Author Topic: Missed opportunity? (Read 1512 times)

popeye · « **Reply #30 on:** September 12, 2002, 09:54:43 AM »

Rip, that was my point. Did the patriotic reaction to the terrorist attack provide an opportunity for the government to accomplish something that would be otherwise politically impossible?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** September 12, 2002, 10:11:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by popeye
Rip, that was my point. Did the patriotic reaction to the terrorist attack provide an opportunity for the government to accomplish something that would be otherwise politically impossible?

Your original post was this:

Quote

I think there was an opportunity for the President to ask Americans for personal sacrifice that might have been politically unpopular at any other time. Instead, he asked people only to return to "business as usual", to travel, and to go shopping.

Then you proposed what YOUR plan would be.

So now I'm confused. Are you saying that the Gov't should have done your scenario? In that scenario, you want to further tax Americans?

No, I think the research can be funded in other ways other than gasoline taxes *if* that research is not in lines with the "Global Warming" lobby group that is Oz behind the curtain...

Nefarious · « **Reply #32 on:** September 12, 2002, 10:25:31 AM »

Any president that said "Human Activity has no link to Global Warming" Is retarded. I feel sorry for our Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren when our president says this.

Times a running out...

nuchpatrick · « **Reply #33 on:** September 12, 2002, 10:28:21 AM »

Please do take this the wrong way anyone.. But, there are safe ways to drill for oil like that Turbo pump and other means.. Drilling in Alaska should be done.

We can get our own oil and tell those over int he middle east that their going to be put of of business.

Thats my thoughts.

Fatty · « **Reply #34 on:** September 12, 2002, 10:30:52 AM »

After we tear down your house and sell the contents to make money for the Cheneys, you're going to be glad it's warmer.

Charon · « **Reply #35 on:** September 12, 2002, 12:41:04 PM »

Quote

Please do take this the wrong way anyone.. But, there are safe ways to drill for oil like that Turbo pump and other means.. Drilling in Alaska should be done. We can get our own oil and tell those over int he middle east that their going to be put of of business.

Unfortunately Nunch, we dont have enough easy oil to make any real difference. The reasons are outlined in the article I posted. ANWR represents a reserve of easy oil, but it's not really significant. There is still some harder to recover oil left in the US, but it's not economically viable. In fact, we shut down wells each day -- that will never be able to be reopened for hydrologic reasons -- because they have become lower producing and too expensive compared to the international market.

Cheap oil = imports, which is unavoidable. Our ability to reduce demand is our best weapon at this point, but even so it’s not a huge weapon.

Quote

Your last sentence said a mouthful Charon! Considering we have a "Knee-jerk reactionary" type Gov't...doubt anything significant will be done until demand gets higher and the supply, lower.

Absolutely Rip. These new technologies still need considerable development to be cost effective, the distribution infrastructure would then have to be developed, production facilities built, automotive engines built, a transition period of natural replacement as the shift is made from gasoline/diesel to whatever approach, initial development cost pass alongs... a titanic change. It would be an Apollo or Manhattan-level project that would still take many years.

Petroleum, for all it's faults still provides a lot of energy for little cost. The only thing that will change that any time soon is a serious disruption in the Middle East. Our efforts in Iraq (as with the Gulf War) are likely centered on this rationale (even Cheney is now linking the "weapons of mass destruction" spin with "oil reserves" in his recent speeches) as well as ancillary benefits from having access to the Iraqi oil itself.

We have to decide if it is worth the risk and if it is morally justifiable in today's enlightened world. Like it or not, our current way of life (and not just in the USA by any means) is tied to oil. To some extent (gross oversimplification ahead), we are similar to Japan's position in the late 1930s. Not nearly as desperate, and for far different reasons, but we are facing a potential treat to a vital national interest. I'm just not sure that an attack on Iraq is justified for that “potential” reason alone (perhaps it is), or that it could be controlled so that we wouldn't face a worst case scenario for both the region and our own economy. We live, as always, in interesting times.

Charon

popeye · « **Reply #36 on:** September 12, 2002, 01:04:35 PM »

Rip, I am saying that I believed there was a potential resource of "patriotic self sacrifice" available after the terrorist attack that might have been used to accomplish a goal that would be politically impossible in "normal" times. One such goal might be the reduction of our energy consumption. The sacrifice would be accepting higher taxes to fund the research, development, and deployment of energy efficient vehicles and appliances, and alternative energy sources. One of the benefits would be reduction of dependence on foreign oil, with its dangerous alliances.

The oil isn't going to last forever, no matter how many wars we are willing to fight for it. I think current known reserves are something like 40 years. Pay now, or pay later. The terrorist attack might have been an opportunity to persuade Americans to pay now, and feel good about it.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #37 on:** September 12, 2002, 01:40:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by popeye
Rip, I am saying that I believed there was a potential resource of "patriotic self sacrifice" available after the terrorist attack that might have been used to accomplish a goal that would be politically impossible in "normal" times. One such goal might be the reduction of our energy consumption. The sacrifice would be accepting higher taxes to fund the research, development, and deployment of energy efficient vehicles and appliances, and alternative energy sources. One of the benefits would be reduction of dependence on foreign oil, with its dangerous alliances.

The oil isn't going to last forever, no matter how many wars we are willing to fight for it. I think current known reserves are something like 40 years. Pay now, or pay later. The terrorist attack might have been an opportunity to persuade Americans to pay now, and feel good about it.

I understand that, and OUR proposal is to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil by drilling in ONLY 2% of the 100% NWR. So, we're back at square one for politics. You believe in higher taxes and funding future energy exploration via the tax payers (Typical democrat, tax and spend) and I believe in using the existing resources and funding alternative energy exploration thru alternate means (Tariffs, import/export control laws, special use taxes such as high fuel consuming vehicles, etc)

So, no, no lost opportunity. If Bush would have proposed everything the democrats have been asking for in the last 20 years, they'd have shot him down in order to get votes, period.

MrLars · « **Reply #38 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:12:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fatty
There's only 194 left (I counted them).

Ya know what I learned working not only on the Valdez spill but many others befor and after? You can publish a picture that supports your view all to easily, do you think that that pic was taken by some naturist? My bet is that it was shot by some oil worker < or even more likely someone from their media relations dept > to help them in their bid for more drilling rights or even just an inhouse calendar

One thing about oil companies that is a constant, they will skew any fact or perception to further increase their profits. OTOH, so will Greenpeace publish skewed psuedo scientific "evidence" to promote their cause.

To put it simply, for every pic of a serene environment that shows oil production not being a danger to the environment there's a dosen pics showing just the oposite...but those pics never make it into the public domain.

I can't tell yas how many times I was forced to burn, tear up or erase images that I captured in AK during and well after the spill.

That was my job for 15 years, chasing spills and documenting the cleanup and prevention measures.

popeye · « **Reply #39 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:14:51 PM »

Well, Rip, the Democrats gave Bush his Patriot Act....who knows....

senna · « **Reply #40 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:41:50 PM »

Animals have feelings too.

Rude · « **Reply #41 on:** September 12, 2002, 02:49:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nefarious
Good Point...But your right GeeDub and all his chronies would rather destroy our home if it made them all richer...

That is not only the remark of a simpleton, but is laughable as well. I believe you to be highly impressionable and young I hope....at least that would be a good excuse for that remark.

funkedup · « **Reply #42 on:** September 12, 2002, 03:01:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by senna
Oh oh, disapearing animals, whats that building over there?

Caribou rendering plant.

funkedup · « **Reply #43 on:** September 12, 2002, 03:03:46 PM »

Popeye get a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg to see some of the drawbacks of your proposal.

Rude · « **Reply #44 on:** September 12, 2002, 03:05:55 PM »

Has it ever crossed the minds of any of you experten enviromentalists that perhaps the best strategy is to use up someone else's oil reserves first, rather than deplete our own?