Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #56546
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Mon 2008-06-09 02:30
|
 |
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| Obama point-by-point on energy |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This is a point-by-point criticism of Obama's energy policy. Please, especially if you support Obama and find something to criticize or disagree with in my ideas, speak up, because I want to hear a reasoned defense for some of these policies. I won't call you an apologist or an idiot or any such flames/labels.
Barack Obama is a very effective speaker, but it is sometimes difficult to divine from his speeches exactly what his policy standpoints are. There's the Hope and Change thing obviously, but I had to go to his website and read his policy pages to figure out what, exactly, is carried in the deep darkest underbelly of those two words. For starters, like I said, I'd like to do a point-by-point criticism of Obama's energy policy. This might be dry on the surface but I think there's a lot of interesting and profoundly important themes at work with Energy. It's a big deal right now. Oil prices are the daily engine--that is, they tend to set the market's mood, move other stocks, and get far, far more news coverage than they did in the past. Probably too much coverage. But thus, the US Presidential candidates' energy ideas are going to move the market after the election. Personally I think with regards to commodities, discipline and restraint are the "solutions;" the less a presidential administration involves itself directly in trying to push price levels one way or the other, the more likely prices will level somewhere sustainable. Unfortunately for me, Washington DC tries to intervene in as many affairs and markets as it can get away with, and non-intervention in the face of so much news coverage may well be a pipe dream. But a fellow can always cradle his own version of "hope and change," I suppose. 
With no further words from me here's Obama's header on energy:
| From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ |
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007 |
I heard that speech in Detroit where Obama stood before the autoworkers and told them he was going to screw their company over. Politically, it was a brave thing to do, but a touch misguided as well. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, because I don't believe the environment presents a "moral challenge." Living in harmony—that is to say, ensuring sustainable growth—is a technical and economic challenge, because it's a matter of discovering the hidden mysteries of the environment and adapting your economy to them. The moral aspect is simple. No one wants to destroy the planet. Getting in an accusatory mode and bringing up the moral issue as if there are actually straw men out there who want to destroy the environment counter-productively evades debate and permits you to be stubborn without feeling guilt. Either save the environment, or the dark side will forever dominate your destiny, kind of thing. This is Barack Obama's first message, hidden in the subtext of a Des Moines speech: that he sides with those for whom the mechanics are not a matter for argumentation, but dogma. Consider how this statement is followed with climate change:
| External site |
The Problem
- Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.
- Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
|
So he accepts anthropogenic global warming at face value. I know this is not a direct quote from the candidate's mouth, but it's his platform and the attitude just sickens me. Oil is a "habit?" An addiction to be cured? Civil society needs energy, Obama. Oil is an energy source for human activity just as surely as oxygen and water are for human life. Are they addictions too? I don't think anyone should be ashamed for consuming oxygen, which is plant and bacterial waste, or by extension fossil fuel, which is ancient black sludge. He portrays oil as a "habit" and a "cost" as if there's some sort of dead-weight loss associated with the despicable, embarrassing activity of burning oil. In reality, oil is the vital energy component of practically every good thing the modern world has produced. In the purposes for which it is used, oil was never such a luxury that our dependence upon it can be called an addiction.
In addition, a candidate who does not support domestic drilling is in no position to reasonably decry US dependence on foreign oil. He complains of oil being foreign but does not propose to rectify this directly. The economic left says that drilling more oil is shortsighted, but relative to their political vision I would retort that it's extremely far-sighted. Politicians only think about what they can plunder in 4 years, so assuming political risk to open a drilling site that would take 10 years to develop fully, and 60 years to deplete, would be unthinkable to them. I would like Obama and his political kin to distance themselves from greedy, short-term goals and consider what additional domestic drilling would do for us in the long term: Reduce our dependence on imports, lower the price of energy worldwide, and free our own money to be put to more diverse use.
We have some good options:- ANWR - This is a huge swath of the Arctic coast. If a single, airport-sized facility were allowed it there could produce a million barrels per day for 30 years. For info check out the Petroleum lobby's writeup (here) on ANWR. Given Obama's own figures, mining this resource would probably keep about $70 million inside the country, going to domestic entrepreneurs and oil workers, each day. The problem with ANWR is the politics. Environmentalists oppose drilling in ANWR and ordinary Alaskans don't have the money and power to undermine the environmentalists' strength in Washington. ANWR is also not a 1-shot solution; it's simply a business opportunity and something that can help. Shortsighted politicians would rather promote something that presumes to solve the problem, such as renewables and ethanol, even if such things are extremely unrealistic for the scale required. Faith that such simple, one-shot solutions are possible and virtuous... such are the opium of the masses. So things like ANWR, which would be incorporated as part of an esoteric assault to reduce the government's grip on price levels, can't be pandered to the masses. Whereas campaigning to protect the polar bear and getting CNN to flash all the faked photos of the ice melting under their feet is easy as hell even if it's just a lie. Pic related.
- Natural Gas deposits in the Rockies - 7000 TcF of natural gas. TcF means trillion cubic feet. In 2001, we unearthed 19.8 TcF nationwide, and it accounted for 3% of transport, 40% of commercial, 45% of residential, 36% of industrial, and 14% of power plant energy. Source: Department of Energy report on the Rockies.
- Federal lands and Offshore: a significant proportion of discovered oil lands are presently restricted from use by the federal government. Getting access to some of the areas would serve the threefold goals I listed above. Here's a map of the regions and their proportion of the oil wealth.
All in all, I just hate seeing our meek, spineless approach to resource management. You can bet that China and Venezuela and everyone else are going to stop at nothing to mine as much oil as they can to power their growing economies. And their economies will grow as a result. Whereas the US is doomed to becoming a backwater as its government gets more and more involved with the prohibition of economic activity. Our environmental movement has castrated us to the point that we no longer feel like we have the right to get resources out of the ground. And yet we shouldn't be using foreign oil either, of course. I say it's time we threw all this convoluted, namby-pamby Earth Day garbage out the window, started drilling for natural gas, oil, and coal with passion, and returned to laissez-faire.
| From External Site |
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
- Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
- Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
|
Some of you may be aware that a carbon emissions cap-and-trade bill was just filibustered in the US Senate (read about the outcome and the candidates' stances here). If carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are ever shown to have measurably dangerous environmental effects, a cap-and-trade regime on CO2 emissions would be a wise decision. The bad thing about cap-and-trade is that it's a reduction technique, and I don't think reducing is necessary yet. The nice thing about it is that it will allocate reductions and allowances efficiently. For the moment though, I'm undecided, mayhaps a little bit opposed to a cap-and-trade regime. It's not (as Obama calls it) a "market-based system." A market-based system is one where the government does nothing and consumers end up sinking money into reducing CO2 of their own accord once they start to get uncomfortable. This demonstrates that Obama either doesn't know much about markets, or is trying to sell the policy to capitalistic voters, or both. For the sake of full disclosure, John McCain is also a cap-and-trade advocate. So I hereby reissue my criticism of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal to McCain. One of these two men will be President, so as I said earlier, I'm resigned to the fate of watching Washington try to get its claws into anything and everything. I think the market regime should be tried first, to see how it plays out. Moving right along with Obama, however...
| External site |
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
* Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe. |
Forgive the interruption but Barack Obama will NOT invest 150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure. Taxpayers will, and Obama will just take the credit for spending their money so magnanimously. In fact, despite all the funding proposed on Obama's energy policy page, the name of the benefactor, the word "taxpayer," is not mentioned even once. I suppose they're considered a renewable resource.
| External site |
Invest in a Clean Energy Future Continued...
* Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
* Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
* Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
* Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
* Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology. |
All well and good here. By now you should know my mind that I'd prefer these monies had not left the private sector in the first place; they seem to just be returning there in some creative way or other. I pray that it's well spent. I'm a bit suspicious of the coal outlay because I thought that coal was chugging along well enough on emissions. Smoke is filtered to such an extent now, that the only atmospheric emissions from coal-fired plants are water vapor and heat. All the carbonized residue is solid and easily-contained. I'm also disappointed by his not mentioning nuclear power. The only thing standing in the way of expanding nuclear power is regulation. Nukes are very clean, and presently quite a bit cheaper than renewables. There are some very liberal parts of the country and world that rely on nuclear power, such as France, and the states in New England.
The next blurb pertains to biofuels.
| External site |
Support Next Generation Biofuels
* Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
* Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
* Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030. * Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
* Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
* Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage |
I'm strongly opposed to allowing the government to force our hand on the development of biofuels, and the political popularity enjoyed by biofuels comes at the worst possible time. Here the Middle East is in turmoil and making expected supply levels more volatile; Iran is making threats on Israel to scare prices up even higher; oil companies are plundering their stockpiles to rake in cash through the exchange markets; India, China, and Brazil are consuming more oil by leaps and bounds and driving the price up from their quarter; the dollar is suffering; and what does our benevolent US government do? Fuck the problem even harder by mandating a higher ethanol level in fuel. Not only does adding corn oil to gasoline make it more expensive, but it pushes food prices up as well with the increased demand for corn.
All this is why I'm so adamantly opposed to letting Washington aggressively push around with price levels. Do the rank-and-file supporters of environmental issues honestly believe that when it messes with price levels, the government is trying to ameliorate the oil situation and help consumers? It's impossible to contemplate; look at Obama's proposals. He's crunching consumers between higher prices at the pump and higher taxes on their income to pay for the subsidies. Why has the price of corn tripled, milk doubled, and beef and all the other corn-related goods gone up? It's because of ethanol, and the legislation was the product of focused lobbying. This policy has caused mayhem ranging from record-low net earnings by food-growers that have to buy corn products (including gas now), to the bloody hunger riots in Africa. Washington can't go messing with food prices like this. Furthermore, food is experiencing circular feedback with oil. The price of food worldwide has also gone up in proportion to its transportation costs: you have to use gasoline to get food from one place to another, and oil prices are high. In his policy bulletpoints, Obama has basically said he wants to take this mayhem to a new level by leaning on the taxpayer for additional subsidization of biofuels. So much for Hope and Change.
Thanks for reading.
EDIT!!1ONEele1ven
I totally forgot that I wanted to review his fuel standards policy. Obama wants to "double fuel economy standards within 18 years." I think this is a technical possibility that does not, in a refreshing change from the rest of the page, imply economic ruin. Most small sedans (including mine) can run at double the current fuel efficiency minimums. The reason I call it a "technical" possibility is because I'm not sure if it's a moral possibility. This kind of change would not simply discourage SUVs and other big, recreational cars, it would make them illegal. Regarding fuel efficiency, the most effective course of action for the government would probably be to sit around and do nothing. If high gas prices are the real deal and here to stay, American culture itself will respond by prizing efficient cars over guzzlers. There's no permanent loss of personal freedom required to subdue this problem, merely economic nudges and one's own capabilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #56567
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2008-06-09 20:07
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| follow-up |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
As if on cue, Bloomberg just ran a story about the new record high prices for corn on the Chicago Board of Trade. In the story, our push for ethanol, the rising oil prices, and struggling dollar were all cited as fundamentals behind the record (with heavy rains being, admittedly, the most immediate cause). I wanted to point this out, because the fundamentals they cite corroborate my stance against Obama's proposals for the extension of the ethanol programs. Like I say, our infatuation with ethanol is... ill-timed.
| From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQbf6P1pF8jQ |
Corn Jumps to Record on U.S. Midwest Rain, Crude Oil, Dollar
By Jae Hur and Marianne Stigset
June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Corn jumped to a record on speculation rain in the U.S. Midwest will cut supply and as rising oil costs and the dollar's decline boosted demand for a hedge against inflation. Soybeans, wheat and rice also gained.
Thunderstorms affected areas from the central Plains to the Midwest yesterday, bringing more than four inches (10 centimeters) of rain to parts of Iowa, Massachusetts-based Meteorlogix LLC said in a report. Further storms are forecast for the next five days. Corn and soybeans planted in wet, cool soils develop shallow roots, increasing the threat of damage from dry weather in July and August.
``With concerns about weather-related production losses, surging oil prices and the weaker dollar have fueled speculative demand for agricultural products that are fundamentally strong because of tight supplies,'' Daisuke Yamaguchi, an analyst at futures broker Yutaka Shoji Co. in Tokyo, said today.
Corn for July delivery rose as much as 22.25 cents, or 3.4 percent, to $6.73 in after-hours trading on the Chicago Board of Trade and stood at $6.675 as of 11:59 a.m. London time. The contract gained 8.6 percent last week, the biggest gain in 10 weeks. New-crop December corn traded as high as $6.985 a bushel.
Prices for the cereal have gained 69 percent in a year, fueled by growing demand for grain-fed meat in Asia, market speculation and the push to grow corn for ethanol. Wheat, soybeans and palm oil also reached records this year, sparking food riots from Haiti to Ivory Coast.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week said the world needed to invest as much as $20 billion a year on agriculture to tackle soaring food prices.
...
...
To contact the reporters on this story: Jae Hur in Singapore at jhur1@bloomberg.net; Marianne Stigset in Oslo at mstigset@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: June 9, 2008 07:54 EDT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #56622
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2008-06-13 04:25
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I don't agree with Obama's positions but your lackadaisical attitude towards managing the environment isn't useful and is exactly the mentality that is leading us to ruin.
| Quote: |
| This is a huge swath of the Arctic coast. If a single, airport-sized facility were allowed it there could produce a million barrels per day for 30 years. For info check out the Petroleum lobby's writeup (here) on ANWR. Given Obama's own figures, mining this resource would probably keep about $70 million inside the country, going to domestic entrepreneurs and oil workers, each day. The problem with ANWR is the politics. Environmentalists oppose drilling in ANWR and ordinary Alaskans don't have the money and power to undermine the environmentalists' strength in Washington. ANWR is also not a 1-shot solution; it's simply a business opportunity and something that can help. Shortsighted politicians would rather promote something that presumes to solve the problem, such as renewables and ethanol, even if such things are extremely unrealistic for the scale required. Faith that such simple, one-shot solutions are possible and virtuous... such are the opium of the masses. So things like ANWR, which would be incorporated as part of an esoteric assault to reduce the government's grip on price levels, can't be pandered to the masses. Whereas campaigning to protect the polar bear and getting CNN to flash all the faked photos of the ice melting under their feet is easy as hell even if it's just a lie. Pic related. |
so if we invested heavily now then maybe in ten years we could ideally supply 5% of our own oil. Fact is oil is running out, oil prices have been following a power curve for the last decade, the price you see now is not the result of speculation it is a price that could have and indeed has been easily predicted for the past ten years, oil as a commodity is ridiculously under priced it will quickly get more expensive and you count on that, world oil production is soon to peak and it doesn't matter if we drill in Alaska or Antarctica or the moon.
there is a common misconception that we have a ton of oil here at home, American oil production peaked just as hubbert predicted it would in the early 70's despite literally dozens of technological breakthroughs in the 80's and 90's it has never returned to even three-quarters of what it was before although demand has soared. I'm all for drilling in alaska but don't for a second think that it is a long term solution to the problem.
there really isn't an alternative, do you think paranoid george bush and Darth Cheney want to pay Venezuela and the mid-east for oil?? if they thought, even for a second that they controlled huge huge resources at home they would use them, why do you think we went to war in Iraq?
| Quote: |
| started drilling for natural gas, oil, and coal with passion, and returned to laissez-faire. |
this more certainly than anything else is the mentality that will cause our downfall, this attitude is the reason that America's power is waning, the future will belong to countries that invest in renewable energy early.
| Quote: |
| If high gas prices are the real deal and here to stay, American culture itself will respond by prizing efficient cars over guzzlers. |
if only it were that simple, if gas prices fluctuated between just "high" and "low", gas right now is at a very low price, a year ago
will we turn to alternative sources eventually if prices get high enough, of course but if energy costs a lot more because we didn't invest earlier then everyone loses, if we don't change until fuel is 20$ a gallon then only the very rich will be able to drive and the economy will go into a major recession.
oil prices doubled in the past few years, how much more fuel efficient have cars got? 15% maybe 25% on the outside?
efficient cars barely put a dent in the problem, our entire economy is based on oil, the very building of a car takes an enormous amount o fossil fuel, the metals have to be mined, transported, often sent to to some facility to , and then transported again.
Obama's policy is silly because it isn't radical enough, we desperately need to subsidize renewable energy, we need to invest heavily in coal as well and we need to invest heavily in scientific research into renewable energy.
we are in a recession and there is a good chance that it will turn into a depression, laissez fair has brought us to this point, cheap oil in the middle east for so long has brought us to this point, we cannot continue to grow exponentially both in population and energy consumption in a world with finite resources and a limited carrying capacity.
I urge you to rethink your position
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tristan
Committee Leader
Post #56650
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 553
Total Words: 124,320
Average words per post: 224.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2008-06-15 01:26
|
|
| Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative) |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Azazel wrote: |
I don't agree with Obama's positions but your lackadaisical attitude towards managing the environment isn't useful and is exactly the mentality that is leading us to ruin.
| Quote: |
| This is a huge swath of the Arctic coast. If a single, airport-sized facility were allowed it there could produce a million barrels per day for 30 years. For info check out the Petroleum lobby's writeup (here) on ANWR. Given Obama's own figures, mining this resource would probably keep about $70 million inside the country, going to domestic entrepreneurs and oil workers, each day. The problem with ANWR is the politics. Environmentalists oppose drilling in ANWR and ordinary Alaskans don't have the money and power to undermine the environmentalists' strength in Washington. ANWR is also not a 1-shot solution; it's simply a business opportunity and something that can help. Shortsighted politicians would rather promote something that presumes to solve the problem, such as renewables and ethanol, even if such things are extremely unrealistic for the scale required. Faith that such simple, one-shot solutions are possible and virtuous... such are the opium of the masses. So things like ANWR, which would be incorporated as part of an esoteric assault to reduce the government's grip on price levels, can't be pandered to the masses. Whereas campaigning to protect the polar bear and getting CNN to flash all the faked photos of the ice melting under their feet is easy as hell even if it's just a lie. Pic related. |
so if we invested heavily now then maybe in ten years we could ideally supply 5% of our own oil. Fact is oil is running out, oil prices have been following a power curve for the last decade, the price you see now is not the result of speculation it is a price that could have and indeed has been easily predicted for the past ten years, oil as a commodity is ridiculously under priced it will quickly get more expensive and you count on that, world oil production is soon to peak and it doesn't matter if we drill in Alaska or Antarctica or the moon.
there is a common misconception that we have a ton of oil here at home, American oil production peaked just as hubbert predicted it would in the early 70's despite literally dozens of technological breakthroughs in the 80's and 90's it has never returned to even three-quarters of what it was before although demand has soared. I'm all for drilling in alaska but don't for a second think that it is a long term solution to the problem.
there really isn't an alternative, do you think paranoid george bush and Darth Cheney want to pay Venezuela and the mid-east for oil?? if they thought, even for a second that they controlled huge huge resources at home they would use them, why do you think we went to war in Iraq? |
I'm a humanitarian, not an environmentalist. I advocate for things that benefit humans, such as drilling for oil. Exactly far as my attitude towards the environment is lackadaisical, so environmentalists' attitudes towards human life are cruel. My lackadaisical attitude boils down to the fact that the negative economic consequences of green policy are real and easy to predict, while the benefits are not always clear. Religion gets a bad rap for the same reasons. Faithful devote themselves to rituals and fight wars for abstract purposes that befuddle other people. Environmentalism is the world's newest religion, and is an abstraction of the science it's based on. For example, there is no "common misconception" that we have a ton of oil at home; the "common misconception" is the darkside reverse--that we are on the very brink of exhausting every last drop on earth, that there is less than 10 years left for fossil fuels and the Ozone-- and my post aims to demonstrate that we have energy sources that we refuse to tap. I know why this refusal is so stubborn and powerful. It comes from environmentalists beating into our brains, constantly, their beliefs. The energy will not benefit us enough to be worth it, that because it's finite it's useless, it will destroy the atmosphere, and that America is too big and greedy anyway and deserves to suffer a few setbacks. I think these points are as untrue as they are malicious... my post only covered a couple of energy sources and those alone would crash the price of energy. It's easy enough for environmentalists to casually toss around the global warming argument and romanticize it a bit with some Darth Cheney and Iraq imagery but that's only casting a glazed eye over the milieu of energy's economics. It's doubly sick that they advertise reducing consumption as if it's some kind of straightforward, moral solution.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| started drilling for natural gas, oil, and coal with passion, and returned to laissez-faire. |
this more certainly than anything else is the mentality that will cause our downfall, this attitude is the reason that America's power is waning, the future will belong to countries that invest in renewable energy early.
will we turn to alternative sources eventually if prices get high enough, of course but if energy costs a lot more because we didn't invest earlier then everyone loses, if we don't change until fuel is 20$ a gallon then only the very rich will be able to drive and the economy will go into a major recession.
oil prices doubled in the past few years, how much more fuel efficient have cars got? 15% maybe 25% on the outside?
efficient cars barely put a dent in the problem, our entire economy is based on oil, the very building of a car takes an enormous amount o fossil fuel, the metals have to be mined, transported, often sent to to some facility to , and then transported again.
Obama's policy is silly because it isn't radical enough, we desperately need to subsidize renewable energy, we need to invest heavily in coal as well and we need to invest heavily in scientific research into renewable energy.
we are in a recession and there is a good chance that it will turn into a depression, laissez fair has brought us to this point, cheap oil in the middle east for so long has brought us to this point, we cannot continue to grow exponentially both in population and energy consumption in a world with finite resources and a limited carrying capacity. |
Ack, "the mentality that will cause our downfall?" Economic freedom is the only thing that will keep the US viable against competitors that don't have that resource. What system could possibly be more competitive than one in which people are allowed to compete?  The future will belong to people who make wise investments, not countries that invest in renewable energy. If one of the wise investments happen to be a renewable energy source that turns profit because of its efficacy, all the better. If it isn't, then thats a limitation of science that no liberal politician could change. Not even if it was on his platform, not even if he said it was the only moral thing.
People just don't have the patience to learn about energy in the economy. Many want the government involved because they don't trust the private sector, and that's what Obama's platform is all about. There's a problem with that attitude: economics requires thought, rather than feelings and symbolism, and energy is too complicated and dangerous of a market to entrust to the government's politicians. The profit motive can handle the resources and solve supply problems much more effectively than the power motive. The market has superior accessibility for little people too, because it can be read for truth plain as a pamphlet. If Saudi Aramco was really reaching the extent of their resources, we'd see their management taking options and departing the sector. Elsewhere, private investment in renewables and safe instruments would soar before news of the moves hit the stands. Shortly afterwards, there would be more genuine panic, with politicians trying to calm people down rather than artificially incite them. None of this is happening at this time.
It all very well could happen in the future, but it's better than having the governments wreck the world's economy now, because like I said, self-interested people will foresee and react to the problem sooner and more intelligently than emotional voters and the Obamas that shephard them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azazel
Committee Leader
Post #56651
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2008-06-15 05:24
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm a humanitarian, not an environmentalist. I advocate for things that benefit humans, such as drilling for oil. Exactly far as my attitude towards the environment is lackadaisical, so environmentalists' attitudes towards human life are cruel. My lackadaisical attitude boils down to the fact that the negative economic consequences of green policy are real and easy to predict, while the benefits are not always clear. Religion gets a bad rap for the same reasons. Faithful devote themselves to rituals and fight wars for abstract purposes that befuddle other people. Environmentalism is the world's newest religion, and is an abstraction of the science it's based on. For example, there is no "common misconception" that we have a ton of oil at home; the "common misconception" is the darkside reverse--that we are on the very brink of exhausting every last drop on earth, that there is less than 10 years left for fossil fuels and the Ozone-- and my post aims to demonstrate that we have energy sources that we refuse to tap. I know why this refusal is so stubborn and powerful. It comes from environmentalists beating into our brains, constantly, their beliefs. The energy will not benefit us enough to be worth it, that because it's finite it's useless, it will destroy the atmosphere, and that America is too big and greedy anyway and deserves to suffer a few setbacks. I think these points are as untrue as they are malicious... my post only covered a couple of energy sources and those alone would crash the price of energy. It's easy enough for environmentalists to casually toss around the global warming argument and romanticize it a bit with some Darth Cheney and Iraq imagery but that's only casting a glazed eye over the milieu of energy's economics. It's doubly sick that they advertise reducing consumption as if it's some kind of straightforward, moral solution.
|
one need only look at oil prices for the past ten years, I suggest the book twilight in the desert, its not about exhausting the last drop on earth its about production reaching a maximum while consumption continues to increase. You misunderstand, I advocate for drilling in ANWR and exhausting our remaining oil reserves even at the cost of wildlife if need be, but we need to recognize that it isn't a long term solution. Since I didn't mention global warming in my post I don't really know what your getting at... heres a graph to help you out
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2f/Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.png/800px-Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.png
so you would always increase consumption? you can't always increase consumption if resources are finite, thats an important point I don't think your getting.
| Quote: |
| Ack, "the mentality that will cause our downfall?" Economic freedom is the only thing that will keep the US viable against competitors that don't have that resource. What system could possibly be more competitive than one in which people are allowed to compete? Crazy The future will belong to people who make wise investments, not countries that invest in renewable energy. If one of the wise investments happen to be a renewable energy source that turns profit because of its efficacy, all the better. If it isn't, then thats a limitation of science that no liberal politician could change. Not even if it was on his platform, not even if he said it was the only moral thing. |
people competing within the united states does not necessarily make the united states better able to compete abroad, your equivocating here, competition between nations is much different than competition between , renewable energy is always wise investment because non-renewable energy will by definition run out and in this case soon, but before they run out they peak.
PostPosted: Sun 2008-06-15 01:26 Post subject:
Politics: Republican (U.S. Conservative)
Azazel wrote:
I don't agree with Obama's positions but your lackadaisical attitude towards managing the environment isn't useful and is exactly the mentality that is leading us to ruin.
Quote:
This is a huge swath of the Arctic coast. If a single, airport-sized facility were allowed it there could produce a million barrels per day for 30 years. For info check out the Petroleum lobby's writeup (here) on ANWR. Given Obama's own figures, mining this resource would probably keep about $70 million inside the country, going to domestic entrepreneurs and oil workers, each day. The problem with ANWR is the politics. Environmentalists oppose drilling in ANWR and ordinary Alaskans don't have the money and power to undermine the environmentalists' strength in Washington. ANWR is also not a 1-shot solution; it's simply a business opportunity and something that can help. Shortsighted politicians would rather promote something that presumes to solve the problem, such as renewables and ethanol, even if such things are extremely unrealistic for the scale required. Faith that such simple, one-shot solutions are possible and virtuous... such are the opium of the masses. So things like ANWR, which would be incorporated as part of an esoteric assault to reduce the government's grip on price levels, can't be pandered to the masses. Whereas campaigning to protect the polar bear and getting CNN to flash all the faked photos of the ice melting under their feet is easy as hell even if it's just a lie. Pic related.
so if we invested heavily now then maybe in ten years we could ideally supply 5% of our own oil. Fact is oil is running out, oil prices have been following a power curve for the last decade, the price you see now is not the result of speculation it is a price that could have and indeed has been easily predicted for the past ten years, oil as a commodity is ridiculously under priced it will quickly get more expensive and you count on that, world oil production is soon to peak and it doesn't matter if we drill in Alaska or Antarctica or the moon.
there is a common misconception that we have a ton of oil here at home, American oil production peaked just as hubbert predicted it would in the early 70's despite literally dozens of technological breakthroughs in the 80's and 90's it has never returned to even three-quarters of what it was before although demand has soared. I'm all for drilling in alaska but don't for a second think that it is a long term solution to the problem.
there really isn't an alternative, do you think paranoid george bush and Darth Cheney want to pay Venezuela and the mid-east for oil?? if they thought, even for a second that they controlled huge huge resources at home they would use them, why do you think we went to war in Iraq?
I'm a humanitarian, not an environmentalist. I advocate for things that benefit humans, such as drilling for oil. Exactly far as my attitude towards the environment is lackadaisical, so environmentalists' attitudes towards human life are cruel. My lackadaisical attitude boils down to the fact that the negative economic consequences of green policy are real and easy to predict, while the benefits are not always clear. Religion gets a bad rap for the same reasons. Faithful devote themselves to rituals and fight wars for abstract purposes that befuddle other people. Environmentalism is the world's newest religion, and is an abstraction of the science it's based on. For example, there is no "common misconception" that we have a ton of oil at home; the "common misconception" is the darkside reverse--that we are on the very brink of exhausting every last drop on earth, that there is less than 10 years left for fossil fuels and the Ozone-- and my post aims to demonstrate that we have energy sources that we refuse to tap. I know why this refusal is so stubborn and powerful. It comes from environmentalists beating into our brains, constantly, their beliefs. The energy will not benefit us enough to be worth it, that because it's finite it's useless, it will destroy the atmosphere, and that America is too big and greedy anyway and deserves to suffer a few setbacks. I think these points are as untrue as they are malicious... my post only covered a couple of energy sources and those alone would crash the price of energy. It's easy enough for environmentalists to casually toss around the global warming argument and romanticize it a bit with some Darth Cheney and Iraq imagery but that's only casting a glazed eye over the milieu of energy's economics. It's doubly sick that they advertise reducing consumption as if it's some kind of straightforward, moral solution.
Quote:
Quote:
started drilling for natural gas, oil, and coal with passion, and returned to laissez-faire.
this more certainly than anything else is the mentality that will cause our downfall, this attitude is the reason that America's power is waning, the future will belong to countries that invest in renewable energy early.
will we turn to alternative sources eventually if prices get high enough, of course but if energy costs a lot more because we didn't invest earlier then everyone loses, if we don't change until fuel is 20$ a gallon then only the very rich will be able to drive and the economy will go into a major recession.
oil prices doubled in the past few years, how much more fuel efficient have cars got? 15% maybe 25% on the outside?
efficient cars barely put a dent in the problem, our entire economy is based on oil, the very building of a car takes an enormous amount o fossil fuel, the metals have to be mined, transported, often sent to to some facility to , and then transported again.
Obama's policy is silly because it isn't radical enough, we desperately need to subsidize renewable energy, we need to invest heavily in coal as well and we need to invest heavily in scientific research into renewable energy.
we are in a recession and there is a good chance that it will turn into a depression, laissez fair has brought us to this point, cheap oil in the middle east for so long has brought us to this point, we cannot continue to grow exponentially both in population and energy consumption in a world with finite resources and a limited carrying capacity.
Ack, "the mentality that will cause our downfall?" Economic freedom is the only thing that will keep the US viable against competitors that don't have that resource. What system could possibly be more competitive than one in which people are allowed to compete? Crazy The future will belong to people who make wise investments, not countries that invest in renewable energy. If one of the wise investments happen to be a renewable energy source that turns profit because of its efficacy, all the better. If it isn't, then thats a limitation of science that no liberal politician could change. Not even if it was on his platform, not even if he said it was the only moral thing.
| Quote: |
| People just don't have the patience to learn about energy in the economy. Many want the government involved because they don't trust the private sector, and that's what Obama's platform is all about. There's a problem with that attitude: economics requires thought, rather than feelings and symbolism, and energy is too complicated and dangerous of a market to entrust to the government's politicians. The profit motive can handle the resources and solve supply problems much more effectively than the power motive. The market has superior accessibility for little people too, because it can be read for truth plain as a pamphlet. If Saudi Aramco was really reaching the extent of their resources, we'd see their management taking options and departing the sector. Elsewhere, private investment in renewables and safe instruments would soar before news of the moves hit the stands. Shortly afterwards, there would be more genuine panic, with politicians trying to calm people down rather than artificially incite them. None of this is happening at this time. |
private companies do not have the interests of the people at heart, what is best for individual companies and the bourgeoisie is almost always not the best for the proletariat and the vast majority of people.
a good example of this would be the Norwegian national oil company, it would have been a total disaster if they had let something as unreliable as a private company to control oil, instead they invested all the oil profits into a public fund which they use to invest in other governments and give everyone giant social security checks, health benefits and huge leaves. If private companies owned this resource, then perhaps a few of the richest shareholders would have these things.
and on the whole they enjoy much higher living standards than the "anything goes" capitalist countries even America.
| Quote: |
It all very well could happen in the future, but it's better than having the governments wreck the world's economy now, because like I said, self-interested people will foresee and react to the problem sooner and more intelligently than emotional voters and the Obamas that shephard them. |
not wreck it, damage it slightly in order to avoid greater damage in the future. Self interested people are currently reacting to the problem by voting for environment politicians like Obama and Gore.
_________________
"that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
