Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Great personal expense - indeed. Gore happens to be someone who has the funds to incur the great personal expense, but still, in using the excessive renewable energy that he does there is less renewable energy available for use by others and therefore they use normal fossil fuel energy.

Pfft Yes, I recognize the attempt to bait me, but I'm bored.

When Green Power Switch starts turning people away, you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

And just for fun, with the understanding that one should be able to receive as well as they give...Could you please trade in that wasteful vehicle you drive, Napoleon. There are many other vehicles you could choose. I really don't appreciate your wastefulness. Many people can't afford a vehicle as nice as yours and you should be ashamed of yourself for flaunting it in front of those of lesser means than yourself.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Gore also purchases carbon credits - from a company that I believe he owns.

Oops... almost missed your last edit, and wouldn't that be a shame?

Per usual, pick up the part of the story that could be used to slam Gore and run with it... right into a wall.

Gore owns stock.

Your 401K probably owns stock in ExxonMobil.

Does it own ExxonMobil? Do you? Do you ever buy gas from ExxonMobil, Napoleon?

Give it a rest.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Could you please trade in that wasteful vehicle you drive, Napoleon. There are many other vehicles you could choose. I really don't appreciate your wastefulness. Many people can't afford a vehicle as nice as yours and you should be ashamed of yourself for flaunting it in front of those of lesser means than yourself.

Your 401K probably owns stock inn ExxonMobil.

Does it own ExxonMobil? Do you? Do you ever buy gas from Exxon Mobil, Napoleon?

Give it a rest.

But I don't think oil companies are evil. I don't think others should be prevented from owning a minivan and won't presume to tell them not to. I also don't believe that others should stop buying from Exxon and I should be allowed to continue, so the analogy hardly is fitting. Or do you not understand the literary reference?

Wow...I guess if you think i should give it a rest, I better stop. I'm so sorry.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But I don't think oil companies are evil.

Neither does Al believe carbon credits are evil.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I also don't believe that others should stop buying from Exxon and I should be allowed to continue

Neither does Al

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Or do you not understand the literary reference?

I understand literary reference AND bull**** all at the same time. I multitask.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Wow...I guess if you think i should give it a rest, I better stop. I'm so sorry.

No need to apologize... not to me anyway.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Neither does Al believe carbon credits are evil.

So he can buy all he wants. I won't ask him to stop.

I understand literary reference AND bull**** all at the same time. I multitask.

Then you understand Napolean propped himself up as too important to follow what he made everyone else follow.

No need to apologize... not to me anyway.

It was a bit sarcastic. I don't think I've said anything unjustified abuot anyone in this thread. I haven't called anyone here a name or asked them to give it a rest. That's someone else.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Then you understand Napolean propped himself up as too important to follow what he made everyone else follow.

Yep, sure do.

What Al is asking you to do, he's already doing.

Your Napoleon reference is not apt.

Can that be put any simpler?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Yep, sure do.

What Al is asking you to do, he's already doing.

Your Napoleon reference is not apt.

Can that be put any simpler?

But I disgaree, so no, it doesn't matter how simply you state what you think.

Al Gore says burning fossil fuels is killing the planet (this is a paraphrase so I'm not chatized for not having a link to a quote). We should all reduce what we use. Al Gore, though, is so important, that he can jet around to all corners of the earth and travel in motorcades when I suppose he could make a speech via a sat link. His carbon footprint drawfs that of those he chastizes. Because he is wealthy it is OK for him because he purchases carbon credits.

Mind you, I don't think Al Gore should change his habits. I don't really care. Just don't tell me or Joe Sixpack or anyone else that we aren't doing our part because we drive an SUV (which I don't, by the way).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But I don't think oil companies are evil.

I don't think they are evil either, however I do think that public policy should value their interests below the interests of society and the planet.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't think they are evil either, however I do think that public policy should value their interests below the interests of society and the planet.

And that is a completely rational thing to want/expect. I don't think the policy of drilling now, though, puts the interests of society at risk - i see it as win-win. Cheaper gas (and grated that will take a bit) while other techs and infrastructure are developed and implemented. The planet? Yeah, accidents can happen. we had 3 mile island and Chernobyl but yet nuke power has advanced to the point of extreme safety.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't think they are evil either, however I do think that public policy should value their interests below the interests of society and the planet.

Is that an absolute? If so, then every single car would need to be taken off the road tomorrow (and every airplane grounded, every non-electric train, etc.). All fossil fuel burning power plants would need to be shut down. All sorts of things would have to happen that would not only be extremely inconvenient and dangerous to every person in this country, but would also send the economy into a complete tailspin.

We make the decision every time we get into our car, that today, our personal interests are more important than that of society and the planet.

Both personally and globally, we are making risk/reward assessments. No, oil exploration is not 100% safe - there will be a small amount of damage to the environment. But I believe that (as long as it is on US soil), it will be safe and will have negligible impact on the surrounding environment. Increasing our (the US) capability to be self-sustaining improves the safety of our country, economically and politically.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Is that an absolute? If so, then every single car would need to be taken off the road tomorrow (and every airplane grounded, every non-electric train, etc.).

No, because that would not be in society's interest

All fossil fuel burning power plants would need to be shut down. All sorts of things would have to happen that would not only be extremely inconvenient and dangerous to every person in this country, but would also send the economy into a complete tailspin.

What part of that is in society's interest?

I did not say I don't think oil companies should be allowed profit. But, as I've stated above, the only benefit I see from off shore drilling is to the oil companies, not to us. I don't expect it to lower prices to consumers. I don't expect it to lessen our dependence on foreign oil to any appreciable degree. I don't expect it to forestall the inevitable day when the world's oil supplies can no longer support us. And I do expect it to delay the hopefully inevitable day when we no longer need oil. All I expect it to do is temporarily allow the oil companies larger profit margins due to lower cost of oil speculation.

if they were make $9 million profit on $100 million in sales, there would be no problem. $9 billion on $100 billion is somehow a problem.

You know I seem to recall you chastising Obama for not being charitable enough because he had such a high income. Why do you hold an individual to such sliding scale and not an entity? If his willingness to part with his money for the greater good increases with increased income, why not the oil companies?