless waste of time that WILL result in further envirmental damge.

What we need is less dependance on gas and more sources of energy.

The ONLY answer is adding non fossil fuel forms of energy. Some are ready and available now and all it would take is to start using them. It's just that simple.

BrodieLux
06-22-2008, 01:33 PM
Melonie,

I see what you're saying -- you're saying that American industry may decide to continue their business practices that involve polluting by going overseas, in order to avoid the increased expenses associated with cleaner technology. And you're saying that the labor jobs that are outsourced will thus disappear from US soil, hurting those who are laid off domestically. I see how this is a reasonable assumption.

However, while I can't claim to be an expert in oil or alternative energy production, it's hard to imagine that building windmills and solar panels are more costly than drilling miles and miles beneath the surface of the earth, then extracting the oil and transporting it to pumps or electric companies etc. So I'm not convinced that going cleaner is more expensive. To me, it seems that alternative energy, especially if locally produced, would have far less overhead. If I'm right, then it's a matter of persuading the industry to shift to producing alternative energy. There's a void there, and these big powerful companies, if perhaps prodded with incentives to do so, could profitably fill it. I imagine there would be lots of opportunities for job creation in this new version of the industry. And it is good policy for those interested in preserving American power, because if we can produce our own energy, then no other country in the world has that bargaining chip over us, and it's a huge one.

Your point about China's impact on California is staggering. I've never read that before. It shows me that the international community has work to do, as China is apparently a huge threat to the health of the entire world. But I am optimistic here because China is essentially following in the footsteps of the US. And so if we provide an alternative model, it's quite likely they'll follow suit there, too. Historically, China is not a country that suffers from inertia. Its leaders have shown themselves fearless in instituting changes they believe are beneficial to the country's economic and political power, regardless of the effect on the common man or the will of the hoi polloi.

Back to the issue of the U.S. -- I think overall your critique of the domestic policy here is an insightful one, and I think it is revealing in showing that we have a need to manage the unintended consequence. I am not as well schooled in economics as you are, but my understanding is that there are ways of deterring companies from going overseas and ways of creating incentives to keep them here. My view is that the government should find some way of encouraging the companies to shift to alternatives as soon as possible in the interest of maintaining American power, American jobs, and the American economy.

It seems this is not an argument against cleaning up American industry so much as an argument FOR further initiatives to clean up the loose ends.

Not to attack you, but I've noticed you sometimes frame these kinds of debates over environmental initiatives as "yes or no" questions -- as in, this is either a good idea or a shitty one -- but it is better to think outside the proverbial box and consider your insights as starting points for improving policy, ways to move a rough draft forward. Because the truth is one can find something wrong with absolutely any and every policy. There is no such thing as perfection. (Having studied philosophy extensively, I say that with conviction. Even ethics -- there is no one standard of ethics that doesn't have problems. Or that isn't prey to a counterargument). When I was a copy editor at a newspaper, I used to complain about the stupid headlines some of my idiot colleagues would come up with. I mean, sometimes they would just be horrible. But my boss's response was always, "What do you have to offer that's better?" I think that was really a life lesson.

Melonie
06-22-2008, 01:39 PM
The ONLY answer is adding non fossil fuel forms of energy. Some are ready and available now and all it would take is to start using them. It's just that simple.

In terms of electric power, I agree ... start building those nuclear power plants as fast as we can, which will vastly decrease our use of fossil fuels for power generation and also vastly decrease the CO2 and pollutants released into the atmosphere (barring a 2nd Chernobyl anyhow)

I also agree in terms of available motor fuel substitutes. I'm all for lifting the import quotas and 56 cent per gallon tariff on imported sugar cane ethanol. We can import 10 times as much ethanol from Brazil than the quotas now legally allow, and stop making US corn farmers and ethanol refiners rich at the expense of US taxpayers and US ethanol / blended gasoline buyers, and lower the price of 10% ethanol blend gasoline by 5.6 cents per gallon immediately as well.

Also, I'm all for the expansion of hybrid vehicles, or even better outright electric vehicles. However, I do NOT support policies that heavily subsidize the purchase price of such vehicles by upper middle class people at the expense of the higher taxes of lower earning fellow citizens who cannot afford the price premium to associated with purchasing a hybrid / electric vehicle for themselves.

However, on the issue of a change in offshore drilling policy not having an effect on world market prices for oil, I would disagree. For a fact the price of oil is driven by two major factors ... the balance between consumption and production, and the 'sentiment' of speculatlve investors in the oil futures market. Even though offshore oil production may only contribute 2-3% to world oil production, it's approval in principle would send a message to the speculative investors that America is not going to place itself at the total mercy of (often unfriendly) foreign oil suppliers.

I would also argue that the estimates regarding the amount of oil and natural gas available from offshore deposits, from western states oil shale, from the ANWR etc. vastly understate the actual size of these reserves.

(snip)"America's oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That's five times the
reserves of Saudi Arabia! And yet, no one is producing commercial quantities of oil from these vast deposits. All
that oil is still sitting right where God left it, buried under the vast landscapes of Colorado and Wyoming.

Obviously, there are some very real obstacles to oil production from shale. After all, if it was such a good
thing, we'd be doing it already, right? "Oil shale is the fuel of the future, and always will be," goes a popular
saying in Western Colorado.

But what if we could safely and economically get our hands on all that oil? Imagine how the world might change. The
U.S. would instantly have the world's largest oil reserves. Imagine…having so much oil we'd never have to worry about
Saudi Arabia again, or Hugo Chavez, or the mullahs in Tehran. And instead of ships lined up in L.A.'s port to
unload cheap Chinese goods, we might see oil tankers lined up waiting to export America's tremendous oil bounty to the
rest of the world. The entire geopolitical and economic map of the world would change…and the companies in the
vanguard of oil shale development might make hundreds of billions of dollars as they convert America's untapped
shale reserves into a brand new energy revolution."(snip)

(snip)"But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has
recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil
from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to
the point where the oil leaches from the rock. Shell's Terry O'Connor described the breakthrough in testimony
before Congress earlier this summer (And Congress may have an acute interest in the topic, since the U.S. government
controls 72% of all U.S. oil shale acreage):

"Some 23 years ago, Shell commenced laboratory and field research on a promising in ground conversion and recovery
process. This technology is called the In-situ Conversion Process, or ICP. In 1996, Shell successfully carried out
its first small field test on its privately owned Mahogany property in Rio Blanco County, Colorado some 200 miles west
of Denver. Since then, Shell has carried out four additional related field tests at nearby sites. The most
recent test was carried out over the past several months and produced in excess of 1,400 barrels of light oil plus
associated gas from a very small test plot using the ICP technology…

"Most of the petroleum products we consume today are derived from conventional oil fields that produce oil and
gas that have been naturally matured in the subsurface by being subjected to heat and pressure over very long periods
of time. In general terms, the In-situ Conversion Process (ICP) accelerates this natural process of oil and gas
maturation by literally tens of millions of years. This is accomplished by slow sub-surface heating of petroleum
source rock containing kerogen, the precursor to oil and gas. This acceleration of natural processes is achieved by
drilling holes into the resource, inserting electric resistance heaters into those heater holes and heating the
subsurface to around 650-700F, over a 3 to 4 year period.

"During this time, very dense oil and gas is expelled from the kerogen and undergoes a series of changes. These
changes include the shearing of lighter components from the dense carbon compounds, concentration of available hydrogen
into these lighter compounds, and changing of phase of those lighter, more hydrogen rich compounds from liquid to
gas. In gaseous phase, these lighter fractions are now far more mobile and can move in the subsurface through existing
or induced fractures to conventional producing wells from which they are brought to the surface. The process results
in the production of about 65 to 70% of the original "carbon" in place in the subsurface.

"The ICP process is clearly energy-intensive, as its driving force is the injection of heat into the subsurface.
However, for each unit of energy used to generate power to provide heat for the ICP process, when calculated on a life
cycle basis, about 3.5 units of energy are produced and treated for sales to the consumer market. This energy
efficiency compares favorably with many conventional heavy oil fields that for decades have used steam injection to
help coax more oil out of the reservoir. The produced hydrocarbon mix is very different from traditional crude
oils. It is much lighter and contains almost no heavy ends."(snip)

from


... with a 350% positive return versus energy input, this ICP oil shale technology is far more productive than corn based ethanol which is lucky to provide a 150% return versus energy input. However, this ICP oil shale development is currently stymied by environmental objections.

LadyLuck
06-22-2008, 01:47 PM
We agreed more than we disagreed on that one so I'm going to leave it be :)

BrodieLux
06-22-2008, 01:47 PM
I got all caught up in editing the post I just wrote and missed your latest.

Why do you support ethanol production? From what I've read, it's a faux solution.

Look, mankind has been around something like 200,000 years. Only now are we have an existential crisis. What's different now that wasn't different 100,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 400 years ago? They weren't using fossil fuels or nuclear power. The best ways are the old ways.

BrodieLux
06-22-2008, 01:55 PM
OK, for anyone who has a few minutes and the desire to become super educated on the energy crisis and potential solutions, I just found this amazing special issue put out by mother jones magazine.

The Future of Energy: A Special Report

"It's going to take a lot more than changing lightbulbs to get us on the path to sustainability. We investigate the options (solar? nuclear? cow poop?), what's hype, what's really happening, and who's standing in the way of change."

http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2008/05/index.html

Melonie
06-22-2008, 01:55 PM
^^^ actually, I only support ethanol production based on tropical sugar cane based technology ... which returns something like 400% more energy than it consumes. Unfortunately, the only areas of America that can effectively grow sugar cane are Hawaii, parts of florida, and small parts of Louisiana and Texas. While tropical countries like Brazil have the capability of producing and exporting VAST quantities of comparatively low cost sugar cane based ethanol to the USA ( I believe the actual cost of delivered Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is less than US$2.00 versus a delivered cost of about $5.00 for US corn ethanol), the existance of US import quota laws currently limit the maximum amount of imported sugar cane ethanol to something like 7% of the amount of US produced corn ethanol. In truth Brazil could supply 100% of America's ethanol needs at less than half the cost, but of course that would eliminate the lucrative earnings of subsidized US corn farmers, would eliminate the subsidized profits of US ethanol refiners, and would eliminate the ethanol production tax credits which rich investors can now use to reduce the tax bill due on income earned from other investments / business ventures.

I do NOT support US corn based ethanol technology on a scientific basis either ... because it returns only 150% of the input energy requirement if you're lucky, and because it owes it's illusion of financial viability to heavy subsidies collected both from taxpayers (via higher income taxes used to fund farm subsidies and ethanol production tax credits for investors) and from buyers of ethanol blend gasoline who must pay a 'stealth' ethanol tax of 56 cents per gallon of ethanol = 5.6 cents per gallon of blended gasoline (and which is then directly kicked back to US ethanol refiners to increase their de-facto profit margin).


PS your MotherJones link did indeed have a very informative article on the realities of energy alternatives ...
'Seven Myths of Energy Independence'


~

LadyLuck
06-22-2008, 06:05 PM
For Melonie,

Hey no fair, lol, you added on after I said we agreed on more than not. Now not so much. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted ;)

FBR
06-22-2008, 06:47 PM
For Melonie,

Hey no fair, lol, you added on after I said we agreed on more than not. Now not so much. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted ;)


LOL I am just glad that there is no eyeball clawing! LOL

This will probably please both Melonie and Lady Luck. This weekend I tilled under (I have a power tiller I bought in the eighties) 1000 sq ft as the start of a garden. Interestingly both of you have inspired me to do so. Mrs FBR is looking at me like I am retarded. I think she is afraid that I will expect her to get her nails dirty. But some uncontaminated veggies sounds good. This may only last one year though.

FBR

LadyLuck
06-22-2008, 10:41 PM
Oh FBR, that is just so wonderful. Good for you! I am wishing lots of joy and healthy food for you and your loved ones from your garden :)

Melonie
06-23-2008, 03:13 AM
go for it FBR. You and Mrs FBR will 'rediscover' that super fresh homegrown veggies also TASTE a lot better !