Now that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been opened up to oil drilling, will the city of Barrow, just north of ANWR, be renamed Oil Barrel as oil refineries may likely be built there and become known for midnight oil as well as midnight sun? John
AKLDFjlkdjfkljsdf!!! I fucking hate those oil companies. They continuously propogate our dependence on oil, and actually work to prevent research on alternate methods of energy production. They're flushing the future of the human race down the shitter for the sake of their pocketbooks.
Wich ones ?.. most spend vast somes of monies to look into other forms of 'energy' .. If the doom sayers a right there business will be bankrupt in say 30 years.. I think they want to stay in business a bit longer than that.
It's a spit in the bucket, and one wonders whether in 10 years whether any of us will even be able to afford the gas we get from it. (ten years being about how long it will be before any of the gasoline derived from that oil reaches the market, give or take).
Yeah, getting oil out of alaska is really expensive. Are there really oil companies doing any research on alternative energy that isn't just a tiny side project to appease the public? I once read some interview with the president of an oil company. The man was claiming that alternative energy isnt nearly as efficient as oil for producing energy, and that there was more than enough oil to last into the foreseeable future. Whether the second claim is true or not, the first is true, but is completely irrelevant; what it comes down to is a dependence on a non-renewable resource that WILL run out eventually, and with oil tycoons insisting that alternative energy research can be put off because the oil won't run out "soon", well, when oil does finally start to dwindle, we won't have enough of it to cheaply research and build alternate methods of energy production. We'll be fucked. And I'm no economist, but I think this situation of oil becoming more and more scarce would be favorable for oil companies. Think about it: they control a resource whose demand will remain high even as the prices skyrocket, because our society NEEDS it to exist. And it will pay out the ass to continue to exist, and in the process, oil companies get filthy, stinking rich. They'll control the most valuable resource in existence as its prices become grossly inflated. They'll basically be gods. Maybe this is incorrect, anyone with a firm understanding of economy feel free to correct me.
Yeah they are .. Shell and the car industry as well... There is enough oil for the forseable future..ecologists and presure groups like Greenpeace want people to think it is all comeing to a end a week next friday..thats generates a more aggresive more forceful attack on the industry and puts into peoples mind a slight fabrication of the truth to perpetuate their fundemental goal..the end of the capitalist evil oil empires . The fact that oil industies, because to a degree they are 'greedy' they will of course look into every possibility in the fuel market and scientific endeavours to keep themselves in business.. If that means 'green' alternatives so be it..it is all just a commodity. I am no economist either..so forgive me for just my humble opinion.. i think i covered a few things in my earlier paragraph so i will try and add something 'new'.. No they won't be gods..because we have the control. It will be our weakness or appetite for something diffrent that will make the change for the better (come sooner or later) ..Think about it, how many people are arsed to sort out there trash so that it will be recycled ?. How many people turn off there entire none essential electrical equipment etc etc ? .. not enough.
By god, you're right. Mostly, I think. That really doesn't make me much more confident about our future though. Sure, some people are starting to realize that there has to be a drastic change in the way we get energy to preserve the human race, but lots of others, blissfully ignorant and uncaring, take regular joyrides in their fuel-munching SUVs. So the oil companies are looking into alternate methods of energy production. I wonder what percentage of the total energy used around the world is created through alternate energy production methods, and at what rate alternative energy is growing? I've been searching for this information and can't find it.
Yeah there are many people that don't care , but thankfuly a vast amount that do (obviosly).. Sorry i did not make you more confident though..It might be a bit of a paradox but the very people that we/you assume don't think about the enviroment (goverment/oil companys/suv manafacturers) are the ones that do the most for the enviroment.. As for those huge SUV i have read that doing two half loads in a dishwasher releases more harmfull emmisions than a average joes daily use of such a vehicle.. We all have a effect, blaming those kinda of people is a bit easy (though needed) we all should take some responsibility and not lump it onto individual groups (i am sure you realise that ?.). I think the percentage reflects the profit/loss ratio of there current endeavours. I am not sure the percentage of alternate energy or the growth u but i am sure these guys do http://www.globalwarming.org/economics.php?year=2005 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/alternativefuels/availability2.htm. I think like most things us humans do it is prety slow to start with then BOOM.. before you know it we will look back and think what fools we were as we adjust our solar panels on the side of our houses, as our kids ask for the keys for the familys electric hovercraft .
Is drilling for oil in Alaska going to make a significant dent in our dependence on foreign oil? No. Is drilling for oil in Alaska going to have a significant effect on the environment? No. Do the small costs outweigh the small benefits? Who cares, is this really one of the most important issues that our country faces? People on both sides of trivial issues like this try to pretend they're epic decisions on which the future of mankind rests. If you support this because the environmental damage would be small, it doesn't make you an anti-environment troglodyte. If you're against this because the economic benefit would be small, it doesn't make you a tree-hugging communist. Jesus. People need to see stupid non-issues like this for what they are: stupid non-issues.
I don't think it is the most important to all (it is not too me), but if you ignore the smaller issues they become big issues , right ?... What is you interpretation of a 'big issue' and 'the iraq war' is not counted .
Decisions like Bush made about Alaska are a reflection of his overall philosophy, so the issue is important in that respect. Bush has looked at the energy problem only from a supply side. His solution is to find more oil. He has never mentioned conservation as part of the solution. It seems that it's below his dignity to say the word 'conserve'. He's also only recently mentioned the problem of the huge increase in demand for oil by countries such as China and India, as if he just realized this poses a major energy problem. There hasn't been a coherent energy policy in the U.S. for the past 20 years. Drilling in Alaska is a short-sighted solution, much like many of the other 'solutions' those in DC have come up with in recent years. .
I thought it was a request from the alaskans .. and has been awaiting a dicision for years and years..just happens it is on Bushs watch..yeah yeah yeah of course he is supposedly likely to pass such a thing, right ?.sorry if thats slightly sarcastic.. http://www.govspot.com/issues/anwr.htm http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?FORM=MSNH&srch_type=0&q=us+oil+conservation+ Bad "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue — but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." (U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, May 2001) Good "A U.S. government investment of $10 billion for a combination of manufacturing changes and direct consumer incentives would spur the production of millions, not thousands, of new hybrid vehicles." (Timothy E. Wirth, C. Boyden Gray, and John D. Podesta, , July 2003) http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4546 It is realy hard to judge.. i still think goverments etc do more than we give them credit for..
Conservation is always a part of a good policy. It gives short term relief when energy is in tight supply and also has beneficial longterm effects. It's a shame that it's below the diginity of the Bush administration to encourage it. .
The Alaskan oil issue has been discussed since the 80s. It didn't get anywhere because the votes weren't there in the Senate until this year when the Republicans picked up a few more seats in the Senate. The crash of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in Alaska in the late 80s and its ecologic disaster put an end to the debate for about ten years. .
So draw the obvious conclusion from your own argument. The greater the degree to which drilling in ANWR does not correspond to sound energy policy (by not significantly increasing supplies and by encouraging dependence on nonrenewable resources) the greater the degree to which pursuit of this endeavor represents a waste of time and the greater the urgency to set straight the priorities of those charged with responsibility for the nation who support drilling.
No. The fact that it's probably a waste of time doesn't mean that the costs significantly outweigh the benefits, it means that they're both very low. This is hardly the biggest "waste of time" activity our government has engaged in, and certainly isn't worthy of grandiose legislation and lots of debate time that could better be spent on something more useful.
What you mean is "yes". Tell the clowns who support drilling to stop bringing the issue up and get with the program. It's a fucking waste of time for those charged with energy policy and national security. By being a waste of time it's a counterproductive pursuit. By being stupid policy it's worse than that.
