George W and Oil-Obsession? [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

Mr. Fix

08-12-2008, 04:02 AM

I've worked for US Park Services. I've worked with CoPRIG in Colorado to help clean up the Rocky Mt. Arsenal. I was the supervisor in charge of the recycling facility for the Hewlett Packard campus in Ft. Collins Colorado.

So I say these things with the background of trying to protect our environment.

Do we abandon "Private Property" rights for the collective socialist ideal?

Do we put animals above the needs of human survival?

I believe we can have both. But I mostly believe in our Free American Values - and these do NOT mix with socialism.

Dams are being removed to assist in the spawning salmon runs here in Washington state. That's good. Do we now tear down EVERY dam? Send the price of energy even higher?

If Americans (humans) were really interested in protecting the wilderness then we would all pick ONE city to live in and let the rest of the planet alone. We would eat each other (Soylent Green anyone?) to prevent cruelty to animals. There would be no industry or production of any kind as to prevent any pollution. And population control would be a government agency (Application for marrage and birth are on the third shelf - do you have you Governemt Representatives permission?)

We need to progress. We need energy. We will grow, or will die off as a species, if we do NOT expand. If I'm asked to choose between humans and every other creature on this planet - I choose humans! We can always find another planet.

Our destruction of this world is caused by our inefficiency! Greed is the motivating factor for ANY species on this planet - we're just better at it.

And Bush is terrible, but he's right on this one.:Soapbox:

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 04:03 AM

I've been doing some digging these past 20 minutes.

The current Secretary of the Interior under Presdient Bush is named Kempthorne. (And for you non-Americans, that's the cabinet member who is supposed to protect the envionrment and oversee our national parks and wildlife and stuff like that.)

Here's a choice quote from Wiki on Kempthorne's track record for the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Kempthorne

Upon Kempthorne's appointment as Secretary of the Interior, environmental groups characterized him as someone who has "almost always favored changing laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act to make them more favorable to commercial interests."[1]

Wiki also says that prior to taking the position of Secretary of the Interior, he was a US Senator from Idaho, and he was also eventually the Governor of Idaho. As for his track record there, I just read about some scorecard (http://www.lcv.org/scorecard/) thingy that the National Environmental Congress issues every year. It's a score that goes from 0% up to 100% as far as rating differnet states and their governors and senators, etc in their track records on the environement. Here's what Wiki says about his time as a Senator rfom Idaho:

During his six years in the Senate, Kempthorne scored a "0" on the League of Conservation Voters' legislative scorecards every year except 1993, when he scored 6 percent on the basis of one vote against funding a rocket booster for the space program that environmentalists judged harmful to the environment. His overall LCV score for that period was less than 1%.[3]

The reason I bring all this up is that this proposed legislation change from Bush will only prove BETTER for the environment as long as the various people who oh-so-conveniently get appointed to the various positions to make these enviromental decisions are indeed pro-environment. But if they're all in the back pocket of industrialists, then the environment is screwed.

Like the guy at the end of the article in the OP said: "This is a case of the fox guarding the hen house."

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 04:05 AM

We can always find another planet.

Oh? Where?

Ageless Stranger

08-12-2008, 04:13 AM

I've worked for US Park Services. I've worked with CoPRIG in Colorado to help clean up the Rocky Mt. Arsenal. I was the supervisor in charge of the recycling facility for the Hewlett Packard campus in Ft. Collins Colorado.

So I say these things with the background of trying to protect our environment.

Do we abandon "Private Property" rights for the collective socialist ideal?

Do we put animals above the needs of human survival?

I believe we can have both. But I mostly believe in our Free American Values - and these do NOT mix with socialism.

Dams are being removed to assist in the spawning salmon runs here in Washington state. That's good. Do we now tear down EVERY dam? Send the price of energy even higher?

If Americans (humans) were really interested in protecting the wilderness then we would all pick ONE city to live in and let the rest of the planet alone. We would eat each other (Soylent Green anyone?) to prevent cruelty to animals. There would be no industry or production of any kind as to prevent any pollution. And population control would be a government agency (Application for marrage and birth are on the third shelf - do you have you Governemt Representatives permission?)

This is kind-of a strawman. No one has suggested any of this. It just seems that, as the OP quote put it and Plotdevice quoted "This is a case of the fox guarding the hen house."

As for our expansion, if we keep going, it'll be the thing to kill us. A body can only harbour so much of a virus before it dies, and the way we are behaving at the moment, we're a pretty bad-ass virus.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 04:41 AM

We can always find another planet.

Oh? Where?

Now that it has been mentioned, it really would be nice if we could just put all of the Capitalists on one planet, and choose another planet on which to place all of the non-Capitalists, and see which fairs better in not only the end, but also in day-to-day life.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 04:54 AM

We need to progress. We need energy. We will grow, or will die off as a species, if we do NOT expand. If I'm asked to choose between humans and every other creature on this planet - I choose humans! We can always find another planet.It's a race. Can we develop the technology to reach planets in other star systems before we destroy our own? And then, rinse and repeat.

The word metastasize comes to mind.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 05:10 AM

Here's a little piece on the Endangered Species Act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?pagewanted=print

The economists make the argument for “the distinct possibility that the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering, rather than protecting, species.”

donroc

08-12-2008, 05:40 AM

clintl

08-12-2008, 05:55 AM

Once again, Bush proves that he is a persistent, dedicated enemy of science.

clintl

08-12-2008, 06:05 AM

Here's a little piece on the Endangered Species Act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?pagewanted=print

A less convincing argument I have rarely seen in print - anedoctal evidence about human behavior affecting one species in one area of the country at best. And something that could be effectively solved by closing a loophole in the law.

In any case, it's irrelevant with respect to Bush's rule change, because his rule change affects federalprojects, not private development.

astonwest

08-12-2008, 06:27 AM

P.S. I'm really proud that while Pakistan is up for grabs and Russia is blowing away Georgia, he is enjoying the freaking Olympics!Just curious what this had to do with the original article...

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:33 AM

A less convincing argument I have rarely seen in print - anedoctal evidence about human behavior affecting one species in one area of the country at best. And something that could be effectively solved by closing a loophole in the law.
The argument--as it were--was not in the article I linked to. You would need to read the paper. Here it is: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12777
In any case, it's irrelevant with respect to Bush's rule change, because his rule change affects federalprojects, not private development.
Incorrect:

"The changes would apply to any project a federal agency would fund, build or authorize."

Regardless, no one is mentioning the raison d'etre of the rule change: the attempt to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation. And that's a funny situation, since the polar bear population has actually increased (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm) during the period of global warming.

But let's not allow reality to get in the way of a fine round of Bush bashing...

MacAllister

08-12-2008, 06:33 AM

I'm going to retitle this. If you want to continue with a less inflammatory title (provided by me,) and some actual substantive commentary, and so on - feel free.

sassandgroove

08-12-2008, 06:53 AM

ETA: I had trouble posting. now I know why. The last post I read was rugcat. a whole mess of people posted when I was trying to.

ETA2:In light of Mac's post which I hadn't seen, I am going to delete part of this one. I now return you to your regularly scheduled post.

thanks Mr. Fix, I find your post to be very reasonable. (and Rob and the people discussing and not just call Bush names.)

This is kind-of a strawman. No one has suggested any of this. It just seems that, as the OP quote put it and Plotdevice quoted "This is a case of the fox guarding the hen house."

As for our expansion, if we keep going, it'll be the thing to kill us. A body can only harbour so much of a virus before it dies, and the way we are behaving at the moment, we're a pretty bad-ass virus.Sure, let's all just die. Then the planet will be fine.

Now that it has been mentioned, it really would be nice if we could just put all of the Capitalists on one planet, and choose another planet on which to place all of the non-Capitalists, and see which fairs better in not only the end, but also in day-to-day life.
I'll be first in line for the capitalists planet. THanks.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:17 AM

Regardless, no one is mentioning the raison d'etre of the rule change: the attempt to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation. And that's a funny situation, since the polar bear population has actually increased (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm) during the period of global warming.

But let's not allow reality to get in the way of a fine round of Bush bashing...

Rob, my first problem here is that you are citing only ONE study on polar bears which is refuting only ONE study on polar bears. It would be far more impressive if you could provide several dozen such studies which in turn refute several dozen.

My second problem is that the source of this contrarian (and minority) study you're citing was published by what I feel is (since --as I said above in Post #10-- the Senator from Idaho took the office) a biased and therefore unreliable source: the Department of the Interior. I would be far more impressed if you cited a study (or several dozen studies) by less supect sources than that.

My third problem is that the article you cited merely said:

"In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions."

And this is, in my opinion, a red herring. The truth is that the MANY polar bear studies out there are all pointing to the shrinkage of the ice cap and to the subsequent decreasing body weight of polar bears each year. None of the studies are saying that the polars bears are (at this time) dying in record numbers. Instead the studies are sayng that the polar bears are in serious trouble and that they WILL start dying. It's a convenient smoke screen for them to say that no mass die-offs are happening at this time, when the existing studies are all only claiming that the mass die-offs will SOON start happening.

And lastly, your entire argument that "the raison d'etre of the rule change: the attempt to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation" isn't even valid because the President has no business playing Kindergarten Cop with the duly appointed fiunctioning and powers of the EPA in some false pretense to try and even up the playing field between the big bad EPA and ... whoever. This "justification" of trying to run interference against a supposed dirty play by shady environmentalists is in itself a dirty play masquerading as fair-mindedness.

I see no honor or benefit for this nation in the President de-fanging the EPA because he THINKS there is no valid connection between global warming and human emissions. From where I stand, I see no valid connection between his oath of office to serve the people of the United States and this tragic abuse of power.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:30 AM

By the way, I would STILL like to know where exactly it is that all these spare planets I keep hearing about have been stashed.

Don Allen

08-12-2008, 07:35 AM

The way this thread started I though we were going to talk about Bush hitting on the beach babes playing volleyball while Russia was reforming the old Soviet Union.** Oh well...

Joe270

08-12-2008, 07:35 AM

Am I the only one who sees that this is probably the start of a program to build some refineries and nuke plants?

Seems like the lame duck President is trying to get some energy independence groundwork laid. Nice work, if ya ask me.

I can't locate the links, but I read a story in the local paper months ago about our airport here taking something like 25 years to complete, but only with three years of construction. All the rest was the environmental logjam paperwork.

Even with that, they expect even more delays because the environmentalists will file a flow of court cases, causing even more years of delays.

This has gone too far, time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

We need the new refineries to lower fuel costs. We need nuke plants to get off oil. We need to drill for oil to use our own rather than send ALL our money overseas.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:45 AM

Am I the only one who sees that this is probably the start of a program to build some refineries and nuke plants?

Seems like the lame duck President is trying to get some energy independence groundwork laid. Nice work, if ya ask me.

Yes. This did occur to me.

But a more straight foreward and above-board way of handling it would have been to present the current quandry of the energy crisis to the enviromentalists and asked them to bend a little. And I can assure that it would NOT have been a vain effort because a LOT of ravenously anti-nuke people (my self included) have seen the math concerning the impending demise of oil, and then done a complete about-face as far as building new reactors in this nation. But this underhanded maneouvre is just an insult to the very soul of democracy itself. Yes, this might very well have been done "for the good of the people," but it was done entirely without the people's consent, and bypassed all avenues of discussion and representation.

I already said several months ago here at AW that dictatorial crap like this was going to start happening in the face of the mounting emergency of this unstoppable energy crisis. So if your theory is correct, Joe, it has thus sadly begun.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 07:50 AM

This has gone too far, time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

We need the new refineries to lower fuel costs. We need nuke plants to get off oil. We need to drill for oil to use our own rather than send ALL our money overseas.The pendulum has already swung so far over towards energy production, development, agribusiness, etc. that enviromental voices are but a thin reed piping in the wilderness. We need to change the entire way we think about energy. We really are on the fast track to destroying the planet, and we will reach the critical tipping point in the not so distant future if we continue on our same old path.

I know you think global warming is a crock and nothing will ever convince you otherwise, and I don't want to rehash that debate. But regardless, in many other ways, our energy policies (and the rest of the world's) are insane. Our kids and grandkids will look back on this period in time with utter disbelief at our blind stupidity.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:57 AM

Is it my "pipe dream" or your small mind?

Wow.

You are like ... SOOOOOOOOO going to get reamed by a moderator (oh ye of just 7 posts and barely a few days of membership).

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 08:03 AM

Now that it has been mentioned, it really would be nice if we could just put all of the Capitalists on one planet, and choose another planet on which to place all of the non-Capitalists, and see which fairs better in not only the end, but also in day-to-day life.

I'll be first in line for the capitalists planet. THanks.

Duly noted.

When you guys finally kill each other off after spending your worthless lives being wage-labor slaves at each others throats, the sane planet, where I'll be, will have finally worked out how to move mountains (even literally) with our minds.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 08:07 AM

But this underhanded maneouvre is just an insult to the very soul of democracy itself. Yes, this might very well have been done "for the good of the people," but it was done entirely without the people's consent, and bypassed all avenues of discussion and representation.

This same statement could be made about the scope of environmental laws and regulations which are not in place. I didn't vote for any of them, no one did.

Same-o, same-o. So now he cuts some red tape that really, really needs cutting.

I see it as a huge shot at the democratic leadership, too. If they come out strongly against these changes, and the GOP links it all to Gore's call for energy independence in ten years, then the Demos will lose lots of middle-road people, and most independents. It could cost them the election.

Pelosi forcing a non-vote on offshore drilling while the GOP reps are still there, calling for a vote, is gonna have a negative impact on the democrats. The GOP reps are already claiming that just their little protest is partly responsible for oil prices dropping.

This is gonna be trouble for the democrats if they don't get their act together.

The democrats are the ones griping about refining capacity. The democrats are the anti-oil people. They need to do something, rather that just spewing stupid statements like 'I'm trying to save the world'. Pelosi, you have proven the 'Peter Principle', time to step down.

But the democrats don't want nuke plants. The democrats only want some 'pie in the sky' miracle that's gonna suddenly cure all our energy needs. It's not gonna happen. There are some very promising advances, yes, but none of it is gonna happen in the next few years, some of it may never pay off.

Right now, practically speaking, we need more oil. We have oil, but the democrats won't allow anyone to go get it. We need nuke plants, but the democrats don't want to allow any nuke plants to be build. We need increased refining capacity, but the democrats won't allow it.

Even with 'Green Energy', like wind plants and the NV geothermal plants, the democrats won't allow any transmission lines to be built to bring that energy to the cities which need it. (Reference Harry Reid of NV stopping geothermal transmission lines.)

Really, unless the democrats find a way to harness their own hot air and turn it into power for homes, business, and transportation, they are in a serious crack here.

The democrat leadership has come across as all negative to any solutions offered, and yet offer no solutions themselves. This is becoming more obvious every day.

This is an issue which hits everyone in the US right in the wallet, and those sort of issues always show up in the voting booth. The democrats need to figure this out pdq, because the election is only a few months out. This is their election to lose, and they sure seem to be trying their hardest to lose it.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 08:07 AM

Wow.

You are like ... SOOOOOOOOO going to get reamed by a moderator (oh ye of just 7 posts and barely a few days of membership).

I don't think that I have crossed any line that needs to censored.

It seems that by definition, a forum for writers would be very hesitant about censoring the voices of people who actively participate in philosophically charged discussions.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 08:11 AM

clintl

08-12-2008, 08:11 AM

Joe270

08-12-2008, 08:16 AM

The pendulum has already swung so far over towards energy production, development, agribusiness, etc. that enviromental voices are but a thin reed piping in the wilderness.

I really disagree with this 'thin reed', seems the environmental lobby is louder than they have ever been, reference the 'polar bear' crap that can stop anything anywhere. A wee bit too sweeping, that.

We need to change the entire way we think about energy. We really are on the fast track to destroying the planet, and we will reach the critical tipping point in the not so distant future if we continue on our same old path.

While I disagree with the critical tipping point, I fully agree that we need to change the way we think about energy. It is time to get as far as possible off the oil spigot.

I know you think global warming is a crock and nothing will ever convince you otherwise, and I don't want to rehash that debate. But regardless, in many other ways, our energy policies (and the rest of the world's) are insane. Our kids and grandkids will look back on this period in time with utter disbelief at our blind stupidity.

Agreed.

But we need to survive the next ten years or so before new tech, new nuke plants, new advances put us in a position to get off oil. There is no alternative available today, so we must put our efforts in a new energy future while using our own oil in the interim.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 08:18 AM

I don't think that I have crossed any line that needs to censored.

It seems that by definition, a forum for writers would be very hesitant about censoring the voices of people who actively participate in philosophically charged discussions.We don't censor voices. We ask that people do not indulge in personal attacks or put downs. (Like calling someone small minded)

See, in real life, when somebody is obnoxious or unpleasant, we have the ability to walk away and not associate with them. In cyberspace, that's not an option. So if someone can't behave in a civilized manner on this board, they get asked politely to not indulge in insults, then they get warned, then they get booted.

It's up to you.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 08:22 AM

I don't think that I have crossed any line that needs to censored.

This comes to mind:

When you guys finally kill each other off after spending your worthless lives being wage-labor slaves at each others throats, the sane planet, where I'll be,

Calling someone, or an entire group 'worthless' isn't taking the discussion anywhere.

It seems that by definition, a forum for writers would be very hesitant about censoring the voices of people who actively participate in philosophically charged discussions.

Here we go again. Perhaps you should read the stickies at the top of the forum page. It's not about censorship, it's about respecting one another. It's not necessary to be rude to make a point.

Rugcat and I respectfully disagree on many issues, but we keep it as civil as possible.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 08:39 AM

I really disagree with this 'thin reed', seems the environmental lobby is louder than they have ever been, reference the 'polar bear' crap that can stop anything anywhere. A wee bit too sweeping, that. The polar ice cap is melting, and melting fast. This is not an alarmist theory; it's a simple fact. When it's gone, the polar bear habitat is gone, and the polar bear will be gone. And that's just the beginning.

Many people think," So what?" I personally feel that the loss of a species is a degradation of the world, and is a tragic event. Do you really want your grandkids to grow up in a world whose only animal inhabitants are rats and pigeons and starlings.

But yes, I understand if the choice is between saving the polar bear (or the tiger, or the blue whale) on the one hand, or paying an additional 50 cents a gallon to drive your car on the other, (or to save x number of jobs) a majority of people will say screw the bear, screw the whale. I don't care. This to me is incomprehensible, but there are a lot of things about people I find incomprehensible.

But we need to survive the next ten years or so before new tech, new nuke plants, new advances put us in a position to get off oil. There is no alternative available today, so we must put our efforts in a new energy future while using our own oil in the interim.I'm not against nuclear plants, but there are two problems people ignore about them.

First, mining yellowcake uranium is a tremendously destructive process from an environmental standpoint.

Second, how much of it do you think there is? What happens when every country builds 70 new plants, and the price of yellowcake becomes astronomical because there's not enough to go around. Kind of like oil.

Meanwhile, alternative technology may well languish, because nuclear has "solved" our problems and there's no money in far out ideas for new power sources.

I could be mistaken here -- I don't have solid facts. If I'm wrong about nukes, I would welcome a correction.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 08:42 AM

'Rugcat and I respectfully disagree on many issues, but we keep it as civil as possible.Not at all, Joe. We agree on many things. I just can't find what they are.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 08:43 AM

First, mining yellowcake uranium is a tremendously destructive process from an environmental standpoint.

I know they are buying up uranium leases like crazy in NV, but I don't know much about it.

I thought (probably wrong here yet again) that 'breeder' reactors provided nuke material. Anybody out there know?

I know we agree that AW P&CE in a great place for civil debate, how 'bout that?

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 08:45 AM

I personally think it's a good thing to put off major votes on energy policy until after the election. Why tie the hands of the next president, when waiting a few months is not going to matter one bit? I'm 100% behind Pelosi on delaying a vote.

I remember, very distinctly, phoning my mother three days before 9/11 happened and changed all of our lives. . . forever. Back then, I was big into being able to supposedly get "up to the minute news" from Reuters, and I had just read an article that related how the Democrats of the U. S. Congress were actively planning to take President George Walker Bush to court so that he might be forced to divulge what went on behind closed doors during his Energy Policy meeting.

Being from Little Rock (capital home of President Clinton), my mother and I laughed about how GREAT it was that the nothing-better-to-do Republican congressmen were about to get paid back for the idiotic stunt they pulled with Ken Starr and his attempt to impeach President Clinton for letting a grown woman "smoke his cigar."

Well, as we all know, 3 days later the world turned upside down and NOT ANOTHER WORD was ever said about Bush's closed-door meeting.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 08:55 AM

We don't censor voices. We ask that people do not indulge in personal attacks or put downs. (Like calling someone small minded)

See, in real life, when somebody is obnoxious or unpleasant, we have the ability to walk away and not associate with them. In cyberspace, that's not an option. So if someone can't behave in a civilized manner on this board, they get asked politely to not indulge in insults, then they get warned, then they get booted.

It's up to you.

Pardon me, but I was rather offended when I was told that my thinking, my THOUGHT, MY IDEA was nothing more than a "pipe dream."

You might consider taking the beam out of your own eye before you discuss the splinter in mine.

Comprende?

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:01 AM

This same statement could be made about the scope of environmental laws and regulations which are not in place. I didn't vote for any of them, no one did.

Same-o, same-o. So now he cuts some red tape that really, really needs cutting.

I see it as a huge shot at the democratic leadership, too. If they come out strongly against these changes, and the GOP links it all to Gore's call for energy independence in ten years, then the Demos will lose lots of middle-road people, and most independents. It could cost them the election.

Pelosi forcing a non-vote on offshore drilling while the GOP reps are still there, calling for a vote, is gonna have a negative impact on the democrats. The GOP reps are already claiming that just their little protest is partly responsible for oil prices dropping.

This is gonna be trouble for the democrats if they don't get their act together.

The democrats are the ones griping about refining capacity. The democrats are the anti-oil people. They need to do something, rather that just spewing stupid statements like 'I'm trying to save the world'. Pelosi, you have proven the 'Peter Principle', time to step down.

But the democrats don't want nuke plants. The democrats only want some 'pie in the sky' miracle that's gonna suddenly cure all our energy needs. It's not gonna happen. There are some very promising advances, yes, but none of it is gonna happen in the next few years, some of it may never pay off.

Right now, practically speaking, we need more oil. We have oil, but the democrats won't allow anyone to go get it. We need nuke plants, but the democrats don't want to allow any nuke plants to be build. We need increased refining capacity, but the democrats won't allow it.

Even with 'Green Energy', like wind plants and the NV geothermal plants, the democrats won't allow any transmission lines to be built to bring that energy to the cities which need it. (Reference Harry Reid of NV stopping geothermal transmission lines.)

Really, unless the democrats find a way to harness their own hot air and turn it into power for homes, business, and transportation, they are in a serious crack here.

The democrat leadership has come across as all negative to any solutions offered, and yet offer no solutions themselves. This is becoming more obvious every day.

This is an issue which hits everyone in the US right in the wallet, and those sort of issues always show up in the voting booth. The democrats need to figure this out pdq, because the election is only a few months out. This is their election to lose, and they sure seem to be trying their hardest to lose it.

Joe, you made a lot of sweeping generalizations and assertions here concerning the whole of the Democratic party as well as the whole of the Republican party. And I can't answer them because of how sweeping they are except to say: "Dude, you are speaking in sweeping generalization."

And as for the EPA, they were brought into existence via due process, not via back-door legally-loopholed mockeries of our democratic system. So I see no comparison in their rightful weilding of power and this reprehensible stealing of power.

Meanwhile, I am dismayed by the lack of action and urgency in our local and national leaders over the energy crisis. (After all, it's like, you know, a CRISIS, for Pete's sake.) And I am convinced that the vast majority of those from both sides of the aisle (in Washington and in the State Capitals) have all been intensely educated in their respective colleges degree programs with the same two ubiquitous and lethal grains of 20th century misinformation:

1) Many of them think our world-dominating nation grew in power and sophistication because of our brilliant and pioneering development of technology. But the truth is our society grew because of our shrewd and pioneering development of energy via our once copious supplies of lower-48 fossil fuels. The corrresponding raising up of our technology was only possible because of those fossil fuels (so we have a serious epidemic of Cart Before Horse Syndrome among our leaders). So I believe that a lot of our present day politicians cannot see the forest because of the trees --which means they cannot see the precariously wobbling fossil fuel platform upon which our society it trying to remain balanced because of the dazzling distraction of all the technology that is also on top of the platform and stealing the show. (Ungrateful, attention-whoring whelp that technology is.)

2) The majority of them think oil is cyclical and so it will bounce back, and subsequently the economy will bounce back. But the truth is oil will soon hit an irreversible decline, which means our entire economy will likewise hit an irreversible decline (within two to five years after the oil crash happens). This gross error in their understanding of how oil will NOT perform in the future comes from not recognizing the fundamental math bound up in natural resources that are non-renewable. Oil is NOT a comodity like wheat, but rather oil is a resource --which makes a huge difference. So on the one hand, the comodity called wheat is finite yet renewable. But on the other hand, the resource called oil is finite yet NONrenewable --which makes a huge difference. So when the crash finally comes, oil will NOT bounce back. It will irreversibly decline, and so will we.

We have a serious energy crisis on our hands. We MUST start building those nuke plants. But because of how rapidly we need to start bulding them, drastic measures are going to have to be taken. Democracy is nice, but because of how advanced the energy crisis has become at this late date, we no longer have the luxury of time needed for the democratic process to work itself through all of its normal gyrations of due process. It would have been nice if we had gotten a sufficiently clear warning about the global oil situation maybe 20 or 30 years ago so that we could have allowed the democratic process to --Oh wait! We DID get a sufficient warning already. Scratch that.

I believe that ham-stringing the EPA is going to be earmarked by future historians as the first of many drastic measures in a long series of drastic measures that will start coming down from the Executive Branch as a complete by-pass of the Legislative Branch in our government's response to the energy crisis. Our entire system of checks and balances is thus going to be dismantled before our eyes over this whole thing. So in order to save our nation, they are going to destroy our nation. Hip-hip-hooray. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:09 AM

Joe, you made a lot of sweeping generalizations and assertions here concerning the whole of the Democratic party as well as the whole of the Republican party. And I can't answer them because of how sweeping they are except to say: "Dude, you are speaking in sweeping generalization."

While I can cite my specific comments, like Ried's stopping the transmission lines, let's just say, for sake of argument, that they are general statements. (Which they aren't)

The general impression which comes out of it is that the demos are doing nothing, offering nothing but stopping the little bit that is being attempted from getting done.

It is an impression with a basis in reality, generalization or not, which will weigh against the democrats come election day, if they don't do something between now and then.

Just my view, and if the democrats don't want to address the issue, whatever.

It's not an argument, it's an observation.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:09 AM

Pardon me, but I was rather offended when I was told that my thinking, my THOUGHT, MY IDEA was nothing more than a pipe dream.

You might consider taking the beam out of your own eye before you discuss the splinter in mine.

Comprende?

Bluehawk,

#1) anybody here at AW who has the following in his profile:

P&CE
Ombudsman/Arbiter/Thingamajobbie

is NOT to be fucked with.

#2) The poster who used the phrase "pipedream" in reference to your post was attacking your post, NOT you. Big difference.

#3) You used the phrase "small mind" in your comeback to that same poster. And that means you were attacking the poster and NOT his posts. Big difference.

Bartholomew

08-12-2008, 09:14 AM

Bluehawk, do I detect a touch of hostility?

Our only rule is that posters here respect the other members. Please do not disregard this rule. You'll rarely be censored here, but I do forewarn you: The moderating powers here have very little tolerance for hostility, accusatory whining, and name calling.

but I was rather offended when I was told that my thinking, my THOUGHT, MY IDEA was nothing more than a "pipe dream."

With all due respect, your idea involved launching large groups of people to other planets. Even amongst Sci-Fi writers, this is a pipe dream.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:15 AM

No dog piling, folks.

We appreciate the support, thank you, but this is now out of our hands.

It really sucks, too, because this thread was getting good.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 09:19 AM

It is an impression with a basis in reality, generalization or not, which will weigh against the democrats come election day, if they don't do something between now and then.I think you are right, as far as elections go. But what if democrats honestly believe that off shore drilling, for example, is a terrible idea? (As I do) That stance is certainly a loser with the electorite. Should they then embrace the concept in order to gain seats? Isn't that just what we hate about politicians?

The Republicans have milked this brilliantly. John Mccain has said directly that we must drill offshore immediately in order to bring down prices at the gas pump. And even though every economist and oil executive has stated that it will not only take years to get any oil, but the effect will be negligible, lowering gas prices only a few cents a gallon at best, millions of Americans now believe this is a valid short term solution to energy prices.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 09:19 AM

While I can cite my specific comments, like Ried's stopping the transmission lines, let's just say, for sake of argument, that they are general statements. (Which they aren't)

The general impression which comes out of it is that the demos are doing nothing, offering nothing but stopping the little bit that is being attempted from getting done.

It is an impression with a basis in reality, generalization or not, which will weigh against the democrats come election day, if they don't do something between now and then.

Just my view, and if the democrats don't want to address the issue, whatever.

It's not an argument, it's an observation.

Wow. Personally? I can't WAIT till the election. The Republican party has finally found a way to alienate (in another word, "piss-off") ALL of its constituents; many of them now former constituents.

Good luck, 'cause you're gonna need it. . . .

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:19 AM

While I can cite my specific comments, like Ried's stopping the transmission lines, let's just say, for sake of argument, that they are general statements. (Which they aren't)

Okay. You did have some pointed points, but they were small islands in a vast sea of generailizations.

The general impression which comes out of it is that the demos are doing nothing, offering nothing but stopping the little bit that is being attempted from getting done.

It is an impression with a basis in reality, generalization or not, which will weigh against the democrats come election day, if they don't do something between now and then.

Just my view, and if the democrats don't want to address the issue, whatever.

It's not an argument, it's an observation.

My own observation is that BOTH sides of the aisle are suffering from thumb-in-butt disease. I sense that BOTH parties are lolllygagging through all of this. And I attribute this lackadaisical time-wasting in the face of a looming crisis to a universal dearth of understanding of the geology that's driving the geopolitics and subsequently driving the market forces. We're running out of the stuff.

See my sig.

Bartholomew

08-12-2008, 09:19 AM

Arf. Arf.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:22 AM

No dog piling, folks.

We appreciate the support, thank you, but this is now out of our hands.

It really sucks, too, because this thread was getting good.

Oh shit! That means the sheriff is right now gallopping up over the hillside, and he's going to declare Marshal Law on the thread and institute a lockdown! :(

Cranky

08-12-2008, 09:26 AM

Oh shit! That means the sheriff is right now gallopping up over the hillside, and he's going to declare Marshal Law on the thread and institute a lockdown! :(

I wouldn't worry too much about that, PD. So long as everyone can carry on without insulting each other, I imagine the worst we'll see is a brief cooling off period.

IMO, YMMV, and all that rot.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:28 AM

The Republicans have milked this brilliantly. John Mccain has said directly that we must drill offshore immediately in order to bring down prices at the gas pump. And even though every economist and oil executive has stated that it will not only take years to get any oil, but the effect will be negligible, lowering gas prices only a few cents a gallon at best, millions of Americans now believe this is a valid short term solution to energy prices.

Your first line was exactly my point. They are milking it. Exactly.

I would suspect that the price of gasoline will go down with increased domestic production of a significant level. Simple supply and demand.

Of course, the Chinese are raising demand darned fast, so it might be negligible. But without the increased domestic oil, the price will skyrocket.

My own observation is that BOTH sides of the aisle are suffering from thumb-in-butt disease. I sense that BOTH parties are lolllygagging through all of this. And I attribute this lackadaisical time-wasting in the face of a looming crisis

Agreed as well, both won't try to see anything positive on the other side. That's becoming a real problem in American politics, one side vrs. the other, with no middle ground.

As an independent, I'm a big fan of the middle ground.

This will take both more oil production to keep us going and HUGE advances in alternative energy.

Without the success of Altenergy, we're toast in the long run. (Even though I don't share your peak oil view now, one day it will be a reality.)

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 09:30 AM

Bluehawk,
#2) The poster who used the phrase "pipedream" in reference to your post was attacking your post, NOT you. Big difference.

See the preview of your pipe dream: USA relative to USSR and Satellites.

You see that, Scully? It says: "your" pipe dream, meaning MINE. It doesn't say "a" pipe dream, it says "your" pipe dream.

See the difference?

I thought you would.

Now, as the "don't fuck with me ombudsman whoever" said, discussion on this matter is over.

Bartholomew

08-12-2008, 09:32 AM

Once upon a time, in a far away land, a little snow elf played in the woods. He played alone, always alone, and sometimes boys from the town beneath the shadows of the hills would come exploring, see him, and run home with stories of ghosts.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:34 AM

I love my moderators.

Cranky

08-12-2008, 09:35 AM

That's enough, folks. Right now.

Move on to the OP, or back out of the thread is my very strong advice.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:37 AM

But Peak Oil believes in YOU, Joe. ;)

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:40 AM

But Peak Oil believes in YOU, Joe.

Gee, thanks, now I'm gonna have nightmares.

Cranky

08-12-2008, 09:41 AM

But Peak Oil believes in YOU, Joe. ;)

Peak Oil is a friendly sort, ain't it? :D

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:42 AM

Peak Oil is a friendly sort, ain't it? :D

She's an equal-oportunity apocalypse.

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:42 AM

Peak Oil is a friendly sort, ain't it?

Lives next to Sponge Bob and Patrick, I think.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:44 AM

Gee, thanks, now I'm gonna have nightmares.

Peak Oil is certainly MY worst nightmare.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:45 AM

Lives next to Sponge Bob and Patrick, I think.

Real chummy with those four guys on horses over there too. :D

Cranky

08-12-2008, 09:48 AM

Well, Peak Oil aside for a second, I can say that I am somewhat suspicious of whether or not this "streamling" approach will have the intended effects.

It could be a backdoor to some other hankypanky. It could have the intended effects. Either way, I'm not sure that a 30 day comment period before these changes are implemented are anything more than a hollow gesture.

*shrug*

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 09:49 AM

Joe270

08-12-2008, 09:50 AM

Peak Oil is certainly MY worst nightmare.

My worst nightmare? I dreamed I was sleeping in my parent's house in my old room, in the buff. Then Joan Rivers comes into the room, we were there because someone from her family was marrying into mine. She sat on the foot of the bed and started pulling down the covers, slowly.

I awoke in a cold sweat, screaming.

Cranky

08-12-2008, 09:51 AM

People better speak up fast. 30 days is a mighty short time on the Hill.

Exactly. Not to mention that I doubt very highly that they're going to wait 30 days to get ready to move on it, either.

Dawno

08-12-2008, 09:52 AM

Bluehawk - please listen to the arbiters and other members trying to give you fair warning - you need to back down immediately from the personal attacks. You're new, so you get a little leeway this time around.

MacAllister and I (the forum moderators) have posted about the expectations for participants in this forum in this thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107808), which is rather long, so the most important ones are in this index (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108965). The Newbie's Guide (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315) is also very helpful.

And the rest of you - like Cranky said above (and you've listened, thank you) stick to the topic.

Williebee

08-12-2008, 10:25 AM

Then Joan Rivers comes into the room, we were there because someone from her family was marrying into mine. She sat on the foot of the bed and started pulling down the covers, slowly.

And if the dog hadn't known how to dial 911 you'd both still be tied to the bed. bah-dump-bump

Peak Oil is a frightening prospect, as it should be. That's one of the reasons that those folks wanting us to drill as many places as possible, in order to drive the price of oil down, disturb me. Look at it this way, if it's in the ground, we can't burn it. It might be considered as defacto rationing.

Bartholomew

08-12-2008, 01:02 PM

And if the dog hadn't known how to dial 911 you'd both still be tied to the bed. bah-dump-bump

Peak Oil is a frightening prospect, as it should be. That's one of the reasons that those folks wanting us to drill as many places as possible, in order to drive the price of oil down, disturb me. Look at it this way, if it's in the ground, we can't burn it. It might be considered as defacto rationing.

My understanding is that Exxon-Mobil owns land, right now, that they could drill but choose not to. Is this legislature tied to that, somehow?

How come this bill never went through Congress? I'm very confused.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 04:40 PM

Bush's United States of Whatever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ9mQWFb0A4&feature=related

donroc

08-12-2008, 05:27 PM

robeiae

08-12-2008, 05:29 PM

Duly noted.

When you guys finally kill each other off after spending your worthless lives being wage-labor slaves at each others throats, the sane planet, where I'll be, will have finally worked out how to move mountains (even literally) with our minds.
:ROFL:

You'll be dead, a dirt farmer, or a shepherd--if things go really well.

Mandeville addressed this some time ago. He's as right then as he is, today.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 05:35 PM

You'll be dead, a dirt farmer, or a shepherd--if things go really well.

A shepherd. . . hmm, I like the sound of that. . . maybe I can find people who are lost. . . .

robeiae

08-12-2008, 05:41 PM

Rob, my first problem here is that you are citing only ONE study on polar bears which is refuting only ONE study on polar bears. It would be far more impressive if you could provide several dozen such studies which in turn refute several dozen.

My second problem is that the source of this contrarian (and minority) study you're citing was published by what I feel is (since --as I said above in Post #10-- the Senator from Idaho took the office) a biased and therefore unreliable source: the Department of the Interior. I would be far more impressed if you cited a study (or several dozen studies) by less supect sources than that.
As far as I know, no one is claiming the Polar Bear population has been on the decline. Note, that's not the same thing as claiming polar bears are dying, nor is it the same thing as arguing that the Polar Bear needs to be protected.

And this is, in my opinion, a red herring. The truth is that the MANY polar bear studies out there are all pointing to the shrinkage of the ice cap and to the subsequent decreasing body weight of polar bears each year. None of the studies are saying that the polars bears are (at this time) dying in record numbers. Instead the studies are sayng that the polar bears are in serious trouble and that they WILL start dying. It's a convenient smoke screen for them to say that no mass die-offs are happening at this time, when the existing studies are all only claiming that the mass die-offs will SOON start happening.
It's also convenient to not have any actual proof, but only "informed speculation" about what the future may hold. Then, when people question conclusions, it can be pushed off as their lack of knowledge.
And lastly, your entire argument that "the raison d'etre of the rule change: the attempt to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation" isn't even valid because the President has no business playing Kindergarten Cop with the duly appointed fiunctioning and powers of the EPA in some false pretense to try and even up the playing field between the big bad EPA and ... whoever. This "justification" of trying to run interference against a supposed dirty play by shady environmentalists is in itself a dirty play masquerading as fair-mindedness.I disagree. And you offer nothing to demonstrate that my argument is "invalid." You're just giving your opinion.

I see no honor or benefit for this nation in the President de-fanging the EPA because he THINKS there is no valid connection between global warming and human emissions. From where I stand, I see no valid connection between his oath of office to serve the people of the United States and this tragic abuse of power.
Read that first article I linked to. Is it possible, just possible, that some of the "protecting" the EPA is doing is really no such thing? Perish the thought...

And I like how we finish up with a healthy dose of Bush's evilness.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:02 PM

I am drooling over one alternative regarding tranportation, which would eliminate my (and that of many others) reliance on oil, and that is the 440+++kph train in China. As the commentator said, it is one step away from teleportation.

Bring back and build more networks of trains and trolleys, and I shall be the happiest commuter and domestic traveler.

In a case of necessity, one can always lease a car for a short time.

Think of the additional jobs created building and running the things, plus for many the
$$$ saved on fuel, auto insurance, and cost of car.

Alternative Energy: How many revolutions do you think one of the wheels on your automobile makes while you're on your way to your weekly church service? Times that by four. Add in everyone else's automobile the world over. Now, how much energy do you think that might be?

Something close to perpetual motion could be achieved within each automobile, making it virtually self-sufficient. But not only that, all this energy from all the automobiles all over the world could be transmitted through the air, much like radio waves, cell phone signals, Wi-Fi signals, HAARP frequencies, even just good ol' regular Teslean electricity being transmitted through the air (may J. P. Morgan's soul burn in his own self-made hell for snuffing out Tesla's work so that Morgan himself could sell his stockpile of copper and force people to use wires in transmitting their electricity so that he could put a meter on it), and sent to central processing centers that could then send the energy, once again via the air, to EVERY HUMAN HOME ON THE PLANET. . . even if it's in the remotest jungle, in the remotest part of the world.

I'm telling you, the evils of Capitalism are not needed. Humans have just been brainwashed into thinking that they need it. The international bankers (the Morgans, the Windsors, the Romanoffs, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, etc.) are above all governments and responsible for all sufferings of humanity. They can come snuff me out even now, but Contributionism is still coming, and their power is still dying. . . .

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:12 PM

Alternative Energy: How many revolutions do you think one of the wheels on your automobile makes while you're on your way to your weekly church service? Times that by four. Add in everyone else's automobile the world over. Now, how much energy do you think that might be?

Something close to perpetual motion could be achieved within each automobile, making it virtually self-sufficient. But not only that, all this energy from all the automobiles all over the world could be transmitted through the air, much like radio waves, cell phone signals, Wi-Fi signals, HAARP frequencies, even just good ol' regular Teslean electricity being transmitted through the air (may J. P. Morgan's soul burn in his own self-made hell for snuffing out Tesla's work so that Morgan himself could sell his stockpile of copper and force people to use wires in transmitting their electricity so that he could put a meter on it), and sent to central processing centers that could then send the energy, once again via the air, to EVERY HUMAN HOME ON THE PLANET. . . even if it's in the remotest jungle, in the remotest part of the world.

I'm telling you, the evils of Capitalism are not needed. Humans have just been brainwashed into thinking that they need it. The international bankers (the Morgans, the Windsors, the Romanoffs, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, etc.) are above all governments and responsible for all sufferings of humanity. They can come snuff me out even now, but Contributionism is still coming, and their power is still dying. . . .
What do you think "capitalism" is, Bluehawk?

'Cause you know, improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--is a staple of a capitalistic system.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:20 PM

What do you think "capitalism" is, Bluehawk?

'Cause you know, improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--is a staple of a capitalistic system.

Capitalism keeps viable, safe and FREE alternative energies from coming into being because the slave owners (all but in name) will lose their power; we will no longer be slaves when we are able to cut the figurative 13-ringed-oil-noose away from our necks.

Contributionism is my term, and it works. Capitalism only conquers and enslaves.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:24 PM

Capitalism keeps viable, safe and FREE alternative energies from coming into being because the slave owners (all but in name) will lose their power; we will no longer be slaves when we are able to cut the figurative 13-ringed-oil-noose away from our necks.

Contributionism is my term, and it works. Capitalism only conquers and enslaves.
Again, what is "capitalism" in your mind? You're not answering the question, just railing against a strawman.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:24 PM

What do you think "capitalism" is, Bluehawk?

'Cause you know, improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--is a staple of a capitalistic system.

You're missing, and distracting away from, the point here anyway.

Do you not see one of the most efficient forms of energy ever created by humans in my above post?

Well guess what, I've got another one even better. . . .

Captshady

08-12-2008, 06:28 PM

Okay, so the government is to blame for high oil prices, and the answer is to give the government full control over any and all manufacturing and commerce, and somehow we'll come out of that with free energy?

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:29 PM

What do you think "capitalism" is, Bluehawk?

'Cause you know, improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--is a staple of a capitalistic system.

Capitalism is ONLY a way to control human beings. Improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--can be done much better WITHOUT Capitalism, and we'll stop strangling each other over matters that are, ultimately, petty; it's just that Capitalism makes them seem ALL IMPORTANT.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:30 PM

Do you not see one of the most efficient forms of energy ever created by human in my above post?
Spinning wheels on cars? You're kidding, right? Friction. And entropy. There's no "perpetual motion" to be had. Perpetual motion machines don't produce excess energy, anyway. In theory, they produce enough energy to power just themselves. But they don't work.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:31 PM

You're missing, and distracting away from, the point here anyway.

Do you not see one of the most efficient forms of energy ever created by humans in my above post?

Well guess what, I've got another one even better. . . .

Capitalism is ONLY a way to control human beings. Improving efficiency--through invention and innovation--can be done much better WITHOUT Capitalism, and we'll stop strangling each other over matters that are, ultimately, petty; it's just that Capitalism makes them seem ALL IMPORTANT.
What IS capitalism? Any answer?

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:32 PM

Captshady

08-12-2008, 06:32 PM

Is that what you believe?

No, not at all. What's your alternative then, to Capitalism? I assumed socialism.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 06:33 PM

Brick walls. . . .

AncientEagle

08-12-2008, 06:37 PM

Capitalism keeps viable, safe and FREE alternative energies from coming into being because the slave owners (all but in name) will lose their power; we will no longer be slaves when we are able to cut the figurative 13-ringed-oil-noose away from our necks.

Contributionism is my term, and it works. Capitalism only conquers and enslaves.

Don't keep holding back, Bluehawk. Tell us how you really feel.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 06:58 PM

Brick walls. . . .
Now, I must admit to being really confused. Capitalism is brick walls? Well, I guess metaphorically, I can see how someone might opt for the statement...but it's really not getting us any closer to what you think the word means.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:15 PM

As far as I know, no one is claiming the Polar Bear population has been on the decline. Note, that's not the same thing as claiming polar bears are dying, nor is it the same thing as arguing that the Polar Bear needs to be protected.

Note, you are justifying the strategic employment of vague language and an unabashed lack of straightforward talking.

It's also convenient to not have any actual proof, but only "informed speculation" about what the future may hold. Then, when people question conclusions, it can be pushed off as their lack of knowledge.

There is ample proof that the polar bears are all losing more and more body weight every year.They have been capturing (and then releasing) many random polar bears for decades now and taking many measurements of each specimen, including body weight. The average body weight of an adult female polar bear was 640 pounds. And much of that weight was a crucial layer of body fat. But over the course of 25 years that average has crept down to just 510 pounds. Game wardens in Canada are very alarmed at seeing these visibly thinner polar bears, and equally alarmed at seeing the recorded data on paper of their average body weights as being collected by researchers. That body fat is essential because it

1) insulates them against the cold
2) keeps them bouyant when they swim long distances (they can easilly swim 30 miles non-stop)
3) is a back-up food supply to fall back on when food is scarce

But the ice has been melting. So the bears have literally been losing weight due to three factors which both stem from the melting ice.

a) the average distances they now have to swim when they hop from ice floe to ice floe typically exceeds 60 miles (an entirely new development, they CAN swim 60 miles non-stop, they can even swim 200 miles non-stop if they absolutely must, but those distances are NOT supposed to be the daily norm --you and I could easilly walk 10 miles non-stop, or maybe even 40 miles non-stop, but that is not supposed to be our daily norm), so they are all getting a serious Olympic workout on a scale they never had before, and losing weight because of it (and some of them actually fatigue and drown before they can make it to the next ice floe; researchers in 2005 found 4 drowned polar bears that year)
b) the other animlas that they eat are less available due to the ice floes being less available
c) they are expending so much energy from swimming that they have less energy left over to engage in hunting, so they are not as sucessful at hunting during those times when locate quarry (right now the cubs are suffering the most, and they are the ones who are dying, so the next generation of polar bears is going to be far less and via THAT generation is when their population will REALLY start going down)

ALL of the above data on polar bears losing body weight is linked directly to the shrinking ice. So the conclusion reached by the scientists is: stop the ice from shrinking and the polar bears will be okay. What's so gawd-awful deceptive about THAT sort of a conclusion?

I disagree. And you offer nothing to demonstrate that my argument is "invalid." You're just giving your opinion.

Correct, just as you gave YOUR opinion that "the raison d'etre of the rule change:" was to STOP environmentalists from this alleged conspiracy "to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation" even though

I) the supposed justification is to help streamline the process, and so the issue of stopping a global warming agenda should not have been part of the president's decision (just my opinion)
II) the President of the United States has no business stripping powers and jurisdiction away from a federal agency like the EPA -- he has neither just cause, nor did he follow due process, instead he back-doored his way into this infringing and power-mad degree of legislation (just my opinion)

Read that first article I linked to. Is it possible, just possible, that some of the "protecting" the EPA is doing is really no such thing? Perish the thought...

No.

I did read it, but I will not allow you to change the subject at hand which is whether or not Bush even has the right to do this. Trying to shift gears into whether the EPA has internal flaws is another thread. Go make another thread.

Don

08-12-2008, 07:17 PM

A less convincing argument I have rarely seen in print - anedoctal evidence about human behavior affecting one species in one area of the country at best. And something that could be effectively solved by closing a loophole in the law.

In any case, it's irrelevant with respect to Bush's rule change, because his rule change affects federal projects, not private development.
Great misinterpretation. It's actually three well-told tales that reinforce this sentence.

Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in a place like Washington, it is the law of unintended consequences.

Focusing on the specifics from one angle of one case instead of looking at the overall thrust of the action (or theme of the article) increases the likelihood that you'll end up with... unintended consequences. Interesting how the theme of the article repeats itself within the discussion, isn't it?

Captshady

08-12-2008, 07:23 PM

Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone? Why oh why, is it not mentioned anymore? Why is it suddenly NOT "global warming", but "global climate change?" Too many give science carte blanc, but when it comes down to new government fines, and tax penalties, I cry fowl.

Plot Device

08-12-2008, 07:24 PM

Spinning wheels on cars? You're kidding, right? Friction. And entropy. There's no "perpetual motion" to be had. Perpetual motion machines don't produce excess energy, anyway. In theory, they produce enough energy to power just themselves. But they don't work.

I am 100% behind you here, Rob.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not permit perpetual motion machines to exist beyond mere self-sustainability. There is always a loss of energy, and that loss just increases exponentially with each additional attempt to divert any of the energy away from the closed system of the machine's self-sustainability. Friction starts multiplying, drag starts multiplying, heat loss starts multiplying, and that is how energy loss starts building exponentially. It's a sad and sorry state of affairs, but it's part of what holds the universe together. (Don't blame me though. Any complaints and you can take it up with God and Isaac Newton.)

If anyone thinks they can outsmart the Laws of Thermodynamics ...

.... swamp land anybody?

.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 07:33 PM

Note, you are justifying the strategic employment of vague language and an unabashed lack of straightforward talking.
In your opinion. And that's fine. I think what I am saying is quite straightforward.

There is ample proof that the polar bears are all losing more and more body weight every year.They have been capturing (and then releasing) many random polar bears for decades now and taking many measurements of each specimen, including body weight. The average body weight of an adult female polar bear was 640 pounds. And much of that weight was a crucial layer of body fat. But over the course of 25 years that average has crept down to just 510 pounds. Game wardens in Canada are very alarmed at seeing these visibly thinner polar bears, and equally alarmed at seeing the recorded data on paper of their average body weights as being collected by researchers. That body fat is essential because it

1) insulates them against the cold
2) keeps them bouyant when they swim long distances (they can easilly swim 30 miles non-stop)
3) is a back-up food supply to fall back on when food is scarce

But the ice has been melting. So the bears have literally been losing weight due to three factors which both stem from the melting ice.

a) the average distances they now have to swim when they hop from ice floe to ice floe typically exceeds 60 miles (an entirely new development, they CAN swim 60 miles non-stop, they can even swim 200 miles non-stop if they absolutely must, but those distances are NOT supposed to be the daily norm --you and I could easilly walk 10 miles non-stop, or maybe even 40 miles non-stop, but that is not supposed to be our daily norm), so they are all getting a serious Olympic workout on a scale they never had before, and losing weight because of it (and some of them actually fatigue and drown before they can make it to the next ice floe; researchers in 2005 found 4 drowned polar bears that year)
b) the other animlas that they eat are less available due to the ice floes being less available
c) they are expending so much energy from swimming that they have less energy left over to engage in hunting, so they are not as sucessful at hunting during those times when locate quarry (right now the cubs are suffering the most, and they are the ones who are dying, so the next generation of polar bears is going to be far less and via THAT generation is when their population will REALLY start going down)

ALL of the above data on polar bears losing body weight is linked directly to the shrinking ice. So the conclusion reached by the scientists is: stop the ice from shrinking and the polar bears will be okay. What's so gawd-awful deceptive about THAT sort of a conclusion?
And your sources are? Look, if you are gonna criticize me for not giving enough sources, you should at least provide one yourself, no?

Correct, just as you gave YOUR opinion that "the raison d'etre of the rule change:" was to STOP environmentalists from this alleged conspiracy "to force a global warming agenda down the country's throat, via the polar bear situation" even though

I) the supposed justification is to help streamline the process, and so the issue of stopping a global warming agenda should not have been part of the president's decision (just my opinion)
II) the President of the United States has no business stripping powers and jurisdiction away from a federal agency like the EPA -- he has neither just cause, nor did he follow due process, instead he back-doored his way into this infringing and power-mad degree of legislation (just my opinion)
As long as we know we're talking opinions when we're talking opinions, I'm good to go. You claimed mine was "invalid."

But look, the President of the United States certainly does have oversight over federal agencies, when those agencies are involved in enforcement activities. The EPA is such an agency. In fact, it is DIRECTLY responsible to the President. And you're mischaracterizing what is going on here: he's not stripping any powers from the EPA.

Regardless, he'll be out of office, soon enough. Really, this would all go much smoother if someone could point to some oil companies or the like that stand to benefit immediately from this action, as the new President can reinstate the previous guidelines with a a wave of the pen.

No.

I did read it, but I will not allow you to change the subject at hand which is whether or not Bush even has the right to do this. Trying to shift gears into whether the EPA has internal flaws is another thread. Go make another thread.So far, no one--including you--has offered a substantive argument on Bush's "right" to do this. And the internal flaws of the EPA are--according TO THE ARTICLE IN THE OP--the reasons for his actions. I would say that the internal workings of the EPA are therefore quite germane.

MattW

08-12-2008, 07:59 PM

Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone? Why oh why, is it not mentioned anymore? Why is it suddenly NOT "global warming", but "global climate change?" When conflicting data about heating and cooling comes up, you have to roll with the punches to continue getting research grants and writing white papers for government agencies...

Right now, Climate Change is the vocal majority, because no one is sure if we're heating or cooling. If more proof comes out that neither is happening, Climate Stability groups will be popping up asking for their share of the pie.

bluehawk

08-12-2008, 08:37 PM

Maaan, this is my last post in this thread; I don't like arguing.

And I reeeaally don't like someone pointing a gun in my face.

clintl

08-12-2008, 08:47 PM

Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone? Why oh why, is it not mentioned anymore?

Largely because since the banning of chlorofluorocarbons, the rate of ozone depletion has stabilized, and the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050, or a little later. The scientists were right, and the ozone hole skeptics were wrong. If you're trying to use that to cast doubt on whether humans are causing climate change, there's hardly a worse example you could have chosen for your purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Captshady

08-12-2008, 08:55 PM

Largely because since the banning of chlorofluorocarbons, the rate of ozone depletion has stabilized, and the ozone layer is expected to recover by 2050, or a little later. The scientists were right, and the ozone hole skeptics were wrong. If you're trying to use that to cast doubt on whether humans are causing climate change, there's hardly a worse example you could have chosen for your purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Yeah, except I remember the alarmist's statements. There was no use of the term global climate change during the ozone depletion days, and the ozone hole was THE cause of global warming, not "one of" or A contributor of.

kuwisdelu

08-12-2008, 09:04 PM

When conflicting data about heating and cooling comes up, you have to roll with the punches to continue getting research grants and writing white papers for government agencies...

Right now, Climate Change is the vocal majority, because no one is sure if we're heating or cooling. If more proof comes out that neither is happening, Climate Stability groups will be popping up asking for their share of the pie.

Sorry, no. It was long predicted that global warming eventually leads to global cooling (in a way). Just watch The Day After Tomorrow (now remember there is no way it would happen that fast or that soon, and I'm not recommending it as any kind of real source on climate charge....just saying that's how a general trend of warming leads to all kinds of climate change, including cooling). When the planet as a whole warms up, freshwater ice melts into the ocean, changing how the underwater currents interact, and leading to a much more complicated climate change than "warming" refers to. In a sense, "global warming" is the cause, and "climate change" is the effect. They're not conflicting terms. It has nothing to do with "not being sure," it has to do with describing a process.

Captshady

08-12-2008, 09:08 PM

Sorry, no. It was long predicted that global warming eventually leads to global cooling (in a way).

Please, link a source for your "long predicted" statement.
Just two or three years ago, Gore was snowed out at an East Coast conference on global warming, not global climate change.

clintl

08-12-2008, 09:09 PM

Ozone depletion and global warming/climate change are two different things. They are not related.

Ozone depletion is caused by chemical reactions that break down stratospheric ozone. Chlorofluorocarbons speed up the reactions, so that the breakdown of ozone occurs faster than the natural chemical reactions in the stratosphere that produce the ozone.

Global warming is caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, with some contributions from water vapor and methane). Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation reflected by the Earth's surface, trapping heat in the atmosphere.

I do not recall any scientist ever linking ozone depletion and global warming. It's a common misconception (and one we deal with very explicitly in our earth science curriculum).

sassandgroove

08-12-2008, 09:14 PM

I am not going to refer to a bad fiction movie as a guide for real world climate phenomena.

clintl

08-12-2008, 09:30 PM

I am not going to refer to a bad fiction movie as a guide for real world climate phenomena.

No, but the movie idea did come from a real scientific hypothesis, namely that if enough fresh water from melting Greenland ice runs off into the sea, it could dilute the sea water in the region enough to disrupt ocean current patterns and shut off the Gulf Stream. It's a controversial idea, but it is by no means something the makers of The Day After Tomorrow originated.

kuwisdelu

08-12-2008, 09:41 PM

Please, link a source for your "long predicted" statement.
Just two or three years ago, Gore was snowed out at an East Coast conference on global warming, not global climate change.

2004:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/041217_sealevel_rise.html

Scientists hope new evidence of an ancient rise in sea level from a fresh water flood will tell them how global warming can lead to global cooling.
...
The oceans work on a sort of conveyor belt method to circulate cold and warm waters, thereby helping control cold, moderate, and warm areas of the globe. (Earth's climate is only partly affected by land temperatures and sunlight. Oceans, which store vast amounts of energy and are slow to warm up and cool down, contribute greatly to climate.)

But what happens if that conveyor belt stops or slows down?

Cold, fresh water sinks, and warm salty water rises. The influx of fresh water into the Hudson Bay from Lake Agassiz provided a barrier against the warm, salty water struggling to move north on the conveyor belt. This effectively shut down the circulation of warm water in the Northern Atlantic.

With warm waters unable to move as far north the world became cooler. The amount of water Lake Agassiz dumped into the ocean is equivalent to how much the seas rose. Knowing these amounts will tell scientists how much fresh water could create this type of climate change nowadays, were a bunch of it to suddenly find its way into the ocean.

1999:

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html

Scientists announced in the July 21, 1999, edition of the journal Nature findings that suggest that global warming can sometimes lead to cold weather or even a worldwide freeze.

Scientists have long known that a severe cold spell occurred after the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, approximately 8,200 years ago. The cause, however, has been a mystery. The authors of the Nature article write that the centuries long cold spell might have been caused by meltwater from the disappearing glaciers, cooling the North Atlantic.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5442/1104

Large ice sheets actively interact with the rest of the climate system by amplifying, pacing, and potentially driving global climate change over several time scales. Direct and indirect influences of ice sheets on climate cause changes in ocean surface temperatures, ocean circulation, continental water balance, vegetation, and land-surface albedo, which in turn cause additional feedbacks in the climate system and help to synchronize global climate change.

"Global warming" refers to the general trend of the average worldwide temperature rising, with a variety of consequences, from ice sheets melting to rising seas and increase of tropic disease. "Climate change" is, in a way, one of those consequences, referring to the regional changes in climate as a result of the impact of global warming.

Captshady

08-12-2008, 10:32 PM

"Global warming" refers to the general trend of the average worldwide temperature rising, with a variety of consequences, from ice sheets melting to rising seas and increase of tropic disease. "Climate change" is, in a way, one of those consequences, referring to the regional changes in climate as a result of the impact of global warming.

Real interesting reading. It makes you wonder why it's only recently been labeled global climate change.

kuwisdelu

08-12-2008, 10:45 PM

Real interesting reading. It makes you wonder why it's only recently been labeled global climate change.

Well, it's not being "re-labeled." They refer to different things. "Global warming" isn't an outdated term, really, it only feels like it is because it no longer accurately refers to the whole situation, or the situation that many people are experiencing. Like I said, it's part of a process. It wasn't called "climate change" on a wide-scale before (though you'll find the term in some places) because none of the "climate change" part had really happened yet; it was just part of a prediction.

rugcat

08-12-2008, 11:01 PM

I am not going to refer to a bad fiction movie as a guide for real world climate phenomena.Sorry for the quick derail, but do you remember the scene in the library where they are arguing about the necessity of burning books for heat? Huge trauma, and all the time they were sitting in wooden chairs at wooden tables.

robeiae

08-12-2008, 11:11 PM

Those were "old growth" chairs and tables.

sassandgroove

08-13-2008, 12:18 AM

Sorry for the quick derail, but do you remember the scene in the library where they are arguing about the necessity of burning books for heat? Huge trauma, and all the time they were sitting in wooden chairs at wooden tables.
sorry - I haven't seen it. But that does sound silly. Wait, that's part of WHY i didn't see it.

*Chuckles at 'old growth' chairs and tables*

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 12:22 AM

sorry - I haven't seen it. But that does sound silly. Wait, that's part of WHY i didn't see it.

*Chuckles at 'old growth' chairs and tables*

Silly or not, that scene was pretty funny, though...

Jeremy: Friedrich Nietzsche? We cannot burn Friedrich Nietzsche! He was the most important thinker of the 19th century!
Elsa: Oh, please! Nietzsche was a chauvinist pig who was in love with his sister.
Jeremy: He was not a chauvinist pig!
Elsa: But he was in love with his sister.
Brian: Uh, excuse me, you guys? Yeah. There's a whole section on tax law down here that we can burn.

sassandgroove

08-13-2008, 12:32 AM

Someone mentioned that drilling now wouldn't bring now the price of gas and even so, it would be years until we can use it. But I say, so what. If we don't, gas could be way more expensive, and if we don't start now, what will be do all those years later. The issue isn't just the price of gas, the issue is we are importing a resource we have already but aren't allowed to tap into. THat's just stupid.

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 12:36 AM

With gas prices already going down somewhat, it just seems like that effort would be much more worthwhile going into research and development of better alternative energy.

Captshady

08-13-2008, 12:48 AM

With gas prices already going down somewhat, it just seems like that effort would be much more worthwhile going into research and development of better alternative energy.

It's private money that'd be doing the drilling, isn't it?

sassandgroove

08-13-2008, 12:53 AM

With gas prices already going down somewhat, it just seems like that effort would be much more worthwhile going into research and development of better alternative energy.
But we have to have something to USE until there are viable alternatives.

Captshady makes a good point to.

Sarpedon

08-13-2008, 01:00 AM

<moan> I missed someone coming in with all manner of unscientific theories!

Perpetual motion, transmitting energy through the air, good grief!

Here's an interesting article in the meantime, so my post isn't just worthless whining: Basically, bacteria converting plant waste into deisel fuel.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/08/12/bug.diesel/index.html

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 01:10 AM

It's private money that'd be doing the drilling, isn't it?

Private money is still good for alternative energy, isn't it?

But we have to have something to USE until there are viable alternatives.

We wouldn't see that oil for several years down the line, though. If the country works together toward green energy independence, we could all be using alternatives in the same time it would take that oil to get to market. This goes back to the Al Gore challenge thread a while back. If we could make it to the moon in ten years, why not do the same with energy?

sassandgroove

08-13-2008, 01:22 AM

We wouldn't see that oil for several years down the line, though.I keep hearing that again and again. If I plant wheat I won't have grain for however long it takes for wheat to grow. Does that mean I shouldn't plant it because I won't have it right now? No. The fact that we won't be able to use it right now doesn't mean we should not start drilling right now.

If the country works together toward green energy independence, we could all be using alternatives in the same time it would take that oil to get to market. This goes back to the Al Gore challenge thread a while back. If we could make it to the moon in ten years, why not do the same with energy?We're going in circles. Viable alternatives may or may not be ready in 10 years. I for one don't want to put all the eggs in the 'eco friendly green basket' and then in 10 years from now find we should have started drilling back in good 'ol 2008.

Don

08-13-2008, 01:25 AM

Private money is still good for alternative energy, isn't it?

We wouldn't see that oil for several years down the line, though. If the country works together toward green energy independence, we could all be using alternatives in the same time it would take that oil to get to market. This goes back to the Al Gore challenge thread a while back. If we could make it to the moon in ten years, why not do the same with energy?
Oil has lots of uses besides energy. Actually, I've been saying for 40 years that oil's too valuable to burn. Plastics and medicines, even some foodstuffs (yech) come immediately to mind. Even if we find a solution to the energy problem, we'll still need oil for all those other uses.

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 01:28 AM

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 01:32 AM

Oil has lots of uses besides energy. Actually, I've been saying for 40 years that oil's too valuable to burn. Plastics and medicines, even some foodstuffs (yech) come immediately to mind. Even if we find a solution to the energy problem, we'll still need oil for all those other uses.

Oh, certainly. Does anyone know the numbers on how much oil we use for those purposes vs. how much oil we already produce domestically?

Don

08-13-2008, 01:51 AM

Oh, certainly. Does anyone know the numbers on how much oil we use for those purposes vs. how much oil we already produce domestically?
I think a better question would be how much oil will we be using for those purposes in ten years, vs. how much oil we will be producing domestically in ten years, with and without the additional drilling being proposed.

Mr. Fix

08-13-2008, 02:28 AM

I hear Mars has water! And Titan has a lake of methane. So is this proof that things like oil (As such things like methane) are organic? And produced continually by the planet(s)? (And spread through-out the universe?) Or is our driving cars here on earth causing the methane lake on Titan? And is the EPA policies here on earth protecting Mars' water by keeping it "on ice" until we can terraform that planet for our own uses?

The Ice cap in the north is not becoming "smaller" it is simple moving towards Siberia and moving onto the landmass which is caused by the magnetic pole shift.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

"Polar bears often move over huge distances in their annual cycle. Because population estimates are very difficult to obtain in the Arctic, census data are patchy for some polar bear subpopulations. The current overall estimate is 20-25,000 wild polar bears. " (This is the highest figure I've ever read!)

"According to the report, 5 subpopulations are in decline, 5 are stable and there is insufficient data on the other subpopulations to make an assessment." (Out of 19 sub-populations this sounds like they really can't say whats happening to the population right now. Another site stated 2 are increasing and seven are unknown. No scientific consensus here!)

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_do/arctic/polar_bear/about_the_bears/populationstatus/index.cfm

Sarpedon

08-13-2008, 02:32 AM

huh? Titan has lakes of methane because its cold enough there that methane is liquid. I bet that if you cooled earth down enough, the methane we have in the atmosphere would rain down, and form lakes.

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 02:35 AM

I hear Mars has water! And Titan has a lake of methane. So is this proof that things like oil (As such things like methane) are organic? And produced continually by the planet(s)? Or is our driving cars here on earth causing the methane lake on Titan? And is the EPA policies here on earth protecting Mars' water by keeping it "on ice" until we can terraform that planet for our own uses?

Frankly, I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Oil is organic...we know where it comes from...the earth does naturally produce it, just not nearly as quickly as we use it up. And I'm not sure what cars and the EPA have to do with Titan or Mars? Although I think--like with peak oil and climate change--by the time more people start taking our need to terraform Mars seriously, it'll be too late, then, too. Anyway. What are you talking about?

blacbird

08-13-2008, 02:47 AM

The Ice cap in the north is not becoming "smaller" it is simple moving towards Siberia and moving onto the landmass which is caused by the magnetic pole shift.

The earth's magnetic poles move constantly and rather rapidly.

The northern "ice cap" isn't really an ice cap in the sense that the southern one is, being made of relatively thin floating sea ice rather than thick, flowing land-based glacial ice. And it most emphatically isn't "moving onto the landmass" in Siberia. In fact, Siberia, just like Alaska and northern Canada, is experiencing a rapid loss in permafrost.

And I don't have a clue what the rest of your post is supposed to mean.

caw

Mr. Fix

08-13-2008, 02:49 AM

We need oil now!

We can rehash all the arguments about "Global Climate Change" (as its now called) you want. The facts are not available to make any sane argument about any changes. Remember we've been coming out of an Ice Age for the last 25,000 years. If the planet ain't cooling - its warming - duh! If you put the current weather patterns into the "computer models" that Algore has used for his stupid propaganda machine - they won't match! None of the computer models used in this 'fearmongering' lame argument WORK WITH TODAYS WEATHER!

Oil obssessed?

That thingy in front of you that you stare into and bang out your words on is mostly made from petroleum by-products. Consider all the plastics in a hospital not being available due to the lack of oil (petroleum by-products). How safe would you feel about your healthcare then?

We need oil to exist in our modern world. Unless you are talking about the almost 'genecide' levels of death needed to "get back to nature" nothing will change soon. And if alternative energy was workable and profitable WE'D ALREADY HAVE IT!

Wind isn't consistant enough to power a city. Solar isn't powerful enough to push a bus across the desert. Nuclear, Hydro and Geo-thermal are constantly under the attacks of eviromentalist lawsuits. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO GET OFF OIL? (without using empty statements like "by using clean energy")
:Soapbox:

rugcat

08-13-2008, 03:04 AM

I keep hearing that again and again. If I plant wheat I won't have grain for however long it takes for wheat to grow. Does that mean I shouldn't plant it because I won't have it right now? No. The fact that we won't be able to use it right now doesn't mean we should not start drilling right now. First of all, the oil we get is not going to be for our exclusive use. The oil produced goes into the world oil market, and the increased oil on the market hopefully lowers prices. But the amount avauilable from offshore drilling is so small, comparitively, that it will have an almost negligible influence on prices.

So as much as people don't want to believe it, offshore drilling will not help in any significant way, now or ten years from now.

Second, it's not that there's oil is just sitting out there that bad people don't want you to have. There's a serious risk of enviromental disaster from off shore drilling. And for those of you who think it a small price to pay for knocking a few cents off at the pump, consider that a severe spill could devastate the fishing industry. Many food fish stocks are already at dangerously low levels. An oil spill could take decades to recover from, and in some cases the fishing industry might never recover.

Again, off shore oil drilling won't do a thing to solve our problems even in the short run. It's a useless proposition, and a dangerous one to boot.

Mr. Fix

08-13-2008, 03:15 AM

First of all, the oil we get is not going to be for our exclusive use. If our enemies attack our middle-east supplies it would be nice to have our own sources available for our own use! The oil produced goes into the world oil market, and the increased oil on the market hopefully lowers prices. But the amount avauilable from offshore drilling is so small, comparitively, What? Our off-shore reserves in California alone are considered to be equal to the supply in Saudi Arabia. (Link will appear below) that it will have an almost negligible influence on prices.

So as much as people don't want to believe it, offshore drilling will not help in any significant way, now or ten years from now. BS! Opinion doesn't trump facts!

Second, it's not that there's oil is just sitting out there that bad people don't want you to have. Environmentalist Lawsuits state otherwise! There's a serious risk of enviromental disaster from off shore drilling. How much oil spilled after Katrina and the thousands of oil rigs out on the Gulf of Mexico? And for those of you who think it a small price to pay for knocking a few cents off at the pump, consider that a severe spill could devastate the fishing industry. Like after Katrina? Many food fish stocks are already at dangerously low levels. Thank Japan! An oil spill could take decades to recover from, and in some cases the fishing industry might never recover. Ooooh, scary!

Again, off shore oil drilling won't do a thing to solve our problems even in the short run. It's a useless proposition, and a dangerous one to boot.

Blah, blah blah!

Old arguments that just don't stand up anymore. The Enviromental wacko beliefs of the '70's have been trumped by modern technology.

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/8433 (Anti-Bush, but the facts are here!)

http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/california-santa-barbara-channel-lease/story.aspx?guid=%7B57A37DAC-4590-4EE7-96B9-EC9E86AEC27C%7D&dist=hppr

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030714092329.htm (Ahhhh, the poor fishies! We should build them some more homes to protect them!)

PS: I was wrong! Its not Cali that can equal the Saudi oil output - its the oil shale reserves in the Rocky Mts. (My bad.):Shrug:

Dawno

08-13-2008, 03:35 AM

Let's remember to keep the conversation friendly - not that it isn't, but this appears to be a hot button topic and tempers could flare, so I thought a reminder was in order.

Next time, I get out the kittens...you've been warned :)

rugcat

08-13-2008, 04:14 AM

Blah, blah blah!

Old arguments that just don't stand up anymore. The Enviromental wacko beliefs of the '70's have been trumped by modern technology. Definition of "wacko" beliefs: Those that differ from your own.

PS: I was wrong! Its not Cali that can equal the Saudi oil output - its the oil shale reserves in the Rocky Mts. (My bad.):Shrug:

Oil shale is a different subject.

It's estimated that we could someday perhaps produce as much as 3 billion barrels of oil a year from offshore drilling plus drillling in places like ANWR. The world currently uses 87.5 billion barrels a year. So, considering the increased demand, drilling in offshore and other environmently sensitive areas would add about 3% to the world oil supply.

And some dangers in offshore drilling:

The Case against Offshore Oil
(compiled by Rainforest Action Network, courtesy Mendocino Environmental Center)

l A steady stream of pollution from offshore rigs causes a wide range of health and reproductive problems for fish and other marine life.
l Offshore drilling exposes wildlife to the threat of oil spills that would devastate their populations.
l Offshore drilling activities destroy kelp beds, reefs and coastal wetlands.
Over its lifetime, a single oil rig can:
l Dump more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean;
l Drill between 50-100 wells, each dumping 25,000 pounds of toxic metals, such as lead, chromium and mercury, and potent carcinogens like toluene, benzene, and xylene into the ocean, and
l Pollute the air as much as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles a day.

History of accidents and violations

l In May 1992, Chevron USA pleaded guilty to 65 violations of the Clean Water Act and paid $8 million in fines for illegal discharges from the company's production platform of the California coast.
l In March 1997, Chevron was fined 1.2 million for operating a well off the coast of Ventura with a broken ant-blowout valve, a key environmental protection on an offshore oil well.
l In 1998, a rupture in Torch Oil's pipeline spilled 21,000 gallons of oil, damaging a rich ocean fishing ground and killing wildlife in the delicate coastal ecosystem at the mouth of the Santa Ynez River.
l State and local authorities repeatedly cited the Venoco Corporation for releases of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas at its Goleta platform in 1998-99.
l An ARCO pipeline ruptured in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, spilling 193,000 gallons of oil into the Santa Clara River.

clintl

08-13-2008, 05:46 AM

I'm surprised the Santa Barbara spill of 1969 isn't on the list. That was a huge spill.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69oilspill/69oilspill_articles2.html

MattW

08-13-2008, 06:30 AM

I keep hearing that again and again. If I plant wheat I won't have grain for however long it takes for wheat to grow. Does that mean I shouldn't plant it because I won't have it right now? No. The fact that we won't be able to use it right now doesn't mean we should not start drilling right now.

We're going in circles. Viable alternatives may or may not be ready in 10 years. I for one don't want to put all the eggs in the 'eco friendly green basket' and then in 10 years from now find we should have started drilling back in good 'ol 2008.You've got it.

It's not as if we can (or should) turn oil rig workers into solar research scientists. It's not an either/or proposition - we do a little of everything, and we have a diverse portfolio of energy sources. Do what it takes for the short term, and cast a wide net for the long term.

Not to mention all of those plastics and other uses for petroleum products. Still gonna need to fill that demand, and that research has to happen as well.

blacbird

08-13-2008, 07:10 AM

Not to mention all of those plastics and other uses for petroleum products. Still gonna need to fill that demand, and that research has to happen as well.

And is. Everyday. In industrial and academic instutions across the nation. Much of it with various forms of federal funding through grants, scholarships, etc. That's the way the bulk of research actually gets done, and most people don't understand it.

caw

X900BattleGrape

08-13-2008, 07:13 AM

My president is an arrogant, idiotic ASSHOLE.

I don't like Bush much, but I have seen him do some things I am proud of. There is a lot of fuzziness when discussing development versus environmental regulations. I think personally I would be unable to come down on this issue one way or the other without knowing a LOT of detail about the status quo versus the proposed change.

I'll give you an example of how this stuff can be fuzzy, it's a true story that I have first hand knowledge of. In Sunnyvale, CA (where I was a resident) there was an entrance from a neighborhood area to the train platform that was not able to accomodate the handicapped. The handicapped (whichever organization that was "fighting for their rights!" [much like environmentalists]) won a measure to install new sidewalks etc. so people in wheelchairs could get to the platform from that area. They ALSO pushed to ensure that NO ONE could get to the platform from that area UNTIL it was redone to allow people who are handicapped to get there. A GIANT fence was erected and for 2 YEARS NO ONE could get there; handicapped or not.

So....be wary about hot button terms and the organizations associated with them.....my $.02

MattW

08-13-2008, 07:25 AM

And is. Everyday. In industrial and academic instutions across the nation. Much of it with various forms of federal funding through grants, scholarships, etc. That's the way the bulk of research actually gets done, and most people don't understand it.

cawPromising research is happening for sure, but it's not fully based on the energy pressures of today, but the wide topics of academic and agency interest proposed 3-10 years ago.

Expansion, coordination, and accelerating time to commercialization is what could be used now in research. A major effort to transform in a decade is doable, and the trailing effects would lead us into 2nd and 3rd generation of energy independence (cleaner, cheaper, flexible, etc).

Until that comes about, we shouldn't be afraid of expanding oil drilling, and the less-than-perfect but proven technologies of today (nuke, renewable wood, inefficient wind & solar)

blacbird

08-13-2008, 07:31 AM

Promising research is happening for sure, but it's not fully based on the energy pressures of today, but the wide topics of academic and agency interest proposed 3-10 years ago.

Which aren't much different from the "energy pressures of today". It has largely been academics, remember, those horrible, vilified, overpaid, affluent academics, who have been predicting the energy problems we now, so suddenly, seem to face. Remember also, in 2001, VP Dick Cheney's infamous "energy taskforce" meetings, the participants of whom remain officially secret, which we know were attended by numerous oppressed, impoverished oil company CEOs, ended with a statement that "conservation is not part of this Administration's energy policy."

That's what we've been dealing with for seven years, folks. Thank God it will soon be over.

caw

Plot Device

08-13-2008, 06:55 PM

Rob,

Here's that link you wanted:
;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Observations_linked_to_global_warming

shawkins

08-13-2008, 08:02 PM

I know they are buying up uranium leases like crazy in NV, but I don't know much about it.

I'd speculate that that's in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which authorized the first new construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S. in over 30 years. Two such plants broke ground in 2007. If they pan out, 20+ more are in the pipeline. Nukes are probably making a comeback.

I thought (probably wrong here yet again) that 'breeder' reactors provided nuke material. Anybody out there know?

They can. All commercial power reactors do a certain amount of breeding. That is, the nuclear reaction that generates power also generates more fissionable material. Only about 1% of the material in a fuel rod inserted into a reactor is actually converted into energy before you have to pull the rod out of the reactor. However, by the time you pull the rod out, some previously non-fissionable material in the rod has caught enough neutrons that it is now fissionable. If you want to pull the new fissionable material out of the old fuel rod and put it into a new one, you can.

Nuclear fuel is pretty darn renewable.

If you want to get really serious about it, you can also build a reactor whose primary purpose is to generate more fissionable material from raw(ish) uranium. Such a reactor would do so very efficiently--put in 1 pound of fissionable material and you'll get up to 1.8 pounds back. Construction began on a couple such plants in the early 1970s1. They were never completed.

The problem with breeder reactors is that in addition to breeding isotopes that are suitable for power reactors ("lightly enriched") they must necessarily also breed isotopes that are suitable for nuclear weapons ("highly enriched"). President Carter was more concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons than he was about energy independence, so he shut down both such plants uncompleted in 1977.

This pissed off my Dad more than just a little, but it wasn't entirely unreasonable. The largest single barrier to building a nuclear weapon is not coming up with a workable design, but rather acquiring the fissionable material to go in the bomb. Weapons grade material is fiendishly expensive to produce, a fact which provides something of a natural brake on nuclear proliferation. In 1977 no one could anticipate that the fall of the U.S.S.R. would leave large quantities of weapons grade uranium--the most expensive metal known to man--sitting in unguarded warehouses surrounded by people who hadn't been paid in months.

1 Historical side note: my Dad worked at one of them.

sassandgroove

08-13-2008, 08:31 PM

It's estimated that we could someday perhaps produce as much as 3 billion barrels of oil a year from offshore drilling plus drillling in places like ANWR. The world currently uses 87.5 billion barrels a year. So, considering the increased demand, drilling in offshore and other environmently sensitive areas would add about 3% to the world oil supply.

Ok, what keeps coming to mind for me is the story grasshopper and the ants. I get it, I hear all the arguments, it won't lower gas prices, it won't be as much as we use now, etc. But it just seems foolish to me to reject our own resource out of hand for those reasons. So it will only be a drop in the bucket. So we won't see results for a few years. Fine. Why then stick our head in the sand and sit on the oil instead of tap into it. A drop in the bucket still adds to the supply. And hopefully we will continue to develop alternatives and the drop may be closer to our usage in later years. That's all I am saying. I'm leaving now.

Shadow_Ferret

08-13-2008, 08:42 PM

Guess I don't see what all the fuss is about. Instead of having a bottleneck for all these environmental impact reviews, they have several federal agencies making decisions.

rugcat

08-13-2008, 09:03 PM

Guess I don't see what all the fuss is about. Instead of having a bottleneck for all these environmental impact reviews, they have several federal agencies making decisions.The fuss is about cutting out input from independent scientists in the appropriate field and giving the approval process to agencies headed by political appointees.

So if an energy company wants to build a new dam, for example, and there are questions as to the impact on fish and the riparian environment, biologists will no longer be consulted. The decision as to the impact will be made by an agency headed by a former lobbyist for the energy industry.

kuwisdelu

08-13-2008, 09:23 PM

In words more applicable on a personal level, a company wants to build a power plant that will destroy the homes of many ferrets. Should they build it anyway, or consult a ferretologist to build the plant in a ferret-friendly way (or not be allowed to build it at all)?

Bartholomew

08-13-2008, 09:30 PM

My friend had a couple of ferrets. She lost one, one day--we found it later that evening inside her computer. HOW DID IT GET THERE!?

Shadow_Ferret

08-13-2008, 10:16 PM

I've been sworn to secrecy.

Mr. Fix

08-14-2008, 12:23 AM

Definition of "wacko" beliefs: Those that differ from your own.

No, opinions without any basis in fact are wacko.

Oil shale is a different subject. Isn't it though!

It's estimated that we could someday perhaps produce as much as 3 billion barrels of oil a year from offshore drilling plus drillling in places like ANWR. The world currently uses 87.5 billion barrels a year. So, considering the increased demand, drilling in offshore and other environmently sensitive areas would add about 3% to the world oil supply.

Back to the oil shale, they estimate something in the numbers of 3 TRILLON BBLs

And some dangers in offshore drilling: (RFA Opinions follow - no facts here!)

As with ANY company or organization oversite is needed. your statements are to the effect that these companies HAVE been fined. Which means that they are being watched (probably more-so than our own Gov't abuses are!) and steps were taken to correct the problem. This is how the system works. When's the last time you got a ticket for jaywalking? I'm sure you've ALWAYS use a legal crosswalk - and if not - it must mean the WHOLE system is faultering and we MUST put an end to such abuses. (No, I'm not comparing enviromental damage to a simple infraction. I'm simply trying to point out how oversite works. You do something bad - someone should be there to catch the problem and then takes steps to correct the problem. The system is at work here.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0714092329.htm And again - a home to the fishies!

And rather than :Headbang: I'm :gone:

Plot Device

08-14-2008, 02:13 AM

Mr. Fix

08-14-2008, 02:21 AM

Mr. Fix, have you any idea how expensive that shale oil is to try and extract from the ground? (Pleae read my signature.)

Have you any idea how dismally poor that the ERoEI is on shale oil? (It registers very close to a big fact zero, and that's only when everything goes smoothly. When things go wrong, the ERoEI firmly dips down into the negative.)

Have you any idea how much fresh water is needed/wasted to process shale oil? (The farmers and the cattlemen have a saying in that region of the nation: "We talk over whiskey, but we fight over water.")

Did you know that we've been perfectly aware for over 80 years now about the existence of that massive deposit of shale oil in the Bakken formation, but we have NEVER exploited it PRECISELY because of all of the above?

Precisely because oil is not cheap it is now profitable to go after this oil shale. But I would prefer we just stick with the off-shore stuff to start.:Thumbs:

PS: Mars is just waiting for us to terraform. It has all we need to start right now. And it only took us 10 years to get to the moon - once we made the decision to do so. Nothing can stop American ingenuity - except American ignorance
.

Sarpedon

08-14-2008, 05:39 PM

I remember hearing it costs 1,000 dollars to get a pound of something into orbit. I'd hate to think how much it would cost to get my fat ass to mars.

Don

08-14-2008, 06:07 PM

Nothing can stop American ingenuity - except American ignorance.
Or American legislation or American bureaucracy. With all the advances since we first went to the moon, the agency that got us there in 9 years the first time is now saying they can't possibly get us back there in less than twelve, and more likely 15. That's with a huge amount of spacefaring technology already developed.

If FedGov MUST be involved, take 1/10th of NASA's budget, offer it as an XPrize to the first men back on the moon, eliminate all bureaucratic interference, and Burt Rutan will be there in half the time.

Plot Device

08-14-2008, 07:18 PM

Precisely because oil is not cheap it is now profitable to go after this oil shale. But I would prefer we just stick with the off-shore stuff to start.:Thumbs:

PS: Mars is just waiting for us to terraform. It has all we need to start right now. And it only took us 10 years to get to the moon - once we made the decision to do so. Nothing can stop American ingenuity - except American ignorance
.

Mr. Fix, the ERoEI is SO BAD on shale oil that we wind up burning oil in order to get oil. When we go after shale oil, we're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. So unless the front-end investment of energy in the oil extraction process is NOT a petroleum-based one, we are burning oil to get oil. We will go nowhere as far as trying to dig our way out of the terrible crisis of energy depletion we are in if we go after shale oil.

The only people who will profit from shale oil development are the oil producing companies who will start out by investing into any given portion of the Bakken formation 15 million barrels of oil at a cost to them of "just" $120.00 per barrel. And then they will conclude their exploitation in that particuler section of the Bakken by selling the resulting 18 million barrels of oil at an inflated $194.00 per barrel. And in the meantime they needlessly wasted an entire 15 million barrles with a net gain of just 3 million barrels. Multiply this out hundreds of times through many hundreds of points along the Bakken and you have a shameful waste of our nation's resources by the oil companies with no benefit to anyone but themselves. And then the price of oil just keeps on going up and up with no end in sight. See my signature.

We will NEVER get ahead of the game if we play it that way.

Shadow_Ferret

08-14-2008, 07:21 PM

Mr. Fix, the ERoEI is SO BAD on shale oil that we wind up burning oil in order to get oil. When we go after shale oil, we're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
Sort of like when we try to make biofuels from corn.

Plot Device

08-14-2008, 07:49 PM

Sort of like when we try to make biofuels from corn.

Yes! Exactly!

Ethanol from corn is a crappy low-return fuel with an ERoEI close to zero (after you consider all the petro-imputs from fertilizaers, pesticides, and farm equipment), and even sometimes below zero. (Sugar would be a MUCH better option.) And the worst thing is that it has driven up the price of food: corn feed for animals is much harder to come by, so those animals that get fed corn are now much more costly to raise: pigs, cows, chickens. So the prices of all those meats (pork, beef, poultry, as well as milk and eggs) has gone up (in part) because of the push for ethanol. (It's also gone up because of the prices of petro-based fertilizers going up, petro-based persticides going up, and the farm equipment needed to keep a farm going needs petro, and the trucks that deliver the food to market has gone up too).

And now that we KNOW how sucky ethanol is as a fuel, as well as how detrimental it is to the nationwide prices of food, are we shutting down the ethanol program?? No! We're keeping it going! And that's because there are two really terrible things that keep driving that stupid ethanol program forward:

1) federal mandates for a minimum amount of E-85 to be utilized by a certain date

2) tax incentives for farmers to grow ethanol corn

While it's possible to pull the plug on the E-85 mandates, the sad truth is that a lot of those farmers have already sold their corn futures, so they are locked in to delivering on those crops to the ethanol manufacturing plants. So even if we start repealing everything NOW, we won't be able to undo the damage of this ethanol fiasco for another three years coming. So we are wasting yet more time (three whole years of a mistake) in the face of an escalating energy crisis.

Time now for me to REALLY haul out the soapbox ....

This was a perfectly understandable mistake that we made. We've had the technology for ethanol for many many decades now. But this was the first huge major push for it --a noble push. And yet we were unable to see its impact on our food supply without the benefit of actually putting the theory to the test of a real life situation in the real world marketplace. So now that we can see the mistake, we desperately need to rectify it and start poking around elsewhere on the tentative laundry list of alternative fuels.

But ... had we shown the good sense to have done this ethanol push and E-85 push 20 frickin' years ago, and had we the advantage of learning from this exact mistake 20 frinkin' years ago, we would now quite comfortably be 20 years ahead of this whole trial-and-error game at this point.

But no-OH-oh! [/John Belushi]

We did NOT do ANY alternate fuels ANYTHING in this nation 20 years ago.

Or even 10 years ago.

Or even 5 years ago.

And NOW that we are finally getting around to it, the clock is ticking and we are running out of time! Making mistakes that cost us three-years per mistake is a luxury we can no longer afford. The leadership of this nation needs to get on the stick and make it happen!

Don

08-14-2008, 08:20 PM

This was a perfectly understandable mistake that we made. We've had the technology for ethanol for many many decades now. But this was the first huge major push for it --a noble push. And yet we were unable to see its impact on our food supply without the benefit of actually putting the theory to the test of a real life situation in the real world marketplace.
This is not the first time we've seen politicians distort the marketplace, and it's not the first time that the results have been 'unforseeable.'

The problem is that 'unintended consequences' are dirty words in political lingo. It's not rocket science to figure out that if you offer a subsidy for something, you're going to get more of that, AND less of other things. It didn't require a 'real life situation' to figure that out.

They can model global warming a hundred years in the future, and can't predict that food prices will go up if we start using food for fuel?????

The leadership of this nation needs to get on the stick and make it happen!
Yeah, let's get some more market distortions going on so that people who have ideas that might actually work won't be able to find funding because it'll be tied up in ethanol subsidies or perpetual motion machines or whatever some politician who knows nothing about energy is convinced by some corporate lobbyist is the 'next big thing.'