Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Major benefit you omitted in both that I believe is the biggest key:

Gradual removal of dependence on foreign oil and the effects of potential supply disruption in unstable areas of the world. This lowers the price of oil and shields it from some speculative pressures that have immediate and obvious effects on the economy.

It isn't about increased supply. It's about being sure that our supply - and therefore a large portion of our economic well being - is not subject to the whim of crazy men like Chavez and Ahmadinejad or terrorist action in the Persian Gulf region.

Okay, but over what time scale is "gradually"? It's going to be 20 years (I don't buy the 10 year time line) before we're even pulling it out of the ground in appreciable amounts and have a workable distribution network. Another 10 years beyond that it will maybe start to have an effect on our need for the world oil market. And then how long exactly will that last? That's going to run out eventually, in far less than the 130-150 years that world supplies are estimated to last. And we'll be right back where we started.

To me, there is one, and only one, endgame. Get off of oil. Delaying the depletion of oil, shifting the source of oil while we're depleting it are meaningless bandaids. We're dead if we don't get off oil and the window to do so is smaller than the time needed for any of this drilling to do us any good.

Equation remains the same.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Okay, but over what time scale is "gradually"? It's going to be 20 years (I don't buy the 10 year time line) before we're even pulling it out of the ground in appreciable amounts and have a workable distribution network. Another 10 years beyond that it will maybe start to have an effect on our need for the world oil market.

To me, there is one, and only one, endgame. Get off of oil.

I see it happening much sooner than the 10 year time line.

I agree on the endgame. But the basic functions of oil in terms of what it currently does for us are simply not going to be replaced that quickly. I'm a HUGE nuclear power proponent. Solar and wind? Love 'em. But how far away is it until those (or anything else) are providing for the primary usage of oil, being transportation? Much, much farther away than 10 years.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I see it happening much sooner than the 10 year time line.

I agree on the endgame. But the basic functions of oil in terms of what it currently does for us are simply not going to be replaced that quickly. I'm a HUGE nuclear power proponent. Solar and wind? Love 'em. But how far away is it until those (or anything else) are providing for the primary usage of oil, being transportation? Much, much farther away than 10 years.

Even the most optimistic proponents of offshore drilling say 10 years. When was the last time you saw any industry in this country get something done faster than the best-case-estimates? Based on history, I'd say doubling that to 20 years is generous.

[scaeagles]

Probably about the same time I saw government accomplish anything faster and better than best case estimates, or within budget (applying that last one to both govt and business).

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Sub la Goon

It feels like Big Oil is getting really nervous about losing their White House meal ticket (and maybe even to a Democrat!) and is jacking up the prices as high as they can while GWB is still is POTUS.

Yep. The next one is much less likely to be in their pocket. W has been a great friend to the oil companies.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

(Cost/benefit analysis of drilling ANWR)

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 100 years but have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival, or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival. All with little to no effect on consumer prices of oil in the meantime.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

To me, there is one, and only one, endgame. Get off of oil. Delaying the depletion of oil, shifting the source of oil while we're depleting it are meaningless bandaids. We're dead if we don't get off oil and the window to do so is smaller than the time needed for any of this drilling to do us any good.

That's where I stand. The debate over domestic oil versus foreign oil still assumes an addiction to oil. Let's find other ways to do this. Stop using oil entirely.

I don't approve of drilling in sensitive areas. ANWR has only a small area scheduled to be drilled, but the impact is much wider than just the drilling rigs. Pipelines, vehicle traffic, construction traffic, spills, the waste and pollution from the men working the rigs, and various other disruptions and other factors unforeseen.

The debate comes down to valuing the environment (a soft benefit) over anything that humans want (a hard cost when we have to give something up). Humans have run roughshod over any environment we have touched. At what point do we have a responsibility to say "enough"? I think we're there.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Stop using oil entirely.

Humans have run roughshod over any environment we have touched.

I'll tell you what....when Gore and all the enviromentalists calling for the elimination of using oil stop using oil, particularly to the extent Gore does, then I'll consider it.

Al Gore is Napolean from Animal Farm.

Really? Any environment we have touched? Sorry - I can go to innumerable beautiful and populated spots within a 10 hour drive of my home. Oh wait. I shouldn't drive 10 hours. Uses too much gas.

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'll tell you what....when Gore and all the enviromentalists calling for the elimination of using oil stop using oil, particularly to the extent Gore does, then I'll consider it.

Al Gore is Napolean from Animal Farm.

Really? Any environment we have touched? Sorry - I can go to innumerable beautiful and populated spots within a 10 hour drive of my home. Oh wait. I shouldn't drive 10 hours. Uses too much gas.

This argument is made again and again and I'm so done with it. So you will do the opposite just because you think Gore is a hypocrite? That's a childish argument.

I am of the mind that I don't mind conserving something I may never see in real life. Ecosystems are delicate things and you can't predict all the effects human activity will have.

I see the current situation with oil as the prime opportunity for innovation into alternative sources. If we invest money into getting more oil instead of innovation, where is the economic incentive to develop those alternatives?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

This argument is made again and again and I'm so done with it. So you will do the opposite just because you think Gore is a hypocrite? That's a childish argument.

Not so in the least. First of all, I never said I'd do anything opposite. I said when he stops, I'll stop. I didn't say I'm going to do my best to increase my energy usage to stick it to him and all his enviro-buddies.

Gore IS Napolean from Animal Farm. He is so important that he must consume more energy than he wishes any one else to. In Gore's world of purchasing carbon credits, then only the wealthy would have access to any energy at all.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Gore turns out to be a bad spokesman for the environmentalist movement. He's easy to attack, and overstates his case. Drama queen.

I was speaking overall, not in a micro sense. Yes, we have set aside some areas to be left alone. But even those areas - trails are made, trash is left, the air is less clean than it was. We try to minimize our footprint, but it does remain.

[Scrooge McSam]

Al Gore's house uses more energy than the average, no doubt about it. He's an important man, operating both business and political concerns from his home. There's staff, quite a few if I remember correctly, along with their attendant energy needs. Al Gore is a busy, and quite wealthy, fellow.

It's been my experience that people who will go out of their way to denigrate Gore will fail to tell you he purchases his household energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources through the Green Power Switch program. There's ample information available on the program should one choose to have a look. And he does this at great additional expense to himself.

Al Gore doesn't have to stop using less oil, except possibly on transportation.

Originally Posted by alphabassetgrrl

Gore turns out to be a bad spokesman for the environmentalist movement. He's easy to attack, and overstates his case. Drama queen.

May be (I don't happen to agree), but please don't base your judgment on rhetoric with only a tangential relationship with the truth.