Sometimes inaction is the smartest action, as Congress showed on two issues this week. First, it removed a provision authorizing oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from a defense spending bill. If drilling in ANWR is a good idea, it should be able to pass on its own merit. Second, Congress decided to extend the USA Patriot Act, which was set to expire on Dec. 31, through Feb. 3. That gives lawmakers more time to find the right balance between security concerns and civil liberty protections.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
55 Comments
Actually drilling in ANWR is a good idea, it is the ecoterrorist and enviromental extremist that have great lobbying power over the Democrats in Congress that can’t get it to pass.
What is strange is that everybody in Alaska wants drilling in ANWR, but NO!, we have to listen to a dope smoking, ring in the nose, who never been nor never will go to Alaska, punk from the streets of L.A. to tell the nation what is right for ANWR.
Penn & Teller’s Bull$&#^ comes in mind. :)
Great series by the way. :)
We do not own the land, we are but mere Stuarts of it while we are here. Or, “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. ew dot dot dot dot”
Everytime I have to read the Liberals smacking around the current leadership about oil prices, and then have to read how we are this “Stuarts” of the land nonsense, I want to puke.
You morons want gas prices to drop, you want us to be less dependant on foreign oil, but when the oil is available right here in the good ol’ USA, you whine like bastard children and say, “not in my back yard.”
Oil companies have come a long way in learning how to dig and transport oil without harming the environment you all so trully love and admire. By the way, when was the last time you visited this pristene place? Never? Got major plans to go there? Didn’t think so.
You want it both ways, but when the opportunity presents itself to make it happen, you climb into your safe place and moan about how rotten oil companies are. Writerdog, you and your ilk disgust me with your namby pamby bs.
Oh, yes, I’ve heard the argument that there is not that much oil there anyway, so why dig it up and pump it out? Because it’s there and we need it.
The environment is a fragile place, but the current level of drilling technology takes that into consideration, and would do a tremendous job of protecting that same environment. The only thing we would have to worry about would be the environmental extremists, who would stop at nothing to sabatoge the drill site, and/or delivery pipeline. They could then sit on their high horse and proclaim to the world how right they were.
The gap between the very rich and the middle class has been widening rapidly ever since the oil embargo in the middle 1970’s because of our friends in Saudi Arabia with the encouragement from our American Oil Industry.Since then the American Oil Industry has maneuvered their way into gaining full control of our country. They had a lot of help from two coalitions, large corporations and the Duped Republican Religious Right who assist them in this theft of our country.This Oil Industry controlled government has used their acquired power to strip American Citizens of many freedoms, destroyed the labor unions by allowing their big business coalition to ship jobs overseas, and as payback to the Religious Right coalition they are vigorously attempting to take away a woman’s right to control her own body. They are even extending their powers into our bedrooms by restricting the sale and use of contraceptives.Also this Oil Industry controlled government has exerted their powers by taking over and drilling for oil in some our most pristine, beautiful lands.Because of the past teachings in colleges, big business feels like they have to increase their bottom line no matter what. They must feel as though they have squeezed as much out this country as they can and want to expand their ability to sell their products to the rest of the world. They must build up the standard of living throughout the world to increase buying power for their products. They are doing this at the expense of the American worker.A large percentage of the Religious Right collation is made up of poor and middle class people. I really don’t see why they go along with this Oil Industry Controlled government that is rapidly decreasing their lifestyle.The big business collation is also decreasing the life style of the poor and middle class by encouraging the Oil Industry controlled government to allow illegal immigration and to turn their back on American workers by hiring these illegal immigrants.Big business does not pay for the illegal immigrant’s medical expenses; therefore that burden is left up to the American tax payer. This translates into billions of dollars.Knowingly or unknowingly, the Oil Industry controlled government is allowing the Mexican government to take over this country.Back in this country’s infancy, Andrew Jackson encouraged Americans to move to Texas. His plan was to get enough people there to eventually take it over and it worked.It appears to me the Mexican government has the same plan in reverse; however their plan is to take over the whole country. This takeover will be done without a shot fired. They will use our own laws, our naivety and our generosity to accomplish their deed.
Republican Party please come back to your senses and support small business and small government and get away from all the special interest fanatics whose causes shouldn’t even be in the political arena.
A Guy,Well said. The take-over of our country by the oil companies has taken several years, but I’d say that with the installation of Bush/Cheney, the take-over is complete. But I’m afraid that asking the republican party to come back to it’s senses is kind of like asking fleas to stay away from dogs.
J.M.,”The environment is a fragile place, but the current level of drilling technology takes that into consideration, and would do a tremendous job of protecting that same environment.”
Yeah, riiight! The oil companies have such a sterling record in that department.”The only thing we would have to worry about would be the environmental extremists, who would stop at nothing to sabatoge the drill site, and/or delivery pipeline.” Let’s see, the Alaska Pipeline has been in operation for a while and the “ecoterriorists” haven’t destroyed it yet. There’s been a few bullet holes, maybe environmental extremism, maybe just drunk hunters. Could be the dreaded Leftists.
Joe Williams,Now we Liberals are “dope smoking, ring in the nose”? Don’t you think that’s a little over the top? If you ever have any kids, wouldn’t you like to leave them something besides a raped and pillaged environment?
And JM what is the current level of drilling technology? You may have heard the arguments but you didn’t LISTEN. So here they are again.
The USGS estimates around 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil are contained under the ANWR. Current technology will be able to recover 1 million barrels of oil per day. This is 5% of the total amount of oil the US uses in a single day today. However if oil companies started to explore today it will take an estimated 10 years for that oil to hit the markets. At that time we will have increased our oil usage and the original million barrels will account for less than the 5% of the daily oil usage.
Now take into consideration that the US uses a little under 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. If instead of drilling in ANWR the US government put the time, money, and resources into increasing the fuel economy of motor vehicles by (an average of) 15% this would conserve 1.3 million barrels a year. And the kicker is that this savings could start relatively soon. So before drilling even starts we could start saving more oil than we could extract. And an average of 15% really isn’t much considering the average midsized SUV gets gas mileage in the mid 20’s. It is only 3 miles per gallon more.
Drilling in the artic just doesn’t make sense for economic or security reasons. And the following links are where you can check the facts. Although I do suggest you listen/read the GOP propaganda a little less and get the facts a little more.
http://www.energy.gov/engine/doe/files/dynamic/1952003121758_national_energy_policy.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html#IntlConsumption
The Sierra Club (I know, I know, some of you think they are a bunch of “panty wastes”) claims that with off-the-shelf technology (that which is already developed), we could do the following:1) establish 40 MPG as the minimum standard for all new vehicles,2) completely stop using Saudi oil,3) never need the oil in ANWR, and4) save every American $2K per year in energy costs.
I concede they might be exaggerating the benefits, but what would be wrong about a serious effort to conserve our resources? Conservation has only recently been mentioned by Bush, et al. and only after the Katrina disaster. What would be wrong with a serious energy policy?
XXX & Just a moron up wherever,
The oil companies may have a lousy record, but on environmental matters, it has been improving by leaps and bounds. Accidents DO happen and intelligent, business like people learn and do whatever it takes to prevent future accidents. The Alaska pipeline DOES have an excellent record. Why do you think that is? Seems to me, you have negated your own argument against drilling.
And, yes, they, the oil companies, should be held accountable for the insane profits they are making. Something neither the chicken warriors of either party seem willing to do. So who’s fault is that? Ours, for not getting these sleezebags out of office, don’t you think?
Do you think for one minute that any drilling in the ANWR wouldn’t be the most controlled drill ever? Do you think we can depend on foreign oil forever? Where are the energy replacements coming from? Windmills? Corn? Hot air coming from environmentalists? Some alien life form going to land here and give us perpetual energy?
The reality is we need to drill for oil in this country, in the ANWR, off the coast, anywhere we can find it. It IS the only source of energy available to us AT THIS TIME.
You want to moan and groan about how bad the oil companies are, be my guest, but when gas rises to 3 and 4 dollars a gallon, I don’t want to listen to you all whining like a bunch of pansies about how screwed up Washington is for letting it happen. When gas rises above your comfortable level, look in the mirror: there, staring back at you, is the cause.
Steven,Good post, but is it realistic with the comfortable level of living we enjoy today? How many environmentally conscious Hummer drivers are going to give up their mega-SUV’s? Or cut down the use of their air conditioners, or wear more clothes around the house to cut down on heating costs? Luxury is too ingrained in this society for the true environmental conscious to hold sway. I would like for it to be otherwise, but I think it’s going to take something other than the Sierra Club.
Walker,I am afraid you’re right. But maybe if things get costly enough . . .
I’m walking a lot more than I used to!
I think you’ve put your finger on the key, Steven E.: a rational energy policy. The Bush administration has taken conservation off the table and instead concentrates only on ways to increase supply. Finding rational ways to reconfigure demand is completely ignored in what some might call President Bush’s “leadership” vis a vis energy policy.
The problem with our reliance on fossil fuels is that our energy policy becomes grossly entangled with our defense and foreign policy. For instance, oil revenues lie at the heart of Osama bin Laden’s wealth. In fact, oil revenues likely make up a pareto share of total terrorism funding (ie, 80% of terrorism is funded by Middle Eastern oil revenues).
If we Americans were rational about this – and could take the pain and make the sacrifice – then we’d all love to see oil prices INCREASE in the short term (even if that means additional taxes). Sooner or later, some administration will have to foot the pain of reconfiguring American demand (the pain could entail an “oil shock” recession).
If drilling in ANWR were proposed in conjunction with steps to reconfigure American demand for oil, then I think ANWR would become far more palatable to most Americans (thinking Americans, anyway). In fact, in so matching adult actions (foot the pain of sharply increased oil prices) with adult talk (”we must win the global war on terrorism” while simultaneously increasing our supply of oil) drilling in ANWR would probably become the policy equivalent of a slam dunk.
K (or whover you are today),Great links. They tell me . . . gee, they tell me why oil prices are high, how many barrels were produced about anywhere in the world, what the future production will be, and what it might cost. But it doesn’t tell me that drilling in the ANWR would be ridiculous, it doesn’t tell me that drilling off the coast of Florida or California would be ridiculous. It doesn’t tell me what we will replace oil as an energy source with when most americans can’t afford gas. It doesn’t tell me much of anything really.
“Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That?s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.”
http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/backgrnd.htmhttp://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm
Info gleaned from these sites. They have much better info than what K (whoever he or she is today) is offering for your limited enjoyment.
There are plenty of sources for energy. There are nuclear (not for cars obviously), solar, geothermal, wind, and water methods for generating electricity. And biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, and with more research fuel cells could become economically viable for use in vehicles. Not all methods are feasible everywhere so you use the methods you can. In California there is the Net Zero Energy Project that aims at using less electricity by improved efficiency and power generation equipment on the home (i.e. solar panels). There was an article I read that the power bill for a 2500 sq. ft. home was $100 for six months ($100 total). These are the areas where the government needs to look to save oil, not ANWR. Oil drilling in the artic will just delay the inevitable so your children have to face the problem instead of you.
PS. I have always used k and only k. The other letters are not me.
Flike,You and Steven have come up with the best arguments yet: A good energy policy. As I said, though, I don’t think it will come from either party, as they share the bed too closely.
I found your use a the pareto formula interesting: something too few know about. I use it all the time at work.
We do need to make a clean sweep of the Washington relics (both parties) controlling this country, problem is, do we have the stomach to do it?
k, J.M. thought I was RD for a while, too. Go figure.
J.M., I’m little too engaged in holiday prep to really follow up on this, but even the current Alaska pipeline has had disturbing effects on the local environment.
Also, the local people, the G’wichin nation (sp?), are very concerned about what drilling in the refuge might do to their food supply.
My source for these views is that bastion of liberal extremism, Scientific American magazine. See “The Article National Wildlife Refuge”, by W. Wayt Gibbs, May 2001.
I’ve got the dead-tree version, having read this publication the better part of 30 years. Unfortunately, the link is just a stub, where you can pay for the full version–the best I could do:
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000D55DB-11B4-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21
I stand behind my links as the facts. Your link is to a “coalition of Alaskan industry groups that is seeking to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”. (That is a quote from their web site.) Hmmm, I bet they have something to gain. Critical thinking not your strong point is it JM? While I’m impressed that you can subtract 8 from 100 and come up with 92, the 8% is the minimum that would be explored and effected (barring any disasters). The figure was arrived at by summing the drilling area and the footprint of the oil pipeline to get the product to the coast. And again you miss the point, reducing oil dependency is not about finding more oil elsewhere but reducing our consumption.
I think, for SECURITY purposes, oil drilling in the USA should be restricted as much as possible. We should rely strictly on replenishable energy and foreign oil and leave our oil in the ground until all the other sources have depleted theirs.
ANWR has nothing to do with saving prestine wilderness and beautiful trundra land for all to enjoy the wonders of nature.
Practically everybody knows that there is nothing upthere but a frozen ground and oil beneath it.
Lets get it straight. ANWR is a political football. So all of the enviromentalist and people saying we are “stuarts” of the land, no, it is a political football to be played to use against the Republican Party. The rest of it is BS.
If it were not political, then nobody would ever have heard of ANWR and nobody would care.
Oil is a natural resource. It is as natural as trees, water, and everything else natural in this world. If we didn’t use oil, what would we do with it?
Rage . . . K,You can stand behind your links all you want. Sure there is nuclear, geothermal, et al, but are they practical today? I’ve been pushing for nuclear energy for years, but your precious liberal mindset has thwarted its use in every way possible. Could it be that you are now coming to the realization that it is a very practical answer?
And of course reducing oil consumption is a practical answer, but who’s going to do it? You? Me? Your neighbor?
You forgot, also, that only 2000 acres will be effected; 1/2 of 1% of the total of the ANWR. But of course you have visited the place so many times, that they know your name by heart, don’t they?
And, also (again) the site I linked to is trying to open up the area to drilling. Your link told me nothing but numbers that have no connection to ANWR. At least mine gave direct information, both for and against drilling.
Your main problem is you want it both ways: cheap gas, and foreign oil. Get real. We got it, we should use it.
Well, Joe and JM, I hate to disappoint you but I am NOT a dope-smoker nor have I ever worn a ring in the nose but I AM a scientists and have extensive experience in the energy industry. We CAN balance out energy needs with conservation and effeciency (technology) without going into ANWAR. In fact, we can also tell OBL’s friends in Saudi Arabia where they can stick THEIR oil. Nuclear, wind, conservation, technology ALL play a role.
If we drill ANWAR it will have a small TEMPORARY effect on our energy balance; the alternate technology will have a large PERMANENT effect. In addition, we need to reduce the environmental damage being caused by our current (global) practices. This needs to be done not only in the USA but globally.
I won’t try to explain this in detail; people like Joe Williams are too stoned on the “Limbaugh Whites” to comprehend.
Right now the Arctic environment is facing a much larger threat than just the pipeline and drilling. The melting of the permafrost and the ice caps is much more serious.
“…but are they practical today?”
Yes. Everyone is in use today to varying degrees. Because they are not in wide spread use doesn’t mean they couldn’t be.
“I’ve been pushing for nuclear energy for years, but your precious liberal mindset has thwarted its use in every way possible. Could it be that you are now coming to the realization that it is a very practical answer?”
You know me so well by reading a blog. But hot tip, you’re not that good. I’ve always been a proponent for nuclear power. Unlike you I realize that changing mindsets requires more than propaganda. It requires an understanding of the issues on both sides and directly answering the questions posed by the other side in a truthful manner.
“…but who’s going to do it? You? Me? Your neighbor?”
Who else? The hybrid vehicles prove one thing above all else, if there are economical alternatives people will use them. The alternatives have to be there.
“Your link told me nothing”
Because I honestly believe you do not possess the ability to think for yourself. Instead of waiting to be told something try thinking about the facts and deciding for yourself.
“At least mine gave direct information”
Again try processing the information for yourself instead of being lazy and letting others do your thinking for you.
“Your main problem is you want it both ways: cheap gas, and foreign oil.”
I want to lose the oil dependency but I want to fix the problem, not apply a band-ade. The problem is the finite supply of oil and the increasing demand. Even if we go with the 5% estimate by the USGS there is 16 billion barrels of oil (95% 3.2 bbl). This will supply the US with gasoline for 5 years. Factor in heating and such and it is much less. So effectively we will be delaying the problem for less than 5 years and then have to face it again.
oops, that should be every one is in use not everyone.
Ben Huie, who do you work for and what kind of scientist are you?
Sorry for being skepitcal, but I am with you.
I never mentioned that ANWR was the answer, nor am I advocating for drilling there. I’m with you that we can diversify our energy sources and focus more on alternative and diverfied sources.
What I was saying is that ANWR is political. It has nothing to do with gas prices, energy effects, or what ever people spout for why we should drill there. I think it is up to Alaska and the people there to drill there, although I understand it is protected federal land.
I know ANWR won’t do much of anything for our dependence on foriegn oil, but what I’m saying is that the way the politicals and enviromential BS’ers who want to stop any drilling to take place there for the purpose of a political stance and nothing more.
You say that ANWR won’t produce much or have any real effect. That may be true, but the same goes for the enviromental effects of drilling there. It won’t be nothing and have little to do with any enviromental change. Basically if the oil source is insignificant than drilling there should be insignificant also.
And Ben Huie! I’m an more open minded than you think. But I see both sides before I make a stance. My stance is that ANWR is a political football for leftist groups and Democrats. Nothing more!
And I’m a scientist also. A political scientist. ;)
BS Chemistry MITPhD Chemistry UCLABS Geology WSUMS Environmental Science WSU
Joe, perhaps if you had not chosen to open your post with insults I might not have reacted to those insults. That was YOUR choice.
You are correct that ANWR has become political; just ask the “environment-hating oil-terrorists” (to use YOUR kind of labeling)
By the way, where did you get your PhD in poli sci.
K,”Your link told me nothing but numbers that have no connection to ANWR” That was the full quote. You only brought part of it, but I would expect nothing different.
As I stated earlier, I have been a proponent of nuclear power for some time. I am also a realist. The logistics are NOT in place to utilize the alternate power sources available to us yet.
By drilling for oil in the ANWAR, and if that oil lasts for 5 years (your numbers) that would give us five years less dependence on foreign oil, and give us five years to establish alternate sources of energy in this country.
I am very qualified to read anything and come to my own opinion on it. I don’t need others to tell me what is or is not correct in a given situation. However, if you wish to get personal, I find it difficult to believe anybody who links to a site claiming to be too stupid to be president. Makes me wonder if the linker isn’t refering to himself.
I recall hearing that there were concerns about whether ANWR oil would go to U.S. needs or to other markets. This link to a Seattle Times article describes the history of these concerns:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html
I would hate to think that ANWR oil would go to China, but it appears that Alaskan politicians are more interested in revenue generation than helping the U.S. have energy independence. “It’s called trade” – as one of the analysts cited in the above article said.
The United States lost twenty years when Reagan gutted the alternative energy program Carter started in the late 70’s.
BushCo. cut what tiny little bit remained in their last abortion of a budget bill–payback to the boys who put them in power, Big Oil.
Kansas is the Saudi Arabia of wind power and people are debating whether we should spoil the view in Flint Hills. Meanwhile we pump mercury into the air from coal plants and poison our children.
JM, I’m for nuclear power too: nuclear FUSION which we would probably have by now if all the research funds hadn’t been cut from it (and some Dem presidents are to blame for that too). Not only would it be non-polluting, we could use fusion reactors to burn up all the radioactive waste we’ve accumulated from the fission reactors.
ANWAR is a non-issue. There’s not enough oil there to do anybody any good except for a few speculators. On the other hand, it could probably be done without impacting the environment too much, so I don’t really care one way or the other.
What we really need is an energy policy that wasn’t written by former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney and his Big Oil croneys.
It is also,”Business is Business, and don’t give me no sh*t about pristine wilderness.”
Nuclear FISSION power with zero net new nuclear waste. IT CAN BE DONE! Simply use all those warheads that need to be decommissioned. Back-mix with U-238 to change from highly enriched (weapons grade) to low-enriched (fuel grade). We will still have to deal with the material and its by-products; however we have to di that anyway. With all the nuclear material lying around we have a virtually inexhaustable supply. And, I’d rather see it used as fuel than available on the black market.
Think about it …
Look forward to buzzing all you libs in my SUV as you’re driving your caribou’s to work (or welfare check). Or are you tree-huggers a bunch of hypocrites as well as idiots?
Well said Blow-hard.
How did I insult you Ben Huie? By questioning you? I have no idea who you are, and if you are telling the truth.
Plus I never said I recieved a PhD. I guess that is just a slight oversight for somebody with a lot of education. I guess you love to brag. Unless you are doing research and development or teaching Chemisty in a Community College, you are considered an Educated Idiot. No offence, but that is the real world.
I have a Degree from Wichita State University in Political Science, if you must know. You can check the alumini directory. Does it mean anything or give me a job? Probably not! But Politics has been my love since I’ve been a small boy.
You may know Chemisty and Enviromental Science, but I know Politics, and quite much more than you do. I see the mechanics, you see the emotions. That is why you were insulted that I questioned you, because you have to feel emotionally secure to brag and post PhD behind your name. You felted insulted, to bad. But it was not my intention to insult, only to question.
You are probably wondering how a person who studies Political Science not be a leftist? Because I should see the truth and see beyond the evil conservative agenda. A learned man does not go over to the darkside of politics, which is the freedom loving, capitalist friendly, individualist that leftist despise.
Well! Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were Political Science graduates. So I guess I join the evil darkside.
Sort of funny that the vast lefist out there who hate Republicans (by the way I don’t affiliate myself with a political party) and know so much about everything in politics, never study it. You know; Actors, Musicians, Union workers, or anybody outside the field of study. I don’t mind them saying anything they want. I actually want them to express their views and lobby for their causes and interest, but this shameful lieing and moralist rightful propaganda that political parties have you believe is a disservice to the American Public. And I hate to say this, but people who suscribe to the leftist agenda are the worst lieing propagandist and brainwashers in the business.
If you honestly believe in socalism or communism for what it is, I think that is fine. But if you advocate to save ANWR from exploration drilling because you hate Oil Companies and Bush, then you are truely misguided.
Actually. I’m aginst all forms of energy . . . except the ones that get me from point a to point b in my energy guzzler, keeps me warm on my couch, while I watch football on my mega-screen HDTV, nuke my frozen dinners, power up my micro-wave internet service…anything I forgot?
Galahad is correct: drilling for oil in the ANWAR will not make that much difference anyway. Nuclear fission/fusion, hot or cold, would.Nuke em Dano.
Joe – “a dope smoking, ring in the nose, who never been nor never will go to Alaska, punk from the streets of L.A.”
I doubt that they taught you to begin a discussion that way if your purpose is to sway peoples’ opinions. I know the poli sci faculty there (both left and right by the way) and they don’t think that way. Also, I suspect my 40+ years in politics has taught me a bit about the mechanics as well.
And no, I do not subscribe to any form of Marxism (Communism etc). I studied it and its failures far too much back when I took poli sci in college. That was a required part of the curriculum. Not so we would practice it but rather so we would know what it was. Made it lots of fun when I met a REAL Communist (card-carrying member of the CPUSA) and I had read more Marx than he had.
Getting late so will be signing off and shutting down this dinosaur I call a computer. Off to Midnight Mass in a bit so I’ll close with a Merry Christmas to all – left, right, or in between.
I was using the L.A. punk as an example. I never directed that line to a particular individual.
I’m not trying to sway public opinion here. I’m just giving you my opinion on the matter. I’m not going to change peoples minds on the WE Blog.
Plus you said that they wouldn’t use something like I said in case of discussion or for persuasion; I guess you forgot all of the politicans in Congress who constantly badger the American Public with “Bush lied”, “Culture of Corruption”, “Cronyisim”, “Bush spying on you”.
I guess that is all different? It is using a very good tactic to gain attention, that is what I did. The dope smoking, ring in the nose, punk from the streets of L.A. gives you a mental picture. That mental picture will correlate with the media presentation of the enviromentalist, WTO, Summit of America, and the like protesting, burning effigies of Bush, and shouting anti-capitalist sayings.
Do I care if they do that? I actually encourage it, but I know the mind-set of the people who do protest these kind of events. And you can see and hear a punk opportunist trying to make a statement, but it doesn’t work for me, because I wouldn’t listen to somebody like that. These are the grassroots behind blocking drilling in ANWR. Nothing else! We are not talking about enviromental concrens or obsence profits for oil companies. It is plain politics of the gravest measure.
And I actually enjoy reading Karl Marx’s works. Off Topic!
Merry Christmas Ben
I only quoted part of you because with or without the rest the result was the same, you did not understand what you were reading. The logistics are not in place for the alternate power sources but are they in place for drilling in ANWR? I believe if the resources and effort was put into the alternative sources we could get a return sooner than drilling. And if we get the oil from the artic and delay the inevitable for 5 years (USGS numbers btw) we are still faced with the problem, albeit further down the road. I believe this is a problem we need to deal with now not later. And why don’t you visit http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com. It is a humor site so you will need to take some of it with a grain of salt since there are some things taken out of context but most of it isn’t. But I bet you knew that.
Steven E. I remember there was a bill proposed to keep the oil from being exported. I thought it was voted on and passed (something like 80-20) but since I’m looking for the info specifically I can’t find it.
Ben,I never called you a “dope smoking” anything. In fact, I never addressed you at all in this blog. I respect the fact that you have so many college degrees, but divining what people write must have been left out of those studies.
K,I did look at the web site you linked to. Problem is I tend to disregard sites that are dumber than the person they are attempting to slam. That is one dumb site. I enjoy humor, but not when it goes so overboard it crashes on itself.
I did, and do understand the logistics of both drilling, and those of putting alternate sources of energy in place. You are probably correct in that the restrictions on drilling in ANWAR would be so confining that drilling would take decades.
The restrictions on mass availability of alternate sources would probably be less so. But they would have to be seriously restrictive to preclude the fiasco of MTBE pushed on the drivers in California by people who never knew what they were doing.
I will still hold to the fact, in my opinion, that drilling for oil in ANWAR would NOt cause environmental harm. The oil companies know that they would be under the microscope drilling there.
The act of drilling would create thousands of jobs, provide temporary relief from foreign oil dependence, and give this country time to put alternate energy sources in place so they could by used by the people in a practical sense.
If the wildlife in the artic tundra can acclimate themselve to the pipeline now in existance, what makes anyone think that they couldn’t do it in the ANWAR?
This whole “not in my back yard” approach to energy just boggles the mind. For example, years ago I watched a Phil Donohue show where they were talking about the loss of farm land in America. Phil asked one member of the audience if she knew that all the goods on grocery shelves didn’t come from a cornucopia. Her answer was, “They don’t?” And that was not seen as a stupid answer by the audience.
That shows me people in this country really are uneducated in the ways of the world. Marry that to ecological education, and you can see just how susceptable to any science, fact based or phony, they are.
There is an ecological balance that must be met between nature and man. I don’t think drilling for oil in ANWAR would upset that balance. But that’s just my opinion.
No J it is just common sense, the rain forrest provides alot of the planets oxogen. It only makes sense that we do not cut it down.
“There is an ecological balance that must be met between nature and man. I don’t think drilling for oil in ANWAR would upset that balance. But that’s just my opinion.”
And that is my argument,we have to leave something untouched. The human race has become disjointed from the planet. We are no long apart of nature but a user of it. The point will come that the planet for its own good rids us of the planet.
I for one think it would be the pits to have to walk around and sleep with a mask on. Just so we as a species can watch our TVs and drive seventy miles an hour.
The only complain I have of the oil companies it why have record profit while saying that it cost more to get oil? You know that you raise the price of gas to make up the difference, but for them to turn around and make the best profit in their history means that it did not cost them as much as they said to stay in buisness.
Writerdog,If you read my earlier post here, you will note that I think the oil companies should be called to task for the obscene profits they are extracting for the American people. You will also note that I doubt if anyone, dem or rep, has the balls to do so, and there should be a clean sweep of the idiots in Washington, and people with ethics voted in their place. Problem is, do we have the huevos to do so?
I do believe it is common sense: The rain forests provide very little of the planets oxygen, however they do provide the abundence of both plant and animal live that should be cataloged, as many of the plants may provide answers for curing disease. It is actually the oceans of the world, and the phytoplankton that provide most of the earths oxygen.
However, you are talking apples and oranges in my opinion. The oil is there, I believe it can be extracted with a minimum detrimental effect to the environment, and no loss of animal or plant life. The ones who don’t want it touched are the ones who will never see the artic in any way shape or form, are also the ones who are moaning the cost of oil and gas, are the ones who think we have the resources in place to make alternate energy of practicle use to us.
One of the writers mentioned energy efficient houses. Their cost is out of the reach of most people in this country. Solar panels are still priced out of mosts reach. Personal windmill generators require a steady wind to be efficieant, so that leaves much of the states out of that, and they are being condemned as bird killers by PETA and other groups. Besides, they are way expensive. Geothermal is not practical for wide-area use, and is limited to geologically unstable areas. Methane is a very poisoness gas. Accidents could produce limited area deaths just by its release.
Hydrogen has potential, and would be a great answer to the ozone and pollution problem. Problem is, there is no way, so far, to make it practical for everyday use. It’s manufacturing process is way too expensive at this time. I think the auto manufacturers would love to use it. It would get governments off their back big time.
Major pushes by industry leaders could speed up the process for making these practical, but not with the political retards we have in place now. Vote em out and get quality people in there. Then start the process. Until then, I will stick by my opinion that drilling for oil in ANWAR is the proper thiong to do. And remember, it is only my opinion.
JM, the oil companies don’t really have all that great of a track record when it comes to saving the environment. We have laws that force them to take responsibility for their actions because otherwise they wouldn’t.
If I never go to the ANWR does that make it okay to destroy it? If I never go to the ocean then it must be fine to allow chemical and pharmaceutical companies to dump waste there. I’ll never see it so why should it matter?
I agree with both you and Writerdog about the oil companies. I have no problem with the oil companies making obscene profits, as long as it is legal and they aren’t sticking it to the American people. After all Bill Gates is the king of obscene profits (and enormous charity, to be fair) and when he didn’t play by the rules he was penalized (and still being penalized). But the oil companies don’t get penalized they get additional billions in tax relief while the poor are told they don’t need food stamps, heating oil assistance, etc. Nothing will ever come from any of these investigations because the oil industry gives too much money to politicians. Why else would baseball players have to be sworn in when they appear before a congressional inquiry and the oil execs don’t. Remember the saying about biting the hand that feeds you?
PS. I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas.
K.You’ve made the point I’ve been saying about the oil companies all along. And, no it isn’t okay for the oil companies to destroy anything, but in the case of the ANWAR, I don’t for one minute think that would happen. It would be the most controlled drill ever. But like I said, that’s just my opinion. It is not going to change.Merry Christmas or happy holidays to those so inclined:-)
Hydrogen has interesting potential BUT – only if we have an underlying energy source. Hydrogen is like electricity – it is a currency, not a source. I think it becomes a particularly interesting item if we develop more nuclear power to be the primary source and then generate H2. If we can engineer the materials that can withstand very high temperatures we could split water thermally (take advantage of entropy)
http://www.bustyadventurespic.com/http://www.camcrushpics.com/http://www.captainstabbinpic.com/
http://www.castingcouchteenspics.com/http://www.coedsneedcashpic.com/http://www.collegeteensbookbangpics.com/
http://www.cumfiestapic.com/http://www.cumgirlspics.com/http://www.cumswapslutspics.com/
http://www.dangerousdongspics.com/http://www.dildobrutalitypics.com/http://www.eurosexpartiespics.com/
http://www.extremeassespics.com/http://www.extremenaturalspics.com/http://www.firsttimeauditionspics.com/
http://www.giantsblackmeatwhitetreatpics.com/http://www.girlsthatgushpics.com/http://www.gooeyholespics.com/
http://www.hornyspanishfliespics.com/http://www.inthevippic.com/http://www.ispycameltoepics.com/
The increase in the number of erectile dysfunction patients and the easy availability of the ED drug http://www.viagracare.com viagra in the online pharmacies have made it easy for many to http://www.viagracare.com order viagra online. There are certain online pharmacies that use a number of superlative degree adjectives and try and befool the customers. Buying Viagra online without proper inspection of the online pharmacy can have serious affects on your health and there are chances that your cheap Viagra never reaches your home. Whenever you http://www.viagracare.com buy viagra online it’s very mandatory to bear in mind that you go through a medical consultation and that the Viagra that you are given is FDA approved. Otherwise it would be wiser to http://www.viagracare.com buy viagra from a local known chemist.
Sometimes it happens that for the same ailment different treatments are offered by different doctors. This confuses the patients to a great deal. Which treatment to go for, which doctor to follow etc, etc. Under these circumstances people can refer to the http://www.buy-viagra-with-us.com/resources/patient_info_site.html patient info sites where they can get all the information regarding the disease, its treatments, prices etc.
Viagra is a term that is probably no longer new to anybody. It has cometo be recognized with the who’s who of the male sexual disease callederectile dysfunction. Everybody is aware of the fact that Viagra hassomething to do with the male sex organ. These tit bit informations arealright for the layman, but for those who are prescribed the drug, it isvery important that they have complete knowledge about it, for thisthey can refer any http://www.besthealthmed.com/viagra_guide.html viagraguide available on the net.