Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush - Page 5

BarTopDancer · 07-23-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Certainly debatable - I can find many references to the contrary.

Polar bears thriving as arctic warms up

Much of what I've read on the subject says that counting polar bears is very difficult because of the vastness and unfriendliness of their habitat. It also seems as if it isn't actual numbers that appear to be in decline, but that there is more a sense that they will be in danger.

Threatened species - listed in May of 2008 which is a year after your link was published.

JWBear · 07-22-2008, 11:20 AM

A big corporation is going to do everything in its power to increase profit. Who actually owns the stock is irrelevant.

Kevy Baby · 07-22-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

A big corporation is going to do everything in its power to increase profit. Who actually owns the stock is irrelevant.

Is that a bad thing? Or are you just assuming that the big bad anonymous corporations ALWAYS choose to make a profit at the expense of "everyone and everything else" (including nature)?

Is it bad for a corporation to make money?

I personally like when they do because it increases my retirement fund. Is that a bad thing?

JWBear · 07-22-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Is that a bad thing? Or are you just assuming that the big bad anonymous corporations ALWAYS choose to make a profit at the expense of "everyone and everything else" (including nature)?

Many do, yes. And I think the oil companies are among the worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Is it bad for a corporation to make money?

No, not at all. There is a difference between profitibility and corporate greed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I personally like when they do because it increases my retirement fund. Is that a bad thing?

In other words, as long as your bottom line is good, the rest of the world can go to hell? No wonder you like the big oil companies!

scaeagles · 07-22-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

No, not at all. There is a difference between profitibility and corporate greed.

A 9% profit margin is not corporate greed.

JWBear · 07-22-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A 9% profit margin is not corporate greed.

Sure it is, if it is obtained illegally, unethically, or immorally.

Sub la Goon is right. The oil companies are running scared because the President they bought and paid for is going to be out of a job soon.

Kevy Baby · 07-22-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

Many do, yes. And I think the oil companies are among the worst.

Why do you believe this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

In other words, as long as your bottom line is good, the rest of the world can go to hell? No wonder you like the big oil companies!

Please tell me where I said the rest of the world can go to hell? Or where the oil companies have said this?

I like companies that make money in a safe and rational manner. Despite what gets spewed on a regular basis (with virtually no rational argument with data to back it up), the major oil companies ARE responsible corporations.

Alex · 07-22-2008, 11:27 AM

Just to prove my bona fides:

We moved to a suburb we both hate to minimize our commute needs. I spend 3 hours a day on public transportation four out of five workdays when I could drive the same commute in a total of about 1:50 on average. We paid extra and bought what was, at the time, the car with the highest fuel efficiency for our driving style (at the time). We live in a one-bedroom 750 sq. ft. apartment when, if we wanted to, we could afford to be in a 2,000 sq. ft. SFR. We have only the one car because that fulfills 90% of our needs rather than getting a second to make the other 10% more convenient. We use CFLs as much as possible. When I have to buy a new car in a couple years plug-in hybrid will be at the top of the list if available.

Conversely, we leave all of our computers on all of the time (a total of seven if you count our machines at work). We eat out too much and too much of what we eat in is processed pre-packaged foods.

So, now that my right to have an opinion on the best course of action is established (though everyone will have to decide on their own how much privilege it gives me), here's my view:

I don't really care if they drill and pump oil offshore and out of ANWR. Yes, environmental damage will be done. No, in our modern regulatory age it isn't likely to be all that bad though accidents do happen.

I also don't think it will do a damn thing to help the macroeconomic situation vis a vis oil prices. So, lacking any great positive benefit, I don't see any particular reason to go out of the way to advocate for it. Yes, I'm sure some portion of my retirement accounts are benefiting from oil companies but that doesn't really have any bearing on my policy views. If the oil companies start to die then I'd hope my investment managers are wiley enough to move my money out of those industries before great financial harm is done to me but if not, then oh well.

Ghoulish Delight · 07-22-2008, 12:13 PM

Drill in protected areas

BENEFITS: Increased profit for oil companies, incremental delay in the exhasution of oil supplies.

DETRIMENTS: Non-zero impact to environment, to what degree is not ascertainable. Possibly catastrophic, definitely not none.

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 130 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions. All with little to no effect on consumer oil prices in the meantime.

Continuing to Protect off shore and on shore environments

BENEFITS: Zero chance of drilling-related impact to protected areas.

DETRIMENTS: End of oil supply comes slightly sooner

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.

To me, that's the long and short of the cost/benefit analysis. The only thing gained by allowing drilling is more profit for the oil companies (in the form of further reduction in oil speculation spending, none of which will be seen by the consumer). That alone is not an evil thing, but what societal motivation is there to start allowing it? There are plenty of other ways for small investors to make money in the stock market, it does not hinge on the oil companies. The only people who have a total vested interest in this move are major oil investors and executives. Other than that, everything else is essentially a wash with a non-zero risk of irreversible environmental damage. I can't see any way in which that's justified.

scaeagles · 07-22-2008, 12:26 PM

Major benefit you omitted in drilling that I believe is the biggest key (this also equates to a detriment on the no drill side):

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.

07-22-2008, 11:20 AM	#2
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	A big corporation is going to do everything in its power to increase profit. Who actually owns the stock is irrelevant. __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

07-22-2008, 11:27 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Just to prove my bona fides: We moved to a suburb we both hate to minimize our commute needs. I spend 3 hours a day on public transportation four out of five workdays when I could drive the same commute in a total of about 1:50 on average. We paid extra and bought what was, at the time, the car with the highest fuel efficiency for our driving style (at the time). We live in a one-bedroom 750 sq. ft. apartment when, if we wanted to, we could afford to be in a 2,000 sq. ft. SFR. We have only the one car because that fulfills 90% of our needs rather than getting a second to make the other 10% more convenient. We use CFLs as much as possible. When I have to buy a new car in a couple years plug-in hybrid will be at the top of the list if available. Conversely, we leave all of our computers on all of the time (a total of seven if you count our machines at work). We eat out too much and too much of what we eat in is processed pre-packaged foods. So, now that my right to have an opinion on the best course of action is established (though everyone will have to decide on their own how much privilege it gives me), here's my view: I don't really care if they drill and pump oil offshore and out of ANWR. Yes, environmental damage will be done. No, in our modern regulatory age it isn't likely to be all that bad though accidents do happen. I also don't think it will do a damn thing to help the macroeconomic situation vis a vis oil prices. So, lacking any great positive benefit, I don't see any particular reason to go out of the way to advocate for it. Yes, I'm sure some portion of my retirement accounts are benefiting from oil companies but that doesn't really have any bearing on my policy views. If the oil companies start to die then I'd hope my investment managers are wiley enough to move my money out of those industries before great financial harm is done to me but if not, then oh well.
	Submit to Quotes

07-22-2008, 12:13 PM	#9
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Drill in protected areas BENEFITS: Increased profit for oil companies, incremental delay in the exhasution of oil supplies. DETRIMENTS: Non-zero impact to environment, to what degree is not ascertainable. Possibly catastrophic, definitely not none. NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 130 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions. All with little to no effect on consumer oil prices in the meantime. Continuing to Protect off shore and on shore environments BENEFITS: Zero chance of drilling-related impact to protected areas. DETRIMENTS: End of oil supply comes slightly sooner 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. To me, that's the long and short of the cost/benefit analysis. The only thing gained by allowing drilling is more profit for the oil companies (in the form of further reduction in oil speculation spending, none of which will be seen by the consumer). That alone is not an evil thing, but what societal motivation is there to start allowing it? There are plenty of other ways for small investors to make money in the stock market, it does not hinge on the oil companies. The only people who have a total vested interest in this move are major oil investors and executives. Other than that, everything else is essentially a wash with a non-zero risk of irreversible environmental damage. I can't see any way in which that's justified. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

07-22-2008, 12:26 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Major benefit you omitted in drilling that I believe is the biggest key (this also equates to a detriment on the no drill side): 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.
	Submit to Quotes