RE: The McBush Oil Plan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 5:11:53 PM)

quote:

Well, since your man McBush was against drilling as well until it became politically expedient for him to change his position and join the "Washington-Speak" it makes sense that Obama, seeing that the grape-juice drinking masses soaking it up, would also jump on the drilling bandwangon. Afterall, as you previously stated so eloquently....politicians will say anything to get elected.


I agree with you that McCain has flipped his position as well. I've never stated that he didn't. However, every NObama loving liberal will defend him tooth and nail and will never ever say that he has flip flopped for political reasons, even when it is obvious that he did.

Even your post just now defends NObama's reasoning for changing his position rather than admit to what it is, political posturing, plain and simple.



Evangel70 -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 5:34:25 PM)

quote:

every NObama loving liberal will defend him tooth and nail and will never ever say that he has flip flopped for political reasons, even when it is obvious that he did.


I find it amusing that conservatives always resort to personal attacks when they can't defend the actions of their political candidate.[:D]

As I stated in my post above, I agree with you the Obama, like McBush, has changed his position on drilling for political expediancy. That is NOT defending Obama, that is agreeing with you that BOTH candidates have been flip-flopping like hotcakes throughout their campaigns. Anyone who believes that Obama or McCain is going to be much different than any other politician is fooling themselves.



Dubya -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 5:39:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70

quote:

Do you seriously believe that oil companies are just sitting on land that they are paying a lease on? Don't you think if they had access to additional land that had oil in it they would be drilling?


Do you seriously believe that the oil companies are philanthropists looking out for the best interest of the country instead of their own bottom line?

Actually, oil complanies are among the largest donors to charity.
I understand your sarcasm, however.
quote:

Oil companies wouldn't be experiencing their greatest profits in the history of U.S. business if they were drilling on their already leased land. Extra supply may mean lower profits for oil companies since they can't charge what they want to.

Not true. The idea that they buy up leases and just sit on them is ludicrous. No business is run that way. There are two main reasons why certain leases have not been developed. First is viability. Not every acre of land has commercially producible quantities of oil. Typically, companies will bid on a lease because they have a vague idea that there may be oil but they do not know for sure until they explore. Secondly, there is the legal hurdle which is primarily there because of over-protective environmental concerns. It can take years in the courts before an oil company can have permission to explore... then comes the hurdle regarding production. All of this costs millions or potentially billions of dollars before one drop of oil is produced.
quote:

For example, the price of a barrel of oil has gone down almost $40 a barrel in the last two months or so. Do you believe gas prices at the pump will reflect this change with gas going back under $3.00 a gallon? I wouldn't hold my breath. The Enrons and Haliburtons we hear about are only the tip of the corporate iceburg. In a capitalist society businesses are in business to make money not necessarily to help others. (With few exceptions of course)

Making money does help others! A lot of ordinary people are invested in oil companies either directly or through pension plans. Tell me again how lower profits will help retired people?
quote:


quote:

And since NObama stated that opening up drilling is just "Washington-speak" and "a gimmick", is he now using that same speak and employing the same gimmick? Is he in support of it because as he says, "It polls well."?


Well, since your man McBush was against drilling as well until it became politically expedient for him to change his position and join the "Washington-Speak" it makes sense that Obama, seeing that the grape-juice drinking masses soaking it up, would also jump on the drilling bandwangon. Afterall, as you previously stated so eloquently....politicians will say anything to get elected. [8D]

Actually, it was the sudden price increase which prompted McCains switch. Of course politics is involved... just like Obama's pandering to those who seem to hate profitable oil companies.
I still have not heard McCain say we should start drilling in ANWAR (although I wish he would).



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 5:45:39 PM)

quote:

Do you seriously believe that the oil companies are philanthropists looking out for the best interest of the country instead of their own bottom line? Oil companies wouldn't be experiencing their greatest profits in the history of U.S. business if they were drilling on their already leased land. Extra supply may mean lower profits for oil companies since they can't charge what they want to. For example, the price of a barrel of oil has gone down almost $40 a barrel in the last two months or so. Do you believe gas prices at the pump will reflect this change with gas going back under $3.00 a gallon? I wouldn't hold my breath. The Enrons and Haliburtons we hear about are only the tip of the corporate iceburg. In a capitalist society businesses are in business to make money not necessarily to help others. (With few exceptions of course)


RHETORIC: Oil and natural gas companies are demanding greater access to America’s resources even though they own leases on millions of acres of federal lands that are already open to drilling. They would rather sit on these idle leases and make record profits than increase production. If they’re not willing to produce on these idle leases, they should hand them over to someone who will.

REALITY: Just because a lease is not producing oil or natural gas doesn’t mean it’s idle. Companies are actively exploring and developing the majority of their leases, but the entire process takes years and requires many steps, including securing government permits, analyzing seismic data and installing the machinery needed for drilling and production. Many leases prove not to contain enough oil and natural gas to be commercially viable, and companies can’t produce oil and natural gas where it does not exist. Over the past five years, American companies have paid billions to obtain federal leases, and if they don’t develop leases within a certain period of time, they return them to the federal government, forfeiting all investments.

Energy Rhetoric vs Reality


The following is information from the American Petroleum Institute that refutes the Democratic talking points that the oil companies have 68 million leased acres to drill on and that they should drill on these leases first. Update July 31, 2008: 400 companies and not only big oil hold and pay for these leases on shore and 121 companies hold and pay for the leases off shore and again it is not only big oil. Most of these companies are only in the business of exploration, discovery, drilling, and pumping. Their only business is to drill, thus to be accused of intentionally NOT drilling is ludicrous.

Here are questions and answers to why drilling takes place or not on the 68 million acres. The API makes a lot more sense then these reckless individuals who will spout just about anything to prevent drilling.

The facts about non-producing federal leases:

CLAIM: Oil and natural gas companies are given leases by the government and purposely don’t produce from them to increase prices.

FACT: Companies pay billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested.

CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them

FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market — obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production — is a long and complicated one.

CLAIM: If the lease doesn’t contain oil or natural gas, then the company shouldn’t have bought it.

FACT: There are tremendous risks and challenges involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. There is no guarantee that a lease will even contain hydrocarbons. It is not unusual for a company to spend in excess of $100 million only to drill a dry hole. A company usually has only has limited knowledge of resource potential when it buys a lease. Only after the lease is acquired, will the company be in the position to evaluate it, usually with a very costly seismic survey followed by an exploration well.

CLAIM: There’s absolutely no reason for a company not to produce if it finds oil or gas on the lease.

FACT: If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease. But there can sometimes be delays – often as long as seven to 10 years – for environmental and engineering studies, to acquire permits, install production facilities (or platforms for offshore leases) and build the necessary infrastructure to bring the resources to market. Litigation, landowner disputes and regulatory hurdles can also delay the process.

CLAIM: The vast majority of federal and gas resources are already available for development.

FACT: In the Lower 48 states, about 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and 67 percent of onshore federal lands are off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. There is no way, at this stage, to determine exactly the extent of the resources off-limits because many of these areas have not been subject to inventory studies in decades.

CLAIM: Non-producing leases could provide a major source of new supplies.

FACT: Many of these leases will provide a major source of new domestic supply once they are developed. Companies are actively developing the leases, and in addition to paying for the lease, they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts. But this process takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.

CLAIM: Increased domestic drilling activity has not led to lower gasoline prices, and more leases and drilling won’t help either.

FACT: Our nation needs more supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas, to meet its growing energy demand. Increased drilling has helped the United States offset the natural declines in domestic oil and natural gas production from older fields. Greater drilling activity tends to produce more supply. Fundamental economics suggest that additional supplies put downward pressure on prices.

CLAIM: Companies should be penalized for not producing from their leases.

FACT: Oil and gas companies take all the risk with federal leases. Not only do they pay billions to obtain leases, they pay to hold them while they are spending even more capital to determine if these leases contain resources. Penalties on leaseholders on top of those fees would only discourage U.S. exploration and production, at a time when the United States needs all the energy it can get.

68 Million Acres and Oil Companies Do Not Dr



henny -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 6:43:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite
I agree with you that McCain has flipped his position as well. I've never stated that he didn't. However, every NObama loving liberal will defend him tooth and nail and will never ever say that he has flip flopped for political reasons, even when it is obvious that he did.


For the record I'm an Obama loving liberal and I think his switch on the issue was a dumb bit of pandering. Plus, in fairness, there's lots of Obama loving liberals who have been some of Obama's biggest critics when he steps out of line or flip-flops on issues they support (To name one example, for a while the biggest group on Obama's political action network on his official website was a group organized by Obama's own supporters for the specific reason of criticizing him for backing down on some of his oppositions to FISA).

But in regards to the Offshore drilling, I suspect his strategists saw it as a freebee. Given that McCain himself switched sides on the issue, I imagine they thought it wouldn't be too damaging for Obama to do the same, as McCain's own past effectively muzzles his camp from screaming "flip-flopper" at Obama, or making too big of an issue out of it. Plus I think Obama effectively "spun" the issue in a way that limits the damage.



huangshan -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 9:21:11 PM)

Sure, Obama flip flops occasionally. I don't really see a problem with it. He's selling himself as a flexible guy who can work across the partisan divide, and that's going to necessarily require a few compromises (though hopefully not in a few areas... I haven't been terribly disappointed yet though). A series of incremental victories (and using certain issues as bargaining chips) is a lot more feasible, I think, than never budging.



huangshan -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 9:32:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:

Off the top of my head, there's the idea of weatherizing homes, and apparently Obama supports doing this annually for the next ten years or so.


The majority of homes built within the last 10 years are adequately weatherized, so adding insulation won't affect the price at the pump at all, this is right up there with inflate your tires.


Have the majority of homes been built within the past ten years?

"Inflate your tires" is up there with "wear a sweater", which happens to work pretty well.



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 9:38:57 PM)

quote:


"Inflate your tires" is up there with "wear a sweater", which happens to work pretty well.


And this helped our energy problem how?

quote:


Have the majority of homes been built within the past ten years?


How many homes aren't properly insulated?



huangshan -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 10:06:37 PM)

I'm not sure I understand where you're trying to take this. Are you disagreeing that keeping one's tires inflated and dressing appropriately to the season is a means to conserve energy?

And a cursory Google search of "how many homes aren't properly insulated" brought up a helpful article on the first hit.



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 10:49:15 PM)

quote:

I'm not sure I understand where you're trying to take this. Are you disagreeing that keeping one's tires inflated and dressing appropriately to the season is a means to conserve energy?


Yeah and if we all gave $1 we could feed the world and there would be no more hunger. It ain't going to happen, people are still starving.

I'm saying that those things will not solve our energy problem.

I'm saying we need real solutions for a real problem.

Carter told us to "wear a sweater", well how much has that helped.

I asked about what new technology will be used and when it will be available to the masses and you respond with insulate your home, put on a sweater, inflate your tires and turn down your thermostat.



huangshan -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/10/2008 11:32:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:

I'm not sure I understand where you're trying to take this. Are you disagreeing that keeping one's tires inflated and dressing appropriately to the season is a means to conserve energy?


Yeah and if we all gave $1 we could feed the world and there would be no more hunger. It ain't going to happen, people are still starving.

I'm saying that those things will not solve our energy problem.

I'm saying we need real solutions for a real problem.

Carter told us to "wear a sweater", well how much has that helped.

I asked about what new technology will be used and when it will be available to the masses and you respond with insulate your home, put on a sweater, inflate your tires and turn down your thermostat.


If I re-post everything you ignored, is it harder to ignore?

"Beyond that, increasing efficiency and government support of renewable energy sources is an effective means to make the current standard of living relatively unchanged. All of this is either available now, or available in the near future after the economies of scale are expanded to allow for cheaper production."



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:23:15 AM)

quote:

"Beyond that, increasing efficiency and government support of renewable energy sources is an effective means to make the current standard of living relatively unchanged. All of this is either available now, or available in the near future after the economies of scale are expanded to allow for cheaper production."


I didn't ignore this, I read it, but it still doesn't answer my question but is rather a vague and generalized way of avoiding the question.

quote:

renewable energy sources

Such as????

quote:

current standard of living relatively unchanged

Not according to almost all energy experts. The demand for energy over the next 20 years is expected to increase by 50%, conservation alone will not help provide for this. Also, sustaining our current standard of living would mean to continue paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas, not to mention what the cost will be this winter to heat our homes, sweaters or no.

quote:

All of this is either available now, or available in the near future after the economies of scale are expanded to allow for cheaper production.


Currently available to whom? What is available? Your answer to reducing energy costs is an increase in spending on the part of the general public? How does that help those who are living paycheck to paycheck?

Sure the government wants to increase fuel efficiency, develop new technology to run our cars, but that all takes time and a lot of money. The average American cannot afford a new car and the increase in payments, insurance and maintenance don't justify the savings in fuel, so they won't do it. Otherwise why are most people driving SUV's that get less than 20mpg? Sure Hybrids sales are increasing but not everyone is buying one, Ford trucks are still outselling Hybrids.

Adding insulation to your home isn't that expensive and will help save a little on energy costs. However sealing your home usually requires installing energy efficient windows and doors which depending on your home will run around $10,000.00 or more. I know because I had that done about 10 years ago and that's what it cost me then for a 3 bedroom home.

Hydro-electric cars may be a long term solution but again it takes time, money, new infrastructure, etc. Mom and Pop gas stations cannot afford to refit their stations with new pumps. Car manufacturing companies will need to refit their plants which will require years to do.

But if we don't increase supply by drilling, reduce demand by providing an alternative to energy companies such as nuclear or coal then energy costs will continue to skyrocket.

I've posted all of this throughout this topic so either I wasn't clear enough or you are guilty of the very thing you accused me of, ignoring what I'm posting.



saved9201 -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 4:39:36 AM)

Conservatives' response to the government providing relief to homeowners:

"It's not my fault those people went out and bought those big ol' houses and now can't afford to pay for them. Why should the gubment get involived? People should learn not to depend on he gubment to rescue them when they make irresponsible decisions."

Conservatives response to the gubment getting involved to solve the energy crisis:

"I like big trucks, I like to ride alone, I like to keep my air conditioner cold as ice. So, I ain't inflatin' my tires just cause that boy told me to, I ain't gettin' no smaller car cause can't no libral tell me what to drive, I ain't carpoolin' and I ain't wearing no sweater. What needs to happen is, the gubment needs to get involved and help good hard working ordinary Americans who are strapped because of this energy crisis. Let the oil companies drill here, drill there, drill everywhere so they can find a whole bunch of oil and then, help them build nuclear plants - build them here, build them there, build them everywhere. If they do that, I guarantee the oil companies will be so happy and grateful that we can keep using the same amount of oil and they'll drop the price of gas to $1 a gallon - or less."

In other words, it's perfectly okay for a person who got a big house they can't afford to lose it, but for someone to lose their Chevy Suburban or Ford Monster Truck, or even get it tuned up and properly inflate the tires - forget it.

- Julius



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 6:15:31 AM)

That's it, continue to cloud the issue rather than address the subject.

quote:

the gubment needs to get involved and help good hard working ordinary Americans who are strapped because of this energy crisis.


Actually the Conservatives view is the government needs to get out of the way. It's the government that is preventing us from drilling, it is the government that is preventing us from using clean coal, it is the government who is preventing us from building nuclear plants.

quote:

In other words, it's perfectly okay for a person who got a big house they can't afford to lose it, but for someone to lose their Chevy Suburban or Ford Monster Truck, or even get it tuned up and properly inflate the tires - forget it.


So am I to assume it is your opinion that we can just conserve our way out of this?



tafkam -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 10:03:25 AM)

quote:

People should learn not to depend on he gubment to rescue them when they make irresponsible decisions."


Exactly, stand up and take responsibility for your own actions...or does that make too much sense?



SwedishCovenant -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 10:56:25 AM)

Offshore drilling - or not - is not the issue.

The issue is that INCREASING the use of a depleting, non-renewable resource, as increasing production of crude oil does, makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is as senseless as hunting a species to extinction for economic gain.



Jhud -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 11:15:52 AM)

quote:

Offshore drilling - or not - is not the issue.

The issue is that INCREASING the use of a depleting, non-renewable resource, as increasing production of crude oil does, makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is as senseless as hunting a species to extinction for economic gain.


Considering that our economy still runs (and will by neccesity, continue to run) on that ' non-renewable resource' for the next couple of decades, I would say finding and extracting domestic sources of it is definitively an issue.



SwedishCovenant -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 11:51:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Offshore drilling - or not - is not the issue.

The issue is that INCREASING the use of a depleting, non-renewable resource, as increasing production of crude oil does, makes no economic sense whatsoever. It is as senseless as hunting a species to extinction for economic gain.


Considering that our economy still runs (and will by neccesity, continue to run) on that ' non-renewable resource' for the next couple of decades, I would say finding and extracting domestic sources of it is definitively an issue.


As I said - "without sense".



Jhud -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 11:58:35 AM)

quote:

As I said - "without sense".


Feel free to buy a solar car if you feel different - and when you come back to visit us in this little world we call 'reality', drop by and say, 'Hi'.



SwedishCovenant -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:08:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

As I said - "without sense".


Feel free to buy a solar car if you feel different - and when you come back to visit us in this little world we call 'reality', drop by and say, 'Hi'.


Reality, huh?

Here's some reality for you - if Americans had listened to Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, we wouldn't have an energy crisis today.

The reality is that Big Oil got their flunky Reagan into office and therefore we are STILL in their pockets - and will be until they have extracted (pun intended) every possible dollar of profit for themselves, then they will just leave those of us in the real world to clean up their mess.

What will happen to America, and Americans, in the process, doesn't seem to occur to them. Or to their lackies in the GOP.



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:10:42 PM)

Since everyone loves to quote the Department of Energy on this subject here are excerpts from a study that was prepared for them by their own appointed committee The National Petroleum Council:

The National Petroleum Council is a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. The sole purpose of the National Petroleum Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on any matter requested by the Secretary relating to oil and natural gas or to the oil and gas industries.

During the last quarter-century, world energy demand has increased about 60 percent, supported by a global infrastructure that has expanded to a massive scale. Most forecasts for the next quartercentury project a similar percentage increase in energy demand from a much larger base. Oil and natural gas have played a significant role in supporting economic activity in the past, and will likely continue to do so in combination with other energy types. Over the coming decades, the world will need better energy efficiency and all economic, environmentally responsible energy sources available to support and sustain future growth.

The United States and the world face hard truths about the global energy future over the next 25 years:

Coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meeting total projected energy demand growth.

The world is not running out of energy resources, but there are accumulating risks to continuing expansion of oil and natural gas production from the conventional sources relied upon historically. These risks create significant challenges to meeting projected energy demand.

To mitigate these risks, expansion of all economic energy sources will be required, including coal, nuclear, renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas. Each of these sources faces significant challenges—including safety, environmental, political,
or economic hurdles—and imposes infrastructure requirements for development and delivery.

“Energy Independence” should not be confused with strengthening energy security. The concept of energy independence is not r realistic in the foreseeable future, whereas U.S. energy security canbe enhanced by moderating demand, expanding and diversifying domestic energy supplies, and strengthening global energy trade and investment. There can be no U.S. energy security without global
energy security.

Free and open markets should be relied upon wherever possible to produce efficient solutions. Where markets need to be bolstered, policies should be implemented with care and consideration of possible unintended consequences. The Council proposes five core strategies to assist markets in meeting the energy challenges to 2030 and beyond. All five strategies are essential—there is no single, easy solution to the multiple challenges we face. However, the Council is confident that the prompt adoption of these strategies, along with a sustained commitment to implementation, will promote U.S. competitiveness by balancing economic, security, and environmental goals. The United States must:

Moderate the growing demand for energy by increasing efficiency of transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Expand and diversify production from clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas; moderate the decline of conventional domestic oil and natural gas production; and increase access for development of new resources.

Integrate energy policy into trade, economic, environmental, security, and foreign policies; strengthen global energy trade and investment; and broaden dialogue with both producing and consuming nations to improve global energy security.

Enhance science and engineering capabilities and create long-term opportunities for research and development in all phases of the energy supply and demand system.

Develop the legal and regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In addition, as policymakers consider options to reduce CO2 emissions, provide an effective global framework for carbon management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable, economy-wide cost for CO2 emissions.


This is just a very small part of a very large report, it was taken from the Executive Summary. You can view and download the entire report for free here:

Hard Truths - Facing the Hard Truths about Energy



Jhud -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:13:07 PM)

quote:

Reality, huh?

Here's some reality for you - if Americans had listened to Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, we wouldn't have an energy crisis today.

The reality is that Big Oil got their flunky Reagan into office and therefore we are STILL in their pockets - and will be until they have extracted (pun intended) every possible dollar of profit for themselves, then they will just leave those of us in the real world to clean up their mess.

What will happen to America, and Americans, in the process, doesn't seem to occur to them. Or to their lackies in the GOP.


The reason magic solar cars didn't appear thirty years ago was because the market didn't drive the development of such things - and until it is demonstrated that oil is so rare and expensive that such machines are cost effective, there will be no magic oil-less vehicles.

In the meantime, there is a good market driven reason to develop domestic sources of oil, and the government should get out of the way of this happening so we no longer have depend on the Ayatollahs in Iran that Jimmy helped create.



its_GO_time -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:14:05 PM)

quote:

Here's some reality for you - if Americans had listened to Jimmy Carter thirty years ago, we wouldn't have an energy crisis today.


Yeah, but I never thought I looked very good in a sweater... Too Mr. Rogers-like, ya know...[:D]



inthysite -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 12:17:31 PM)

quote:

Yeah, but I never thought I looked very good in a sweater... Too Mr. Rogers-like, ya know...


I've got a whole closet full of them but I'm still paying $4.00 at the pump. Plus it's a little warm to be wearing a sweater.



huangshan -> RE: The McBush Oil Plan (8/11/2008 1:16:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:

"Beyond that, increasing efficiency and government support of renewable energy sources is an effective means to make the current standard of living relatively unchanged. All of this is either available now, or available in the near future after the economies of scale are expanded to allow for cheaper production."


I didn't ignore this, I read it, but it still doesn't answer my question but is rather a vague and generalized way of avoiding the question.

quote:

renewable energy sources

Such as????

quote:

current standard of living relatively unchanged

Not according to almost all energy experts. The demand for energy over the next 20 years is expected to increase by 50%, conservation alone will not help provide for this. Also, sustaining our current standard of living would mean to continue paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas, not to mention what the cost will be this winter to heat our homes, sweaters or no.

quote:

All of this is either available now, or available in the near future after the economies of scale are expanded to allow for cheaper production.


Currently available to whom? What is available? Your answer to reducing energy costs is an increase in spending on the part of the general public? How does that help those who are living paycheck to paycheck?

Sure the government wants to increase fuel efficiency, develop new technology to run our cars, but that all takes time and a lot of money. The average American cannot afford a new car and the increase in payments, insurance and maintenance don't justify the savings in fuel, so they won't do it. Otherwise why are most people driving SUV's that get less than 20mpg? Sure Hybrids sales are increasing but not everyone is buying one, Ford trucks are still outselling Hybrids.

Adding insulation to your home isn't that expensive and will help save a little on energy costs. However sealing your home usually requires installing energy efficient windows and doors which depending on your home will run around $10,000.00 or more. I know because I had that done about 10 years ago and that's what it cost me then for a 3 bedroom home.

Hydro-electric cars may be a long term solution but again it takes time, money, new infrastructure, etc. Mom and Pop gas stations cannot afford to refit their stations with new pumps. Car manufacturing companies will need to refit their plants which will require years to do.

But if we don't increase supply by drilling, reduce demand by providing an alternative to energy companies such as nuclear or coal then energy costs will continue to skyrocket.

I've posted all of this throughout this topic so either I wasn't clear enough or you are guilty of the very thing you accused me of, ignoring what I'm posting.


You summarized what I said as "insulate your home, put on a sweater, inflate your tires and turn down your thermostat", explicitly omitting my reply to the question you prefaced the characterization with. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my meaning, but if you're going to summarize what I said you could at least be complete about it, even if you're going to reject it out of hand.

Renewable energy such as wind, solar, etcetera. All the old standbys. "Available" insofar as this isn't stuff that we have to sit around and wait for. It's an industry that is overshadowed by the entrenched industries (largely oil, coal). When I said "standard of living" I wasn't suggesting that all the fun wasteful things would still be viable. That was in response to your "eating or staying warm" dichotomy. We will still have comfortable lives.

And I should mention again, I'm not particularly happy with Obama's squeamishness on nuclear energy, but I think it's an unfortunate political necessity. Regarding Carter, his stance on sweaters was a noble one and I agree that it's ridiculous that it (and the current tire "controversy") have generated so much banal criticism. Carter's stance on nuclear energy absolutely shot this country in the foot though, and it continues to hinder nuclear development.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI