How does this help us in the long run, either? It just continues our dependence on a non-renewable resource that is the leading cause of pollution and global warming? Moreover, a large amount of the oil that the U.S. produces is sold overseas, specifically Asia (source can be found at NPR's website - I don't have the link because I read it days ago). Why drill more (which poses a huge ecological threat) when we can just utilize the oil we already produce, rather than selling it in Asia? Why? Because the oil companies care about profits only (and do not quote me that they only make a 10% profit, because 10% of obscene amounts is still obscene amounts), and we continue to elect people that allow them to operate as if they were selling blue-jeans rather than a precious utility.
Yes, Alaskan oil goes to Asia.
I'm in agreement that we need to move to something other than oil for fuel but, currently oil gives us the best return on energy. There is so much energy in those hydrocarbons that it seems foolish not to tap them.
What you have pointed out is the key problem in dealing with the issue. One side is saying, "oil costs too much, bring down the price!" while the other side says, "oil is destroying the environment less oil is better." Both sides are fighting different wars here! I understand the environmental problem with burning fossil fuels but I also understand that we live in an oil-based economy. Until we can get some nuke plants built to support an electric automobile system we are stuck with oil.
Steve, the problem here is that there will not be an energy paradigm shift until the private sector is face up against a wall. Continuing to pander to the idea that we are "an oil based economy" on reinforces the idea that we should not innovate. Until companies are in serious risk of losing their businesses, there is no real reason to find alternative energy sources.
Steve, the problem here is that there will not be an energy paradigm shift until the private sector is face up against a wall. Continuing to pander to the idea that we are "an oil based economy" on reinforces the idea that we should not innovate.
Furthermore, that oil reserve exists for a much more important purpose than keeping prices down for consumers. You do realize that the majority of our military infrastructure relies heavily if not entirely on oil, and that this will not change for quite some time even long after we've moved on economically from it.
Preserving our emergency oil resources is MUCH more important than temporarily slowing down the increase in oil prices. If anything, the US should extract as little of its own oil as possible and rely on foreign nations as much as is practical while simultaneously working toward reducing our economic dependence on it.
Whoa, there. The rise in global temperatures coincides with the rise in fossil fuel burning, but we don't know the extent to which it is caused by fossil fuel burning.
Whoa, there. The rise in global temperaturescoincideswith the rise in fossil fuel burning, but we don't know the extent to which it iscausedby fossil fuel burning.
Preserving our emergency oil resources is MUCH more important than temporarily slowing down the increase in oil prices. If anything, the US should extract as little of its own oil as possible and rely on foreign nations as much as is practical while simultaneously working toward reducing our economic dependence on it.
I have long thought that one of the reasons not to tap American reserves is to get the rest of the world to run out first.
Whoa, there. The rise in global temperaturescoincideswith the rise in fossil fuel burning, but we don't know the extent to which it iscausedby fossil fuel burning.
Sorry, they are the leading creator of greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming. Yes, we are recovering from an Ice Age, but we have sped the process along. Moreover, I like the idea of having clean air, clean water, and some untouched land for its own sake - reducing greenhouse gasses is just an awesome bonus.
Sorry, they are the leading creator of greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming.
I don't quite understand this sentence.
I know we are leaving an ice age. I know we have sped the process along. I too like having clean air, water, etc. And I don't deny that having less CO2 in the atmosphere would probably be a good thing right now. But saying oil is the leading cause of global warming seems a bit sensational to me. To be clear, we probably agree. I just pointed out that there is some uncertainty in the amount oil is influencing it.
EDIT: Darn it... I did not pay close attention to the end of the article where it says it is copied from some other site (with permission). I went to the other site and it looks kooky and has no visible search feature.
As it is written, this sentence does not make any sense. If I am very charitable and imagine that you are saying that listing arguments does not make a good counter argument, it still doesn't make any sense. The list Scott cites is pretty extensive and accurate. If you want to argue against it, you should pick what arguments you think you can counter and then try to counter them instead of presuming to tell Scott how to argue. I promise you that he knows more about framing a logical argument than you do.
I was just reading some news about McCain wanting to give states back the power to decide whether or not to allow oil drilling in theirs states and coastal waters. Yeah, finally something I can support!
That is so sadly shortsighted. There are reasons why states can't decide such things on their own, one of the biggest being that such decisions can lead to unforeseen consequences to other states.
I don't know why conservatives can't get it through their heads that other people live in society as well. If North Carolina starts drilling offshore and ruins the ecology of the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, I suppose that's okay?
Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1).
pg 3 para 2.
Most implies a majority. I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree?
Figure 5. Various climate drivers, or radiative forcings, act to either warm or cool the Earth. Positive forcings, such as those due to greenhouse gases, warm the Earth, while negative forcings, such as aerosols, have a cooling effect. If positive and negative forcings remained in balance, there would be no warming or cooling. The column on the right indicates the level of scientific understanding (LOSU) for each forcing. Source: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007.
pg7 fig 5
OMG! WTF! The solution is at hand! Bring back the CFC aerosols! They were mostly banned back in 1989 and look what happened to the environment!!!
Better yet why don't we just attach re-breathers to automobiles? Make them so you can easily refill the supply of soda lime. We already have the catalytic converters how bad would it be to put an automobile re-breather in line as well?
I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree?
If this is your argument, I suggest you try again.
Most implies a majority. I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree?
When they say majority, they mean all of the Science Academies of the G8 nations. Just read this signed agreement by the nations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All of these National Academies agree that the majority of climate change is caused by human activities. They represent all but the most fringe groups of scientists.
Most implies a majority. I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree?
When they say majority, they mean all of the Science Academies of the G8 nations. Just read thissigned agreementby the nations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All of theseNational Academiesagree that the majority of climate change is caused by human activities. They represent all but the most fringe groups of scientists.
There's the problem right there. Whenever a report on climate Change makes its way through the media the qualifier (National Academies scientists) is always left off. The PR group needs to be sure to include that qualifier in every press release.
Why are the anti-carbon groups not toting these things? It's a win-win! We get to continue using hydrocarbons for energy and we can pull the carbon right out of the air.
Yetanother reasonnot to vote for McCain if he picks Bobby Jindal has his VP.
This is some scary shit right here.
Yup. If only one of the two major party candidates had the ability to make good character judgements about the people around them. This is where Obama wins out (in my opinion). The failings in Obama's ability to judge a person by their character thus far have been limited to people in his private life.
Most implies a majority. I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree?
When they say majority, they mean all of the Science Academies of the G8 nations. Just read thissigned agreementby the nations of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All of theseNational Academiesagree that the majority of climate change is caused by human activities. They represent all but the most fringe groups of scientists.
There's the problem right there. Whenever a report on climate Change makes its way through the media the qualifier (National Academies scientists) is always left off. The PR group needs to be sure to include that qualifier in every press release.
Why is that a problem? Do you think the National Academy is some sort of fringe group? Do you think that an opinion is somegow less valid if it is held by its members?
Why is that a problem? Do you think the National Academy is some sort of fringe group? Do you think that an opinion is somegow less valid if it is held by its members?
That's not what he said. He said that when these things are reported on by the media, the media often never qualifies where the research comes from. He's saying that media outlets never mention that this report is published by the So-so National Academy and that this is confusing to him and other members of the public.
That's not what he said. He said that when these things are reported on by the media, the media often never qualifies where the research comes from. He's saying that media outlets never mention that this report is published by the So-so National Academy and that this is confusing to him and other members of the public.
Well, it is important to include information about where your story originated. However, when I think about it, I can't recall many stories about climate change that don't include that type of information.
McCain is offering a summer break from the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax, and holding out the promise of more offshore drilling to help you drive more cheaply to the beach. He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors to generate electricity. On Monday, he proposed a $300 million government prize to anyone who can develop a superior battery to power cars of the future.
If you pull into the Obama station, he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy package to the Kennedy-era space program.
I think this later comment in the article sums up the gasoline policies of both candidates:-
Yet energy experts and economists — and even some of the candidates' own advisers — say none of their signature proposals will have any impact on $4 gasoline or $130 a barrel oil in the near term, or even the intermediate term.
McCain's 45 nuclear reactors show he has at least *some* sense, though Obama's policy remains superior.
It would take about a decade for any of that oil to reach the system, and at least five years for the futures market to cause any change in price. The politicians for it are so only to pander to the gas price issue, knowing that their constituents are under the misapprehension that gas prices will somehow come down if they start drilling.
In the end, it's my personal opinion that we should avoid drilling for as long as possible in order to preserve our national strategic reserve of oil, while simultaneously moving away from oil as a source of domestic energy as much as is possible.
Wouldn't the announcement of increased drilling cause a drop in futures prices?
I predict that if we do not drill now in five years (if prices are still high) we'll hear the same "drilling now will not do anything for the price because the oil will not be online for another five years."
But in listening to the radio and TV debates, I realize that some people have the impression that U.S. Energy Information Administration said offshore drilling might eventually lower oil prices. It did not. It found that allowing offshore drilling would have no significant effect on prices as far out into the future as the analysis projected. Why should it lower prices? Offshore drilling is projected by EIA to deliver less extra annual oil production in 2030 than Saudi Arabia announced it would add this year, an announcement that had no significant impact whatsoever on oil prices. [In fact, oil prices actually went up — see yesterday’s AP story, “Oil prices rise despite Saudi vow to pump more.â€Â]
Similarly, there would be little to no effect of drilling in ANWR
According to the EIA, if drilling began in ANWR this year, oil production from that region would peak around 2027-2030. At peak production, ANWR would produce enough oil to lower the world price of oil by about 1 percent. So if gasoline is selling at $5 a gallon in 2030, that would amount to 5 cents a gallon.
So, gas prices might go down by $0.05 a gallon. That’s a big difference! That’s worth the wait, isn’t it?
Well, maybe if you don’t mind the environmental damage. That’s kind of the reason behind the ban on offshore drilling.
Drilling would expose the nation's shores to oil spills and other environmental devastation at a time when coastal resources — fisheries and habitats especially — are already severely strained. Spills also would muck up beaches and damage the multibillion-dollar tourism industry.
In the drilling process, the drilling fluid is used to lubricate the drill bit as it drills through the layer of hard rock of the outer continental shelf. A toxic soup is formed when the fluid blends with rock, mud, and naturally occurring radioactive materials, which can spread at the minimum of a thousand meters from the rigs.
These drilling muds and cuttings as well as the produced waters contain, according to the EPA: arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, barite, chrome lignosulfate, petroleum hydrocarbons, vanadium, copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and other heavy metals. All of these chemicals pose a threat to the area surrounding the rigs for as many as forty years. Such threats are affecting the quality of the marine water, harming the organisms that stay on the bottom of the ocean, and, ultimately, having negative impacts throughout the region, which includes changes in the abundance richness and diversity of the marine life from both the physical and toxic effects.
Oil and grease, ethylbenzene, napthalene, toluene, and zinc are included in the category of workover fluids, with restrictions only having an effect on the dumping of the oil and grease.
Draining of oil, grease, drilling fluids, lubricants, ethylene, fuels, surfacants, biocides, detergents, corrosion inhibitors, bleach, cleaning solvents, coagulants, as well as other chemicals off of the rig deck has a disastrous affect on the surrounding marine environment. For every well that is drilled, about 8,000 square feet can be covered by as much as a meter thick of drilling waste, which can remain in the environment for at least two years. If the mud were to get scattered, by a hurricane for example, the waste could ultimately last for as long as forty years. Around an exploratory well that belonged to Chevron, inspectors discovered that shovels, bags, pipes, tubing, hose, and many other forms of debris covered more than three acres.
The effects of offshore drilling are not simply felt by the surrounding environment, but also by the marine life. These effects have damaging consequences for our fisheries, food chain, balance of the ecosystem, health, and the enjoyment that we find in the diversity of nature. One compelling fact is that the federal government allows the "taking" (killing) of marine life during the drilling for oil and gas, which in return, has negative effects on various marine mammals, including manatees and dolphins. Furthermore, the extent that contaminants can amplify and bioaccumulate is unknown, and the lack of knowledge in this area has an ensuing impact on many of the marine mammals.
So, 1. If they start offshore drilling tomorrow, there won’t be any effect at all until about 2030.
2. When the effect comes, it will be about a $0.05 per gallon decrease in the cost of gas.
3. The drilling will have severe environmental effects.
It sounds to me like a case where the cure is worse than the symptoms. We’ll end up paying way more in environmental damage than any benefit we’ll realize at the pump.
Comments
I'm in agreement that we need to move to something other than oil for fuel but, currently oil gives us the best return on energy. There is so much energy in those hydrocarbons that it seems foolish not to tap them.
What you have pointed out is the key problem in dealing with the issue. One side is saying, "oil costs too much, bring down the price!" while the other side says, "oil is destroying the environment less oil is better." Both sides are fighting different wars here! I understand the environmental problem with burning fossil fuels but I also understand that we live in an oil-based economy. Until we can get some nuke plants built to support an electric automobile system we are stuck with oil.
If not oil, where should we get our energy from?
Preserving our emergency oil resources is MUCH more important than temporarily slowing down the increase in oil prices. If anything, the US should extract as little of its own oil as possible and rely on foreign nations as much as is practical while simultaneously working toward reducing our economic dependence on it.
I know we are leaving an ice age. I know we have sped the process along. I too like having clean air, water, etc. And I don't deny that having less CO2 in the atmosphere would probably be a good thing right now. But saying oil is the leading cause of global warming seems a bit sensational to me. To be clear, we probably agree. I just pointed out that there is some uncertainty in the amount oil is influencing it.
The Cult of Global Warming by some blogger back in July 2007
EDIT: Darn it... I did not pay close attention to the end of the article where it says it is copied from some other site (with permission). I went to the other site and it looks kooky and has no visible search feature.
I don't know why conservatives can't get it through their heads that other people live in society as well. If North Carolina starts drilling offshore and ruins the ecology of the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, I suppose that's okay?
McCain's own people admit that offshore drilling won't have a significant impact on gas prices until 2030.
Most implies a majority. I find it highly unlikely 51% of scientists agree on this. Does someone have a link to a story with an actual number count of scientist in the world, how many agree and how many disagree? pg7 fig 5
OMG! WTF! The solution is at hand! Bring back the CFC aerosols! They were mostly banned back in 1989 and look what happened to the environment!!!
Better yet why don't we just attach re-breathers to automobiles? Make them so you can easily refill the supply of soda lime. We already have the catalytic converters how bad would it be to put an automobile re-breather in line as well?
Proposal: Suck Carbon Dioxide Out of the Air
New Device Vacuums Away Carbon Dioxide
Why are the anti-carbon groups not toting these things? It's a win-win! We get to continue using hydrocarbons for energy and we can pull the carbon right out of the air.
This is some scary shit right here.
How do you know so much about PR all of a sudden?
2. Offshore drilling / using up strategic reserves is a bad idea. Kerry, I'm looking at you, too!
In the end, it's my personal opinion that we should avoid drilling for as long as possible in order to preserve our national strategic reserve of oil, while simultaneously moving away from oil as a source of domestic energy as much as is possible.
I predict that if we do not drill now in five years (if prices are still high) we'll hear the same "drilling now will not do anything for the price because the oil will not be online for another five years."
Well, maybe if you don’t mind the environmental damage. That’s kind of the reason behind the ban on offshore drilling. Source. Source.
So,
1. If they start offshore drilling tomorrow, there won’t be any effect at all until about 2030.
2. When the effect comes, it will be about a $0.05 per gallon decrease in the cost of gas.
3. The drilling will have severe environmental effects.
It sounds to me like a case where the cure is worse than the symptoms. We’ll end up paying way more in environmental damage than any benefit we’ll realize at the pump.
Actually, the cost of a gallon of gas could fall back to about $2.00 a gallon if futures speculation were limited. Hmm, immediate effect and not environmental damage . . . I guess anyone would be crazy to think that was a good idea.