Oil Drilling ban lifted by Bush

[remphish1]

I can't stand Bush. Here is another reason why!?

 

He feels he is above all

 

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/bu...fshore-oil-ban/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 

I know gas is expensive but to do this is careless. If demand drops prices will follow. Why not use many of the hundreds of alternatives we have to reduce dependence. Instead of letting our usage get out of control the responible thing would be to use our alternatives and reduce usage. Not continue to let the demand rise so we can drill some more. We have the technology!

 

What I don't get too is we are banking that there is going to be significant findings where they want to drill. We are putting all our eggs in one basket. We can make changes and use alternatives way faster than this oil (That may or may not be there) can reach the market!

 

Also from what I understand there are hundreds of oil leases where there is no activity happening. Why not start there first if they want to drill? Bush is so in love with his oil frends...

 

PS Sorry for the rant..need to let off some steam!

[Good Old Neon]

I would prefer to stick an un-symbolic boot up his ass.

[Guest Jules]

We can make changes and use alternatives way faster than this oil (That may or may not be there) can reach the market!

Please detail the facts behind this comment.

[remphish1]

Please detail the facts behind this comment.

 

 

 

Just one idea....there are several cars that get in excess of 40+ miles per gallon. If the government made the rise in MPG mandatory that car obtained said mileage sooner that would greatly reduce our usage. I just am worried that we are blindly assuming there is oil in the Artic Refuge and in the Ocean. What proof do they have? If we do this and we come up empty handed we will be in a pretty dire situation...

 

Another change I would like would be improvements in mass transit. The Mass transit in the USA is very inefficient and not convenient. In Europe it is timely, convenient and relatively cheap! Let's work on our infrastructure and improve mass transit so it is appealing. Many more people would use mass transit if it was appealing. This will help lower our dependence on foreign energy sources.

[JUDE]

You figure out how to get the population of the United States to fit (willingly) into a landmass equivalent in size to Europe (about equal to Texas) and mass transit will be a perfect solution, until then let's figure out how to work within the current transportation infrastructure, i.e. cars.

[remphish1]

You figure out how to get the population of the United States to fit (willingly) into a landmass equivalent in size to Europe (about equal to Texas) and mass transit will be a perfect solution, until then let's figure out how to work within the current transportation infrastructure, i.e. cars.

 

 

FYI Europe is larger and has twice the population of the USA...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states

 

Europe is 3,930,000 Sq Miles and Europe has 731 Million People

USA is 3,794,066 Sq Miles and USA has 305 Million

[Good Old Neon]

You figure out how to get the population of the United States to fit (willingly) into a landmass equivalent in size to Europe (about equal to Texas) and mass transit will be a perfect solution, until then let's figure out how to work within the current transportation infrastructure, i.e. cars.

 

 

Burn fossil fuels at such a rapid rate, with such ferocity and disregard, that the planet warms drastically within a very brief period of time, melting the polar ice at both ends causing sea levels to rise until the population is sort of squeezed, left marooned on what amounts to a postage stamp?

[JUDE]

And how many years has Europe had to develop these population centers and infrastructures, not to mention the social and psychological developments that come with dense populations.

 

Versus say the United States.

[Guest Jules]

Burn fossil fuels at such a rapid rate, with such ferocity and disregard, that the planet warms drastically within a very brief period of time, melting the polar ice at both ends causing sea levels to rise until the population is sort of squeezed, left marooned on what amounts to a postage stamp?

"gullible"

[remphish1]

And how many years has Europe had to develop these population centers and infrastructures, not to mention the social and psychological developments that come with dense populations.

 

Versus say the United States.

 

Its never to late to change!

[Guest Jules]

Its never to late to change!

 

you forgot, "maybe for no reason".

[JUDE]

Burn fossil fuels at such a rapid rate, with such ferocity and disregard, that the planet warms drastically within a very brief period of time, melting the polar ice at both ends causing sea levels to rise until the population is sort of squeezed, left marooned on what amounts to a postage stamp?

 

Yeah, because the science on this is undisputed.

 

 

Just say hypothetically we banned fossil fuel usage in our great-enlightened country, we returned to a communal agrarian lifestyle. Do you actually think that China, India, and Pakistan are going to forego cheap energy in order to save the ice caps?

 

Please, in your own words.

[Guest Jules]

Just say hypothetically we banned fossil fuel usage in our great-enlightened country, we returned to a communal agrarian lifestyle. Do you actually think that China, India, and Pakistan are going to forego cheap energy in order to save the ice caps?

It's never too late to change.

 

Edit: and, yes, the science is undisputed because he believes it.

[remphish1]

I would love it if the USA can invent or manufacture some sort of reusable fuel that we can sell to other nations (Especially China, India and Middle East) thus having a cleaner world and maybe fixing our economy at the same time!

[Moe_Syzlak]

Yeah, because the science on this is undisputed.

Science, by definition, is never undisputed. That doesn't mean there isn't broad consensus. At least by scentists NOT funded by oil companies and the Heritage Foundation.

[JUDE]

Science, by definition, is never undisputed. That doesn't mean there isn't broad consensus. At least by scentists NOT funded by oil companies and the Heritage Foundation.

 

Um, ok.

 

So my second question, if we as a nation sacrifice our standard of living in order to save our planet form impending doom at the hands of humans, do you actually believe that developing industrial nations will make the same sacrifice? If you answer yes, I have some interesting investment opportunities I'd like to discuss with you..

[Good Old Neon]

Yeah, because the science on this is undisputed.

 

 

Just say hypothetically we banned fossil fuel usage in our great-enlightened country, we returned to a communal agrarian lifestyle. Do you actually think that China, India, and Pakistan are going to forego cheap energy in order to save the ice caps?

 

Please, in your own words.

 

I thought I wrote that with an obvious level of hyperbole

[Moe_Syzlak]

Um, ok.

 

So my second question, if we as a nation sacrifice our standard of living in order to save our planet form impending doom at the hands of humans, do you actually believe that developing industrial nations will make the same sacrifice? If you answer yes, I have some interesting investment opportunities I'd like to discuss with you..

Well it may surprise you to know that I do NOT favor Kyoto (I don't believe it feasible for our country to do in any sort of responsible economic way) and I do favor more of a free market approach to moving off fossil fuels. But that is not because I dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence that we are f'ing things up. Price at the pump is one issue but, although highly visible to John Q. Public, is not, in my opinion, the biggest issue. The prices for all goods shipped across the country and around the world will continue to rise. If I had my way, we would see more more emphasis on moving away from fossil fuels if we experienced the REAL impacts of the price increases. We are seeing a lot more private investment in alternative energies because of the obvious opportunities as oil prices rise. Get rid of government subsidies on the richest industry in America, the oil industry, and see how much MORE private investment in alternative energies we'd see. The fact is, no matter what, it will get worse before it gets better.

[owl]

Fortunately, lifting the executive order is largely symbolic. A federal law that prohibits drilling is still in place.

 

You have to ask yourself: is it worth it to save an estimated four cents to the gallon, or is it just an excuse for Bush to use an emergency to make oil men richer? Note that Bush never mentions the four cents when he promotes offshore drilling.

 

There are many, many things we could do right now to save gas--that would make a much greater impact than the four cents/gallon that we'll save a decade from now, when gas will probably be $15/gallon.

 

Ride your bikes or walk for short errands.

Encourage your employer to let you telecommute.

Do more of your shopping locally.

Etc.

[sweetheart-mine]

And how many years has Europe had to develop these population centers and infrastructures, not to mention the social and psychological developments that come with dense populations.

 

Versus say the United States.

the united states, in the 1950s-60s era, started dismantling its mass transit infrastructure -- and building an unending massive highway system instead, to accommodate everyone's wish for a car. ever notice the many unused railroad tracks and train stations dotting the country? (of course, you can see only the stations that weren't razed for the gratification of some developer.) they were put there in the first place for a reason: to get everyone where they need to go, whether it's across the country or six blocks across town.

 

i don't know about europe. but word has it that they still do a lot of mass transporting and manage to not let it ruin their lives.

 

[IRememberDBoon]

Please detail the facts behind this comment.

 

 

please detail the facts behind the idea that drilling with do anything

[JUDE]

i don't know about europe. but word has it that they still do a lot of mass transporting and manage to not let it ruin their lives.

 

 

Word has it that Europe also has a couple of thousand years head start on building their urban centers and infrastructure.

 

[IRememberDBoon]

Um, ok.

 

So my second question, if we as a nation sacrifice our standard of living in order to save our planet form impending doom at the hands of humans, do you actually believe that developing industrial nations will make the same sacrifice? If you answer yes, I have some interesting investment opportunities I'd like to discuss with you..

 

 

great argument!

[sweetheart-mine]

Word has it that Europe also has a couple of thousand years head start on building their urban centers and infrastructure.

 

and? we don't think it's a good idea to aim for the infrastructure we're likely to need in the not too distant future because we're so far behind or what? i'm not seeing the relevance here.

[bobbob1313]

Mass transit is almost impossible in a spread out city like Miami. It's all infill between 3 major cities.