ANWAR Drilling Proposal Dropped!

Nice investigating there, Luv... =)

 

Tis me public soivice for the day. Me woik here is done. All youts guys n gals play nice.

 

The U.S. really needs to explore alternative energy sources. The dependence on foreign oil is increasing steadily and ANWR isn't going to change it. We could have spent the $350 billion of war money on alternative energy research and development. That would have been a much wiser investment.



.

 

Soitenly! Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

*sound of face slap*

Ouch!

 

I guess that means domestic oil, eh? Gilly, let me ask you sumpin. How do you wean a junkie off his fix? Send him to a closer dealer?

 

"Moreover, only a tiny amount of the section proposed for exploration would actually be involved in drilling. New production technology-including multilateral wells as well as directional drilling and other horizontal underground drilling-would require the use of only 2,000 acres in the 1002 Area, a parcel no bigger than Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., leaving 99.99 percent of ANWR untouched."

If it's that small, there can't be all that much oil there.

The U.S. needs a change in mentality about its energy sources. The U.S. is like a couch potato who ran out of potato chips and is lifting up the sofa cushion looking for just a few more chips.

.

 

Speaking of pork barrel, check out this report:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/09/bridges/index_np.html

.

 

So it would seem to be the prudent course of action to what? Continue to look for more sources instead of fast-tracking alternative energy - plop billions into another site in Alaska?

ANWR is, as someone already pointed out, about filling pockets already full, about making some rich people even richer.

And the analogy isn't far offbase from the reality. It may not be a physical adiction, but it will sure disrupt the hell out of life. So why continue circling the drain? We're already late for the dance.

 

Watch out for bird flu in that tag pic of yours, Gilligan.

.

 

Luvndrumn

Balbus, I'm going to turn it around on you and ask the same question, except that I'll refer to Blair's loss. In that context, ask yourself the question you posed us. That should get you as confused as we are.

**

Well the thing is that it seems that for many in the Republican party the Bush admin is lacking because it is not pushing a right wing agenda strongly enough.

On the other hand Blair most commentators agree is actually to the right of most of his own party members and this is still true even though large numbers of people have left the party because they disagreed with the way ‘New Labour’ has acted.

Many in the Labour party at first tolerated Blair because they saw him as an electoral asset, they are not so sure and before the last election Blair declared he would not be standing again. Well remember that in the UK there is no limit to the number of times a person can stand as PM so it was a big thing. It was generally seen that the only way that Labour could get out many of its voters was by sacrificing Blair to them and thereby giving them the hope that he was off and they could bring in someone more to their liking.

Many people were politicised by the war and joined the Anti-war movement, the Green Party and Respect all of which are more left wing than ‘New Labour’.

**

 

As to weaning the American public off their need for oil, I’m not sure where you could start, the US love affair with the car seems sometimes to go beyond sanity.

I suppose you could improve public transport into cities and towns while at the same time restricting traffic into built up areas. Try limiting four wheel drives to country areas with extra taxation for having one in suburban and urban areas. That is where I would start before going for the big one, an increase in oil prices.

The only problem I can see is that the person meant to bring these measures in would be lynched a few hours after the announcement of the programme, first by the vested interests and then by the public.

 

It's a curious thing, Balbus. The term conservative just doesn't match what this bunch is doing. Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton did leave office with a $400+ million dollar surplus (I think those numbers are right - at least he left with a surplus). And now we are very far down the rabbit hole. Some member of the administration recently spoke at a gathering of conservative businessmen, the kind of folks who are hardcore Republicans and also donate heavily to Republican causes. One of them asked the administration member how much of a majority in the legislature did the Republican party need before the party started acting like Republicans. So it seems everyone's confused, except, of course, for King George the Lesser and his band of merry fools. To them, the path is clear - stay the course. (Perhaps because not a single one of the wingnuts knows how to stear?)

As for those who think Bush isn't radical enough (in a right wing kind of way), those types probably aren't going to be happy unless they get everything they want. But they are so far afield, they will never get everything they want. Like the nutcase who wants to take over South Carolina and make it extreme Christian (holy rollers on steroids). Or Ralph Reed, who says it's OK to kill doctors who perform legal abortions because they are murderers. Or the stone waste of flesh in Kansas who prances around with signs that read "God Hates Fags". (Funny, all my reading suggests that God doesn't hate anything.) It's really hard to please everyone, no matter how hard you try. I'm not too certain that dubya's even trying. Just frothing at the mouth.

Has it been four years yet?

 

Well, Balbus, a start is a start and that hasn't happened yet. Oh sure, there have been creative types who have done some wonderful out-of-the-box thinking and designing, but sooner or later Big Oil gets wind of it and strolls on by with a check for a couple of million to buy the creative one off and grab the patent. And nothing becomes of it because Big Oil doesn't like competition, especially when they can continue to pump and refine and gouge. Now, of course, I don't have anything the verify my opinion, but it strikes me as very strange that all these creative people with groundbreaking ideas haven't found some financial backer with which to launch an alternative energy company that would revolutionize how we power our world. Vegetable oil-burning engines are coming out, hybrid engines are coming out, biomass-burning engines are coming out, but how long has this discussion about oil been going on with virtually nothing to show for it? So, we need to start - somewhere, somehow - and damn fast.

I'm afraid that would costs trillions of dollars that just aren't there. If one where to stretch Britain to the size of, let's say, France to the Ukraine, and Norway to Greece, you might start to approach the driving requirements of a large percentage of Americans. This is one big country and we have spread ourselves out to a large degree. Some people in the inner cities don't drive and some don't even own a car, but they are an infintesimally small minority. Everybody drives. There is no public transportation where I live, for an example, and the county and state simply do not have the funds to provide it. It takes me forty minutes to get to work, averaging about 60 mph and I don't live as far out as some. The nearest food store is 3 miles away. It goes on and on.

Think minutes.

 

Luv

“It's a curious thing, Balbus. The term conservative just doesn't match what this bunch is doing”

Well in my view the Democrats are the more conservative branch of the US right wing. What I thought Bush et al, appealed to were the ‘City on the hill’ crowd, the ones that have completely fallen for the myths and false promises of the ‘American Way’.

But that was what I was getting at, as far as I can see from over here the Bush regime has not shaken their faith in the myths only in the ability of Bush to being them into reality. They are not questioning if their beliefs can or even should be realised, but strengthened their resolve to find someone else that will promise them to bring about what is in some way either impossible or undesirable.

As far as I can see they are the greatest impediment to the reform that the US so desperately needs, so until they realise that what they hope for is only fiction and they face up to reality will things change.

And I don’t see that happening?

 

Well, we've got oil executives in the White House now. That tops Reagan, Carter, Ford, and the rest of the shmucks. I don't know how we could go any more ultimate than that, with the exception of having the CEO of Texaco or Exxon run for President. And I wouldn't rule that out either. They've certainly got the money in a campaign system that is now dominated by millionaires and billionaires.

.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10045043/

.

 

Who'd a thunk it? Big oil meeting with the Cheney Energy Task Force and then lying about it to Congress? Why the very notion is outrageous! How dare anyone suggest such a thing?













BTW shaggie, it's likely to get boring around here for awhile. Two opposition posters were "retired" last night by Big Dog. Want to suggest a topic and I'll take the opposing view? In another thread, of course. Don't want to stray too far off topic. It has it's costs. Geez.

 

They'll be reincarnated, I guarantee you.

.