View Full Version : Democrats shut down debate
Jay Zeno
08-23-2008, 05:26 PM
Truthfully, I felt she was saying that she was not an idiot, that she was informed, and happed to reach a different conclusion than you. You're both obviously informed.
Zia_Abq
08-23-2008, 07:06 PM
Truthfully, I felt she was saying that she was not an idiot, that she was informed, and happed to reach a different conclusion than you. You're both obviously informed.
Your feeling was indeed correct, Jay. :thanx:
Zia_Abq
08-23-2008, 07:14 PM
Yes, I absolutely DO think it is worth it.
Really ? :O a couple of pennies off what you are paying now per gallon is worth massive enviromental damage? I don't know what to say to that other than wow and that it makes me very sad.
kitana
08-24-2008, 03:18 AM
Really ? :O a couple of pennies off what you are paying now per gallon is worth massive enviromental damage? I don't know what to say to that other than wow and that it makes me very sad.
As if the earth doesn't do more damage to itself anyway on a daily basis, lol.::)
Yes, I feel it is worth it, but then again I'm one of those people that think humans have NO RIGHT messing with panda bears and we should just let them die off naturally like they have been trying to do.
DB Cooper
08-24-2008, 08:08 AM
Really ? :O a couple of pennies off what you are paying now per gallon is worth massive enviromental damage? I don't know what to say to that other than wow and that it makes me very sad.
Current oil rigs don't cause "massive enviromental damage". What leads you to believe that new rigs would?
Jay Zeno
08-24-2008, 08:20 AM
It would be the ever-present risk of damage. Californians who are old enough with an intact memory can still harken back to the 1969 Santa Barbara spill.
I'm not much opposed to offshore drilling. I do wonder why there's such near-hysteria in the oil industry to open up pristine, protected lands to development when they're not even utilizing the land that's available and more accessible.
Melonie
08-24-2008, 10:52 AM
when they're not even utilizing the land that's available and more accessible
the answer to this question lies in the hands of the trial lawyers' association and with the Sierra Club !
Jay Zeno
08-24-2008, 11:14 AM
Roan Plateau is far more accessible and available than ANWR.
Melonie
08-24-2008, 01:45 PM
^^^ geographically speaking, yes ... legally / environmentally, that remains to be seen ...
(snip)"Despite the record, industry officials said prices were lowered by challenges to the sale and a string of environmental restrictions that the BLM has imposed to protect the plateau.
About 16,000 protests to the sale — including one from Gov. Bill Ritter's administration — were filed with the BLM.
Final award of the leases will await the resolution of the protests by the BLM staff, said agency spokesman Steve Hall.
There also is a lawsuit by a coalition of environmental groups challenging the sale.
"This has introduced a lot of uncertainty," said Kathleen Sgamma director of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.
Then there are the environmental regulations.
For example, the BLM is limiting land disturbance on the plateau to no more than 350 acres at any one time, and operations on 31,000 acres have to close during part of the year to protect wildlife. "(snip)
Jay Zeno
08-24-2008, 05:02 PM
Legal/environmental issues on managed land as opposed to legal/environmental issues on protected wildlife refuge land? No contest.
Eric Stoner
08-26-2008, 01:12 PM
Really ? :O a couple of pennies off what you are paying now per gallon is worth massive enviromental damage? I don't know what to say to that other than wow and that it makes me very sad.
Where is the environmental damage in Norway or Scotland from North Sea OFFSHORE drilling ? When was the last time an offshore oil platform owned and controlled by a WESTERN country leaked ? The answers are: None and 1969.
Technology has advanced tremendously since the last major offshore oil well leak.
And io will actually take a LOT less than ten years to bring newfound oil to market. Depending on who you talk to, it will take anywhere from 3 to 7 years. Only Pelosi, Kerry and a few environmental extremists believe and/or say "it will take ten years " .
Melonie
08-26-2008, 02:19 PM
Only Pelosi, Kerry and a few environmental extremists believe and/or say "it will take ten years "
and they're probably right, if they support the ability of the Sierra Club or any other environmental group to bring a new oil development project to a complete halt for several years by simply filing a lawsuit, by obtaining an injunction against drilling until the lawsuit is resolved, and then counting on the 'swiftness' of the US court system to positively resolve the case (and subsequent appeals) in favor of either party.
Zia_Abq
08-26-2008, 02:31 PM
Where is the environmental damage
Just a few examples.
WBMs (water-based drilling muds) are results from off shore drilling and have ecological effects that are serious, widespread and prolonged. In particular, the effects of underwater plumes of extremely fine particles and damage larval stages of commercial fish and shellfish.
Produced water from oil and gas installations can be a significant source of chronic oil pollution and usually also contains heavy metals, low-level radioactivity, traces of drilling fluid additives and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons. Its toxicity to sealife has been quite proven.
There are other things too of course but being aware of the political leanings of people who share your line of thinking, I am sure none of you could care less about these things, if you did you wouldn't be supporting off shore drilling in the first place. Since that is the true reality of this discussion I won’t bother any further.
Eric Stoner
08-27-2008, 07:29 AM
Just a few examples.
WBMs (water-based drilling muds) are results from off shore drilling and have ecological effects that are serious, widespread and prolonged. In particular, the effects of underwater plumes of extremely fine particles and damage larval stages of commercial fish and shellfish.
Produced water from oil and gas installations can be a significant source of chronic oil pollution and usually also contains heavy metals, low-level radioactivity, traces of drilling fluid additives and poly-aromatic hydrocarbons. Its toxicity to sealife has been quite proven.
There are other things too of course but being aware of the political leanings of people who share your line of thinking, I am sure none of you could care less about these things, if you did you wouldn't be supporting off shore drilling in the first place. Since that is the true reality of this discussion I won’t bother any further.
Oil drilling is not a pristine activity but with modern technology the negative impact
can be minimized. All energy technologies have negative impacts- wind, solar, nuclear, ETHANOL , hydro etc.
What is your alternative ?
How much will it cost ?
Who will bear those costs ?
Eric Stoner
08-27-2008, 07:32 AM
and they're probably right, if they support the ability of the Sierra Club or any other environmental group to bring a new oil development project to a complete halt for several years by simply filing a lawsuit, by obtaining an injunction against drilling until the lawsuit is resolved, and then counting on the 'swiftness' of the US court system to positively resolve the case (and subsequent appeals) in favor of either party.
Yeah but that's not what Pelosi et. al. mean. They're not going to blame their enviro friends and supporters for high gas prices and possible shortages. They are trying to sell the notion that without lawsuits etc. it will take ten years.
Zia_Abq
08-28-2008, 09:12 AM
It’s true nothing is perfect and free from potential damage but some processes are worse than others. I prefer the least damaging. Costs? Yeah I know it’s going to be expensive to switch from using mainly fossils to cleaner forms of energy but in my opinion the ultimate costs to the planet and all of us who call it home are much greater so I personally think it is worth it.
Eric Stoner
08-28-2008, 10:10 AM
It’s true nothing is perfect and free from potential damage but some processes are worse than others. I prefer the least damaging. Costs? Yeah I know it’s going to be expensive to switch from using mainly fossils to cleaner forms of energy but in my opinion the ultimate costs to the planet and all of us who call it home are much greater so I personally think it is worth it.
You didn't answer my questions : What are YOUR alternatives ?
How much will they cost ?-
How many people will lose jobs as a
result ?
How do you propose to pay for them ?
Just how low are you willing to drive down economic growth to maintain your warm and fuzzy feel good feeling about the planet ?
How are you possibly going to clean up Chinese and Indian industrial and other pollution ?
Zia_Abq
08-28-2008, 10:21 AM
Yup. I didn't fully answer your questions because I can tell you don't really care what anyone who disagrees with you has to add. You're only here to argue with people and that just isn't my bag of chips, sorry.
Eric Stoner
08-28-2008, 11:24 AM
Yup. I didn't fully answer your questions because I can tell you don't really care what anyone who disagrees with you has to add. You're only here to argue with people and that just isn't my bag of chips, sorry.
Huh ? How am I responsible for YOUR factual delinquency ?
Why don't you humor me (and everyone else who genuinely cares what you have to say) and TRY to formulate answers to those questions because like it or not, they have to be answered. One way or another.
Are you prepared for the costs of "going green" ?
Do you have any idea what they are ?
Have you even thought about it ?
How are we possibly going to "cleanup" China, India, Russia, Malaysia, Brazil and a host of other countries that pollute a lot more than we do ?
Jay Zeno
08-28-2008, 01:30 PM
She gave her opinion that she didn't like the potential of environmental damage compared to the economic benefit. You're challenging that. You can do so. She's not as argumentative as you. She's not obligated to meet that challenge. It doesn't mean it's factual delinquency, and such pejorative terms don't advance a civil discussion.
There are immediate and long-term costs of going green. There are immediate and long-term benefits. Just like when we went from agrarian to industrial. Just like when we went from coal to gasoline. There is social inertia in what we're doing now. It doesn't mean that the inertia shouldn't be diverted.
One big long-term cost of not going green is over-exploitation of a nonrenewable resource and having to crash our way into new energy sources as that resource becomes more scarce. It would be better to make the transition from nonrenewable to renewable sooner rather than later.
How do we clean up China et al.? They're sovereign. We can't tell them what to do, especially when they're following our own example. But who's their biggest consumer? What example will they follow next?
Eric Stoner
08-30-2008, 12:38 PM
She gave her opinion that she didn't like the potential of environmental damage compared to the economic benefit. You're challenging that. You can do so. She's not as argumentative as you. She's not obligated to meet that challenge. It doesn't mean it's factual delinquency, and such pejorative terms don't advance a civil discussion.
There are immediate and long-term costs of going green. There are immediate and long-term benefits. Just like when we went from agrarian to industrial. Just like when we went from coal to gasoline. There is social inertia in what we're doing now. It doesn't mean that the inertia shouldn't be diverted.
One big long-term cost of not going green is over-exploitation of a nonrenewable resource and having to crash our way into new energy sources as that resource becomes more scarce. It would be better to make the transition from nonrenewable to renewable sooner rather than later.
How do we clean up China et al.? They're sovereign. We can't tell them what to do, especially when they're following our own example. But who's their biggest consumer? What example will they follow next?
Very gallant of you to stick up for her but it was NOT a personal attack. Either she has answers for legitimate questions as to costs and benefits or she does not.
Either she's considered the ramifications of "going green" or she hasn't. I don't know but if I had to guess I'd say she had not. Most radical environmental advocates tend to wave off questions about costs and other economic impacts.
As for China, et. al. That's MY argument. How indeed, do we get them and other emerging economies to clean up their act ? Even if the U.S. cut it's carbon emissions in half, it would have little to zero net effect on the health and condition of the planet unless of course China et.al. made similar cuts.
I'm all in favor of cleaner and greener energy use and we are starting to see some of what is and will be required.The problem is implementing the new technologies. For instance, even if we radically increased wind and solar electrical generation we do NOT have the electrical transmission capacity to use it; to get it from points of production to points of demand. And who is likeliest to bring the lawsuits to stop or stall the building of new transmission lines ? Radical environmentalists. We've already seen how foolish ethanol policy has warped agriculture and raised grain prices.
Inter alia, I think it's important to look at and consider the impact of environmental policies on such things as our standard of living; employment and our strategic position. She can take a dive on considering such mundane details if she wants to but somebody ought to seriously think about such things. Don't you agree ?
Deogol
08-30-2008, 01:25 PM
Very gallant of you to stick up for her but it was NOT a personal attack. Either she has answers for legitimate questions as to costs and benefits or she does not.
Either she's considered the ramifications of "going green" or she hasn't. I don't know but if I had to guess I'd say she had not. Most radical environmental advocates tend to wave off questions about costs and other economic impacts.
One can certainly say "There has to be a better way" and simply not know what it is yet. As more research and ideas are passed around in this question and debate undoubtedly a better way will be found.
As for China, et. al. That's MY argument. How indeed, do we get them and other emerging economies to clean up their act ? Even if the U.S. cut it's carbon emissions in half, it would have little to zero net effect on the health and condition of the planet unless of course China et.al. made similar cuts.
I don't give a fuck about China but I do know I like my air as clean as it can be. Adding to the problem just because China has me saying "There has to be a better way!"
There is plenty of smog and pollutants in American cities that can go down in levels.
I'm all in favor of cleaner and greener energy use and we are starting to see some of what is and will be required.The problem is implementing the new technologies. For instance, even if we radically increased wind and solar electrical generation we do NOT have the electrical transmission capacity to use it; to get it from points of production to points of demand. And who is likeliest to bring the lawsuits to stop or stall the building of new transmission lines ? Radical environmentalists. We've already seen how foolish ethanol policy has warped agriculture and raised grain prices.
This is less about radical environmentalists (they are the ones burning ski chalet's) and more about state governments and the federal government not having an energy policy.
Inter alia, I think it's important to look at and consider the impact of environmental policies on such things as our standard of living; employment and our strategic position. She can take a dive on considering such mundane details if she wants to but somebody ought to seriously think about such things. Don't you agree ?
And maybe you are asking the wrong person.
Perhaps ask the author(s) of this:
P.S. Usually I agree with a lot you are saying Eric, but this one you might have wanted to sit on the screen a few hours before you posted Submit Reply.
Eric Stoner
08-30-2008, 02:01 PM
One can certainly say "There has to be a better way" and simply not know what it is yet. As more research and ideas are passed around in this question and debate undoubtedly a better way will be found.
I don't give a fuck about China but I do know I like my air as clean as it can be. Adding to the problem just because China has me saying "There has to be a better way!"
There is plenty of smog and pollutants in American cities that can go down in levels.
This is less about radical environmentalists (they are the ones burning ski chalet's) and more about state governments and the federal government not having an energy policy.
And maybe you are asking the wrong person.
Perhaps ask the author(s) of this:
http://www.reiters.com/index.cgi?func=show&isbn=0471739111
P.S. Usually I agree with a lot you are saying Eric, but this one you might have wanted to sit on the screen a few hours before you posted Submit Reply.
I'm not supporting pollution or polluters. In the overall scheme of things, the U.S. is doing a fairly good job of controlling it while of course there is plenty of room for improvement. Certainly when our output of pollutants is compared to other advanced industrialized countries. But afaic, just saying : "there has to be a better way" isn't good enough. I want a "better way" to be demonstrated to be both effective and affordable.
China's pollution has become OUR problem. The gunk they emit from their coal fired plants does not stay there. It's carried by the Jet Stream to the continental U.S.
I use the term "radical environmentalists" to describe the anti- U.S. ; anti-capitalism;anti-growth forces that use environmental concerns to stymie progress.
And one of their areas of mischief has been lawuits trying to stop necessary construction of high tension tranmission lines which we need now and are certainly going to need to carry all of Mr. Pickens' wind generated electricity.
Jay Zeno
08-30-2008, 03:46 PM
Very gallant of you to stick up for her but it was NOT a personal attack. Either she has answers for legitimate questions as to costs and benefits or she does not.
I'm not sticking up for her. I'm saying you're not entitled and she's not required to answer argumentative questions just because they're asked.
I might support government mandating higher average fuel economy on cars. That doesn't mean I have a spreadsheet of attendant manufacturing costs, consumer prices, effects on gas consumption, and all macroeconomics results. That means I think it's a good idea, and I'm not interested in participating in acrimonious parsing.
Inter alia, I think it's important to look at and consider the impact of environmental policies on such things as our standard of living; employment and our strategic position. She can take a dive on considering such mundane details if she wants to but somebody ought to seriously think about such things. Don't you agree ?
Take a dive? Again, such pejorative terms don't lend to a civil discussion, so I'll wave off that question. However, when it comes to my own view, yes, economic impacts are relevant. Environmental impacts are also relevant. And future economic and environment impacts are equally as relevant. Nonrenewable stuff runs out, and we have an environmental impact in scurrying for the dregs. And when it runs out, if we're not prepared for it, we have a staggering economic impact, in the multiples, in dealing with that.
Zia_Abq
08-31-2008, 10:07 AM
She can take a dive on considering such mundane details if she wants to but somebody ought to seriously think about such things. Don't you agree ?
Just because I refuse to engage in arguments with you does not mean I don’t consider, have awareness or factual knowledge of such things.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm not sticking up for her. I'm saying you're not entitled and she's not required to answer argumentative questions just because they're asked.
I might support government mandating higher average fuel economy on cars. That doesn't mean I have a spreadsheet of attendant manufacturing costs, consumer prices, effects on gas consumption, and all macroeconomics results. That means I think it's a good idea, and I'm not interested in participating in acrimonious parsing.
Take a dive? Again, such pejorative terms don't lend to a civil discussion, so I'll wave off that question. However, when it comes to my own view, yes, economic impacts are relevant. Environmental impacts are also relevant. And future economic and environment impacts are equally as relevant. Nonrenewable stuff runs out, and we have an environmental impact in scurrying for the dregs. And when it runs out, if we're not prepared for it, we have a staggering economic impact, in the multiples, in dealing with that.
Thank you for supporting MY arguments. Supporting things like higher gas mileage is certainly laudable but at some point SOMEBODY has to do the math and calculate costs vs. benefits. That's all I'm saying. You can call it "perjorative" or being "argumentative" and try as much as you like to make ME the focus of the debate, but at the end of the day EVERY policy has costs and consequences. To your credit, you at least recognize the historically proven obvious.
Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 12:13 PM
Dude, get over it! I don't HAVE to prove anything to you and you can't force me into an argument no matter how hard you try. Hang it up and move on already.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 12:22 PM
I'm not sticking up for her. I'm saying you're not entitled and she's not required to answer argumentative questions just because they're asked.
I might support government mandating higher average fuel economy on cars. That doesn't mean I have a spreadsheet of attendant manufacturing costs, consumer prices, effects on gas consumption, and all macroeconomics results. That means I think it's a good idea, and I'm not interested in participating in acrimonious parsing.
Take a dive? Again, such pejorative terms don't lend to a civil discussion, so I'll wave off that question. However, when it comes to my own view, yes, economic impacts are relevant. Environmental impacts are also relevant. And future economic and environment impacts are equally as relevant. Nonrenewable stuff runs out, and we have an environmental impact in scurrying for the dregs. And when it runs out, if we're not prepared for it, we have a staggering economic impact, in the multiples, in dealing with that.
Btw, I support higher mileage standards. Continuing to produce gas guzzlers is A reason Ford and GM are in so much trouble. Our auto industry has not been known for being nimble in responding to the realities of the oil market.
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 12:35 PM
All you people thinking offshore drilling will lower your gas prices really need to EDUCATE yourselves.
You CANNNOT just go plop an oil well out there and prices will go down...seriously EDUCATE YOURSELVES.....don't be so gulliable.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 12:59 PM
All you people thinking offshore drilling will lower your gas prices really need to EDUCATE yourselves.
You CANNNOT just go plop an oil well out there and prices will go down...seriously EDUCATE YOURSELVES.....don't be so gulliable.
Funny you should say that because it took little more than Bush's issuance of an Executive Order ending the moratorium on off-shore drilling for oil prices to start tumbling. Without a single new well being dug, the price of a barrel came down from $145 to its current price of under $110. Just the serious discussion of offshore and ANWR drilling had a serious downward effect on the price.
That was NOT the only factor. Decreased consumption and stabilized demand played a role as did the increasing viability of certain alternatives like wind and natural gas.
Jay Zeno
09-02-2008, 01:11 PM
Thank you for supporting MY arguments. I'm supporting my arguments. If you see support or lack thereof in what I say, that's grand.
You can call it "perjorative" or being "argumentative" and try as much as you like to make ME the focus of the debateNo. I answered your questions that I wished to answer and stated that pejorative terms do not make for a civil debate. By you or anyone.
To your credit, you at least recognize the historically proven obvious.That we better find alternative sources because nonrenewables will run out? That's just logical to me - we haven't proven it yet as far as I know, unless you want to look at cultures that overexploited their resources without having alternatives (besides moving or dying).
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 01:18 PM
Funny you should say that because it took little more than Bush's issuance of an Executive Order ending the moratorium on off-shore drilling for oil prices to start tumbling. Without a single new well being dug, the price of a barrel came down from $145 to its current price of under $110. Just the serious discussion of offshore and ANWR drilling had a serious downward effect on the price.
That was NOT the only factor. Decreased consumption and stabilized demand played a role as did the increasing viability of certain alternatives like wind and natural gas.
Gas Prices came down for how long????
We have been in an OIL PROBLEM for 30 years with John MCCAIN working on it 20+ of those years. WHERE ARE HIS SOLUTIONS that are WORKING.
No offense but Americans really need to progress a bit and stop being so big on oil....Seriously grow your mind and learn to develop CLEAN, Renewable energy sources. EVERYONE WINS. You know how many jobs that would create?
I seriously think most Americans would curl up in a ball and cry like a baby if they cold not pump GAS. Good grief...how sad..and I thought the USA was supposed to be first in everything ...the leaders.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are becoming a joke...
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Dude, get over it! I don't HAVE to prove anything to you and you can't force me into an argument no matter how hard you try. Hang it up and move on already.
Seriously people or should I say Republicans are so Hostile.
America is becoming such a joke to the rest of the world.....We are becoming nothing but a society of people who just want to pump cheap gas, destroy natural resources, consume cheap plastic crap from China, and get fat eating supersized meals.
A fat, lazy society who cannot even take care of the earth we live on...take take take....consume consume consume....but GOD FORBID we ever give back, progress or make adjustments.
kitana
09-02-2008, 01:29 PM
All you people thinking offshore drilling will lower your gas prices really need to EDUCATE yourselves.
You CANNNOT just go plop an oil well out there and prices will go down...seriously EDUCATE YOURSELVES.....don't be so gulliable.
No one said it was that easy. Yes it takes time, but let's be realistic; not enough people are willing to give up their gas guzzlers and their 24/7 electric, or central heat and air or various other things that depend on non renewables.
Nothing is black and white, please stop insuinating that all Repubs are morons and don't have a clue.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm supporting my arguments. If you see support or lack thereof in what I say, that's grand.
No. I answered your questions that I wished to answer and stated that pejorative terms do not make for a civil debate. By you or anyone.
That we better find alternative sources because nonrenewables will run out? That's just logical to me - we haven't proven it yet as far as I know, unless you want to look at cultures that overexploited their resources without having alternatives (besides moving or dying).
At the risk of being ( God Help Us ! ) argumentative, you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. Recognizing that policies have costs and consequences ( which I THOUGHT you were doing) is congruent with what I have been saying.
As for non-renewables running out; that has been predicted since the early '70's and yet the amount of PROVEN RESERVES keeps going up. The problems , for the time being, are more related to getting it out of the ground and refining it. All that being said, there is a point of diminished reserve capacity i.e. where consumption is greater than supply and it's better to err on the side of calculating it to occur sooner as opposed to later.
Likewise I have NEVER argued against alternatives nor did I direct anything against anyone for suggesting same. What I DID do was ask a certain poster what costs she was willing to accept; how much disruption; how many unemployed; how much for a gallon of gas; how much to heat and light up a home ? etc. all in the name of a "cleaner planet ". Which is also why I asked about controlling 3rd World pollution.
Are we willing to let our auto industry collapse ? Are we going to help them re-tool so that our cars can run on methane or propane ? Should the government give away converter kits ?
You do realize that we are nothing close to being geared up for a massive conversion from gasoline to natural gas ? There aren't anything close to enough re-filling facilities.
How are we going to get the electricity from all the Midwestern and Texan wind farms to the population centers on both coasts ? Beam it off satellites ? ( Btw, that is NOT a cheap shot. Satellite transmission of energy was a Carter Administration proposal.)
How much are we wiling to pay for a gallon of gas ? $4 a gallon ?. $5 ? $10 ?
All I've been saying is that environmental concerns are A factor. An important factor but NOT the only factor.
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 01:34 PM
No one said it was that easy. Yes it takes time, but let's be realistic; not enough people are willing to give up their gas guzzlers and their 24/7 electric, or central heat and air or various other things that depend on non renewables.
Nothing is black and white, please stop insuinating that all Repubs are morons and don't have a clue.
John Maccain has had 20 plus years to help work on the oil problem. How much more time should I give him?
You act like Republicans are so kind to me ;D
Jay Zeno
09-02-2008, 01:39 PM
What I DID do was ask a certain poster what costs she was willing to accept; how much disruption; how many unemployed; how much for a gallon of gas; how much to heat and light up a home ? etc. all in the name of a "cleaner planet.
I have a suggestion, then.
1) "Tell me the exact costs to specific industries from what you're demanding with your environmental philosophies."
2) "How do you balance the economic impact of what you want with your environmental philosophies?"
No. 1 sounds snotty, a never-ending parsing argument.
No. 2 invites a discussion on balance and consequences.
People are more likely to respond to No. 2.
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 01:47 PM
At the risk of being ( God Help Us ! ) argumentative, you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. Recognizing that policies have costs and consequences ( which I THOUGHT you were doing) is congruent with what I have been saying.
As for non-renewables running out; that has been predicted since the early '70's and yet the amount of PROVEN RESERVES keeps going up. The problems , for the time being, are more related to getting it out of the ground and refining it. All that being said, there is a point of diminished reserve capacity i.e. where consumption is greater than supply and it's better to err on the side of calculating it to occur sooner as opposed to later.
Likewise I have NEVER argued against alternatives nor did I direct anything against anyone for suggesting same. What I DID do was ask a certain poster what costs she was willing to accept; how much disruption; how many unemployed; how much for a gallon of gas; how much to heat and light up a home ? etc. all in the name of a "cleaner planet ". Which is also why I asked about controlling 3rd World pollution.
Are we willing to let our auto industry collapse ? Are we going to help them re-tool so that our cars can run on methane or propane ? Should the government give away converter kits ?
You do realize that we are nothing close to being geared up for a massive conversion from gasoline to natural gas ? There aren't anything close to enough re-filling facilities.
How are we going to get the electricity from all the Midwestern and Texan wind farms to the population centers on both coasts ? Beam it off satellites ? ( Btw, that is NOT a cheap shot. Satellite transmission of energy was a Carter Administration proposal.)
How much are we wiling to pay for a gallon of gas ? $4 a gallon ?. $5 ? $10 ?
All I've been saying is that environmental concerns are A factor. An important factor but NOT the only factor.
Have you ever cleaned up destruction caused by an oil spill? I have
There are tons of clean energy options out there and adjustments people can make....most americans cannot see past their own front yards or how their actions influence the world around them. All that cheap plastic crap from China has to get here on a ship and then by plane or truck to your local Walmart or whatever....how much fuel does the world WASTE...but AMERICANS gotta have it
Compared to what some other countries pay for gas....we are blessed and they think we are spoiled brats.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 01:47 PM
Gas Prices came down for how long????
We have been in an OIL PROBLEM for 30 years with John MCCAIN working on it 20+ of those years. WHERE ARE HIS SOLUTIONS that are WORKING.
No offense but Americans really need to progress a bit and stop being so big on oil....Seriously grow your mind and learn to develop CLEAN, Renewable energy sources. EVERYONE WINS. You know how many jobs that would create?
I seriously think most Americans would curl up in a ball and cry like a baby if they cold not pump GAS. Good grief...how sad..and I thought the USA was supposed to be first in everything ...the leaders.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are becoming a joke...
Jay ? This sort of personal attack is acceptable; why ?
kitana
09-02-2008, 01:53 PM
John Maccain has had 20 plus years to help work on the oil problem. How much more time should I give him?
You act like Republicans are so kind to me ;D
Reganonomics were pretty kind to everyone when Clinton was in office.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 01:54 PM
Have you ever cleaned up destruction caused by an oil spill? I have
There are tons of clean energy options out there and adjustments people can make....most americans cannot see past their own front yards or how their actions influence the world around them. All that cheap plastic crap from China has to get here on a ship and then by plane or truck to your local Walmart or whatever....how much fuel does the world WASTE...but AMERICANS gotta have it
Compared to what some other countries pay for gas....we are blessed and they think we are spoiled brats.
I haven't argued against any cleaner alternatives. For the most part, at present, most are NOT economically viable. Lack of transmission capacity is just ONE problem that has yet to be addressed, let alone dealt with. Tariffs on imported ethanol; lack of refilling facilities for methane and propane ( btw, propane refilling requires a LOT more safety training than manning a gas pump) etc. etc. We all want cleaner energy but wishing for it won't butter any biscuits. We need concrete and AFFORDABLE alternatives.
Btw, since you're so afraid of oil spills, what do you suggest we do to get the Chinese to behave more responsibly in their off-shore operations in Africa and off Cuba ?
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 01:56 PM
I have a suggestion, then.
1) "Tell me the exact costs to specific industries from what you're demanding with your environmental philosophies."
2) "How do you balance the economic impact of what you want with your environmental philosophies?"
No. 1 sounds snotty, a never-ending parsing argument.
No. 2 invites a discussion on balance and consequences.
People are more likely to respond to No. 2.
She responded to neither.
Jay Zeno
09-02-2008, 01:58 PM
Jay ? This sort of personal attack is acceptable; why ?
Eric, I'm not going to go there with you. Feel free to debate however you like. I offered unwanted and unsolicited but genuine advice about pejorative terms. You're entirely free to follow it in whole or part or ignore it entirely. I'm not going into the declining spiral of supporting or picking apart my suggestion.
I don't believe in general that personal attacks, pejorative language, or distracting diversions advance arguments successfully.
She responded to neither.Perhaps it's time to move on, then.
kitana
09-02-2008, 02:08 PM
I haven't argued against any cleaner alternatives. For the most part, at present, most are NOT economically viable. Lack of transmission capacity is just ONE problem that has yet to be addressed, let alone dealt with. Tariffs on imported ethanol; lack of refilling facilities for methane and propane ( btw, propane refilling requires a LOT more safety training than manning a gas pump) etc. etc. We all want cleaner energy but wishing for it won't butter any biscuits. We need concrete and AFFORDABLE alternatives.
Btw, since you're so afraid of oil spills, what do you suggest we do to get the Chinese to behave more responsibly in their off-shore operations in Africa and off Cuba ?
Thank you!!!!!
I don't you or I or anyone else has said they are against other alternatives. Not only are most of them not currently affordable by the majority of us, they are not practical due to location, or cost, or availability.
I would LOVE to be non dependent on oil totally, but not if I can't afford it.
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 02:10 PM
I haven't argued against any cleaner alternatives. For the most part, at present, most are NOT economically viable. Lack of transmission capacity is just ONE problem that has yet to be addressed, let alone dealt with. Tariffs on imported ethanol; lack of refilling facilities for methane and propane ( btw, propane refilling requires a LOT more safety training than manning a gas pump) etc. etc. We all want cleaner energy but wishing for it won't butter any biscuits. We need concrete and AFFORDABLE alternatives.
Btw, since you're so afraid of oil spills, what do you suggest we do to get the Chinese to behave more responsibly in their off-shore operations in Africa and off Cuba ?
China makes me say bad words when it comes to how they treat the environment. I have no idea how to make them change. I was disgusted with all the pollution during the Olympics and they turned a lot of factories off before the games. I read....it was awhile back so I don't remember specifics, that there is a place in China where nothing will even grow anymore and the majority of the people have respiratory problems.
As advanced as China likes to be and as competitive as they are...I'm surprised they are not trying to blow the USA away with how they treat the environment or OIL.....especially since they are a culture based on honor and respect.
I think China laughs at us.....I don't like how they treat the environment, animals, their own people....but we sure are guilty of needing them.
Zia_Abq
09-02-2008, 02:21 PM
let's be realistic; not enough people are willing to give up their gas guzzlers and their 24/7 electric, or central heat and air or various other things that depend on non renewables.
Maybe but more and more people are becoming willing everyday and much of the younger generations view it as normal rather than a sacrifice. People are becoming more aware and better educated about why they need to use less fossil fuel based energy. When people know better they do better. Well most people do anyway.
sapphiregirl
09-02-2008, 02:27 PM
Speaking of Oil and Hurricanes since its in the news....All the barrier reefs in the Gulf of Mexico would actually protect people along the coast from Hurricanes.
Too bad we love to destroy them and are turning the Gulf into a DUMP.
-------------------
Stephen Leatherman has seen every kind of beach in America, and he really likes the ones in Florida. The man known as Dr. Beach usually ranks them among the prettiest in America. This year he picked Pinellas County's own Caladesi Island as No. 1. If oil companies start drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, that's likely to change. "We've got some of the finest, whitest sand in the world," said Leatherman, a professor at Florida International University in Miami. "Oil doesn't seem to go with that. … This could lower the value of our beaches."
Leatherman has seen what offshore drilling can do to a beach. Texas beaches, for instance, "tend to be the trash can of the gulf." Waste from the western gulf's wells — everything from empty oil drums to tar balls — washes up there.
Allowing drilling in the eastern gulf — a move now touted by President Bush, GOP presidential candidate John McCain and Gov. Charlie Crist — carries risks for the environment as well as for Florida's economy.
Over the past 40 years, oil companies have drilled thousands of wells across the western and central gulf, and there are now about 3,800 offshore structures there. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have been willing to overlook the trash and tar in exchange for cash and jobs.
But Florida's $50-billion tourist industry depends on clean beaches. The slightest taint — say, a Red Tide bloom — can empty the hotels. That's why in the past Florida politicians from both parties have been as quick to embrace drilling as they have been to shake hands with Fidel Castro.
"The beaches of Florida are like the mountains of Colorado. They are somewhat our defining feature, and anything that threatens to jeopardize those beaches raises great concerns," said former Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat and longtime drilling opponent who says he is "confounded" to see the issue revived.
In the late 1990s, when Chevron proposed drilling in the gulf 25 miles south of Pensacola, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned that if there were a spill, "there is as great as a 47 percent chance that the slick would reach Florida's coastal waters before dissipating."
Chevron hired Florida State oceanographer Wilton Sturges to study the spill potential. Sturges said he found "that under worst-case conditions the spilled stuff could be brought ashore much faster than any response team could get there to clean it up. It is a real crapshoot about when it might happen, of course. Most bad things happen during nasty weather, when the difficulties of cleanups are at their worst."
For instance, Hurricane Katrina ripped into Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, destroying 115 oil platforms, significantly damaging 52 more and setting adrift 19. More than 7-million gallons of petroleum products spilled, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. By comparison, in 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 11-million gallons in Alaska's Prince William Sound.
It wasn't a hurricane that caused the Ixtoc I spill, the worst in modern history.
Ixtoc occurred in 1979 just north of the Mexican coast. A rig blew out, caught fire and collapsed. The fire and scattered debris made capping the well so difficult that it continued spewing for nearly a year, dumping more than 3-billion barrels of oil. Two months later, the first tar balls washed ashore 600 miles away in Texas. Soon every beach in the state was coated. Tourism dropped by 60 percent.
That was 20 years ago. Drilling is much safer now, said David Mica of the pro-drilling Florida Petroleum Council.
"We've come a long way since then," he said. "I sleep pretty good at night knowing mankind is doing a good job protecting our resources. Of course, there are no guarantees."
Big spills like Ixtoc are rare. Smaller ones are not.
The Coast Guard documented more than 239,000 oil spills across the gulf between 1973 and 2001. In one study of the area where Chevron wanted to drill, the Minerals Management Service predicted that over the next 40 years there could be up to 870 spills of 2,000 gallons or less, which "is expected to result in small pollution events that could temporarily affect the enjoyment or use of some beach segments."
Critics like Enid Sisskin of Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, a Pensacola group that has opposed offshore drilling for more than a decade, say they are not as concerned about oil spills as they are about what she calls "the routine, everyday, day-after-day pollution they dump in the water."
When the rigs first drill into the ocean floor, the crews use fluids called "drilling muds" which include toxic substances including barium, chromium and arsenic. The EPA found that such discharges into the eastern gulf would "introduce significant quantities of contaminants to these relatively pristine waters."
In 2002, the Mobile Press-Register tested grouper and other fish caught around Alabama's offshore rigs. They contained so much mercury that they would not be acceptable for sale to the public under federal guidelines. The source: the drilling muds, which left mercury in the sea-bottom in concentrations as high as that found at Superfund sites.
Then there are all the undersea pipelines and the onshore facilities that would probably have to be built, all of which can leak as well, Leatherman pointed out.
"There's a lot more involved than just drilling a well," he said. "It's just not good for beaches."
Sales of premium gas plummet, even among the luxury class. But "spark knock" may come calling.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 02:42 PM
Maybe but more and more people are becoming willing everyday and much of the younger generations view it as normal rather than a sacrifice. People are becoming more aware and better educated about why they need to use less fossil fuel based energy. When people know better they do better. Well most people do anyway.
It's true that more people are more aware about fossil fuels. $4 a gallon gas tends to do that. As for "doing better", that's fine so long as there are alternatives with which to do better.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 02:54 PM
Speaking of Oil and Hurricanes since its in the news....All the barrier reefs in the Gulf of Mexico would actually protect people along the coast from Hurricanes.
Too bad we love to destroy them and are turning the Gulf into a DUMP.
-------------------
Stephen Leatherman has seen every kind of beach in America, and he really likes the ones in Florida. The man known as Dr. Beach usually ranks them among the prettiest in America. This year he picked Pinellas County's own Caladesi Island as No. 1. If oil companies start drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, that's likely to change. "We've got some of the finest, whitest sand in the world," said Leatherman, a professor at Florida International University in Miami. "Oil doesn't seem to go with that. … This could lower the value of our beaches."
Leatherman has seen what offshore drilling can do to a beach. Texas beaches, for instance, "tend to be the trash can of the gulf." Waste from the western gulf's wells — everything from empty oil drums to tar balls — washes up there.
Allowing drilling in the eastern gulf — a move now touted by President Bush, GOP presidential candidate John McCain and Gov. Charlie Crist — carries risks for the environment as well as for Florida's economy.
Over the past 40 years, oil companies have drilled thousands of wells across the western and central gulf, and there are now about 3,800 offshore structures there. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have been willing to overlook the trash and tar in exchange for cash and jobs.
But Florida's $50-billion tourist industry depends on clean beaches. The slightest taint — say, a Red Tide bloom — can empty the hotels. That's why in the past Florida politicians from both parties have been as quick to embrace drilling as they have been to shake hands with Fidel Castro.
"The beaches of Florida are like the mountains of Colorado. They are somewhat our defining feature, and anything that threatens to jeopardize those beaches raises great concerns," said former Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat and longtime drilling opponent who says he is "confounded" to see the issue revived.
In the late 1990s, when Chevron proposed drilling in the gulf 25 miles south of Pensacola, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned that if there were a spill, "there is as great as a 47 percent chance that the slick would reach Florida's coastal waters before dissipating."
Chevron hired Florida State oceanographer Wilton Sturges to study the spill potential. Sturges said he found "that under worst-case conditions the spilled stuff could be brought ashore much faster than any response team could get there to clean it up. It is a real crapshoot about when it might happen, of course. Most bad things happen during nasty weather, when the difficulties of cleanups are at their worst."
For instance, Hurricane Katrina ripped into Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, destroying 115 oil platforms, significantly damaging 52 more and setting adrift 19. More than 7-million gallons of petroleum products spilled, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. By comparison, in 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 11-million gallons in Alaska's Prince William Sound.
It wasn't a hurricane that caused the Ixtoc I spill, the worst in modern history.
Ixtoc occurred in 1979 just north of the Mexican coast. A rig blew out, caught fire and collapsed. The fire and scattered debris made capping the well so difficult that it continued spewing for nearly a year, dumping more than 3-billion barrels of oil. Two months later, the first tar balls washed ashore 600 miles away in Texas. Soon every beach in the state was coated. Tourism dropped by 60 percent.
That was 20 years ago. Drilling is much safer now, said David Mica of the pro-drilling Florida Petroleum Council.
"We've come a long way since then," he said. "I sleep pretty good at night knowing mankind is doing a good job protecting our resources. Of course, there are no guarantees."
Big spills like Ixtoc are rare. Smaller ones are not.
The Coast Guard documented more than 239,000 oil spills across the gulf between 1973 and 2001. In one study of the area where Chevron wanted to drill, the Minerals Management Service predicted that over the next 40 years there could be up to 870 spills of 2,000 gallons or less, which "is expected to result in small pollution events that could temporarily affect the enjoyment or use of some beach segments."
Critics like Enid Sisskin of Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, a Pensacola group that has opposed offshore drilling for more than a decade, say they are not as concerned about oil spills as they are about what she calls "the routine, everyday, day-after-day pollution they dump in the water."
When the rigs first drill into the ocean floor, the crews use fluids called "drilling muds" which include toxic substances including barium, chromium and arsenic. The EPA found that such discharges into the eastern gulf would "introduce significant quantities of contaminants to these relatively pristine waters."
In 2002, the Mobile Press-Register tested grouper and other fish caught around Alabama's offshore rigs. They contained so much mercury that they would not be acceptable for sale to the public under federal guidelines. The source: the drilling muds, which left mercury in the sea-bottom in concentrations as high as that found at Superfund sites.
Then there are all the undersea pipelines and the onshore facilities that would probably have to be built, all of which can leak as well, Leatherman pointed out.
"There's a lot more involved than just drilling a well," he said. "It's just not good for beaches."
Sales of premium gas plummet, even among the luxury class. But "spark knock" may come calling.
Ixtoc was a MEXICAN spill. PEMEX ( the Mexican national oil company ) is a notorious polluter.
Katrina was so damaging because NOBODY was adequately prepared and EVERYBODY waited to too long to do the necessary including many oil companies.
Many rigs were evacuated before being totally and properly shut down.
Fish all over the world contain too much mercury and other toxic heavy metals. I suggest you read the latest guidelines on fish consumption. Most of it comes from industrial pollution other than oil drilling. It settles into the mud and gets stirred up by oil drilling.
For those so concerned about spills and the like, fasten your seatbelts. The Chinese are drilling off Cuba and the Brazilians are starting to drill off their coast.
Eric Stoner
09-02-2008, 03:02 PM
John Maccain has had 20 plus years to help work on the oil problem. How much more time should I give him?
You act like Republicans are so kind to me ;D
Joe Biden has had 36 years. What has he done ? Obama's had 4 years. what has he done ? Clinton had EIGHT years. What did he and Hillary do ?