Oil Drilling ban lifted by Bush

[bjorn_skurj]

You just can't legislate a pedestrian/mass transit-friendly world into being, at least not in this country. If gas prices stay high, people will start to demand such things and they may get listened to, unless some great leap forward occurs in hybrids, thus saving suburbia.

[sweetheart-mine]

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.

amen

[sweetheart-mine]

You just can't legislate a pedestrian/mass transit-friendly world into being, at least not in this country. If gas prices stay high, people will start to demand such things and they may get listened to, unless some great leap forward occurs in hybrids, thus saving suburbia.

i'm counting on people to demand such things, and their increased interest in mass transport already, at only $4/gallon for gas, has pleasantly surprised me. i didn't think it would start this soon.

 

i don't count on legislators, by themselves, to accomplish a whole lot of anything these days. am hoping that will evolve. kind of fast.

[Moe_Syzlak]

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

 

 

You just can't legislate a pedestrian/mass transit-friendly world into being, at least not in this country. If gas prices stay high, people will start to demand such things and they may get listened to, unless some great leap forward occurs in hybrids, thus saving suburbia.

Food for thought. Denver is a pretty spread out city, largely built after the advent of the automobile. As I stated above, subsidies for the oil industry keep fuel prices artificially low. But mass transit is also subsidized.

[JUDE]

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.

 

I don't understand why people can't see the need to utilize the current system in the most economic way possible until we can phase in new systems. We are a nation that has the luxury of low population density, hence cars. Europe does not. Hence they never developed the reliance on the automobile.

 

I see no benefit in limiting the supply of oil to the detriment of our standard of living for ideas that will take decades if not centuries to implement. Last time I heard, light rail, subways, busses cost quite a bit to build and maintain.

 

The environmental argument is secondary to my concerns over our standard of living, rest assured if we don't use "cheap" energy other countries will have no problem using it for us.

[Moe_Syzlak]

I don't understand why people can't see the need to utilize the current system in the most economic way possible until we can phase in new systems. We are a nation that has the luxury of low population density, hence cars. Europe does not. Hence they never developed the reliance on the automobile.

 

I see no benefit in limiting the supply of oil to the detriment of our standard of living for ideas that will take decades if not centuries to implement. Last time I heard, light rail, subways, busses cost quite a bit to build and maintain.

 

The environmental argument is secondary to my concerns over our standard of living, rest assured if we don't use "cheap" energy other countries will have no problem using it for us.

Well, even by proponents estimates, peak production wouldn't be realized for many years and would likely do very little to offset the price of crude oil. So, I could ask you, I don't understand why you can't see the need to invest that money in more long term fixes than short-sighted ones when both will require many years to see any signifcant benefit to allow us to go back to our "standard of living."

 

But again, lose the subsidies altogether, and I'm fine with whatever the various industries decide is he most economically feasible.

[bobbob1313]

Food for thought. Denver is a pretty spread out city, largely built after the advent of the automobile. As I stated above, subsidies for the oil industry keep fuel prices artificially low. But mass transit is also subsidized.

 

I mean, South Florida is probably the most spread out metro area in the country. From West Palm Beach down to the Keys, it's about a 20 mile wide swath of straight suburbia with Fort Lauderdale and Miami being the only real cities. That's about 80 miles north to south. Public transit isn't feasible on a mass scale.

[owl]

The environmental argument is secondary to my concerns over our standard of living, rest assured if we don't use "cheap" energy other countries will have no problem using it for us.

 

I love the "everyone else is doing it" argument. That's the funny thing about conservatives: they try to claim moral high ground but in an instant will do anything for money.

 

There is no quick solution to this problem. No drilling--and no mass transit systems--will produce instant results. You might as well get used to it. By the time we realize the four-cent benefit of oil drilling along the coasts and in ANWR, we'll already be 10 years into exponential gas prices and it won't make any difference whatsoever. You might as well get off your ass and onto your bike. It's amazing what people will destroy just to put off having to change for another few years.

 

I'm sure your oil futures have nothing to do with your interest in the subject, though.

[Good Old Neon]

Yeah unfortunately, and in many cases understandably, given what was known at the time, our cities were laid out and constructed without concern or regard for the eventual necessity of mass transit on such a large scale.

 

Putting aside any and all talk of global warming, climate change, etc - the innovation, intelligence and effort that

[owl]

Public transit isn't feasible on a mass scale.

That's what an artificially-sustained standard of living will do. That's what laziness will do to an economy. It's not because we're running out of oil that this is a problem--it's because we refused to see it coming and instead opted to continue to gratify ourselves while it lasted. It will have to become feasible. Personal, gas-powered automotive transport isn't looking feasible anymore, either, like it or not.

[JUDE]

Well, even by proponents estimates, peak production wouldn't be realized for many years and would likely do very little to offset the price of crude oil. So, I could ask you, I don't understand why you can't see the need to invest that money in more long term fixes than short-sighted ones when both will require many years to see any signifcant benefit to allow us to go back to our "standard of living."

 

But again, lose the subsidies altogether, and I'm fine with whatever the various industries decide is he most economically feasible.

 

I have no problem investing in long term fixes, I have a real problem in limiting options, i.e. drilling bans, carbon credits, etc. In the case of oil, current costs are not so much a product of demand, supply or capacity as they are of market factors, i.e. trading. The market has been artificially inflated (opinion) due to an arbitrary limit set on supply (drilling limitations and bans) and removing the variable of new sources coming on line.

 

The buzz of late seems to be bashing on those nasty commodities traders (futures) but guess what we give them the safest way to hedge their bets by saying we will not allow any variables to be thrown into the supply side. It's a pretty safe bet that with an increased demand (not just the US) and a limited supply (no new drilling/sources) oil will continue to go up. I argue that if you throw in a drilling/production variable you add the chance for these traders to get stuck holding a long position and the price will drop as a result.

[owl]

It's a pretty safe bet that with an increased demand (not just the US) and a limited supply (no new drilling/sources) oil will continue to go up.

 

Well, it was. A lot of retirement funds aren't looking so secure anymore.

[JUDE]

I love the "everyone else is doing it" argument. That's the funny thing about conservatives: they try to claim moral high ground but in an instant will do anything for money.

 

How many people in China are on the Internet debating the use of oil to increase the standard of living to the detriment of mother earth?

 

That's the funny thing about liberals; they don

[bjorn_skurj]

Well, it was. A lot of retirement funds aren't looking so secure anymore.

Did something change? Cold fusion?

[bobbob1313]

That's what an artificially-sustained standard of living will do. That's what laziness will do to an economy. It's not because we're running out of oil that this is a problem--it's because we refused to see it coming and instead opted to continue to gratify ourselves while it lasted. It will have to become feasible. Personal, gas-powered automotive transport isn't looking feasible anymore, either, like it or not.

 

Have you ever been to South Florida? You can't just say that and then say we have to adopt mass transit. This isn't Chicago. It isn't New York. The cities weren't planned with this in mind.

 

It's fine to criticize if you actually have an idea of what to do, but the fact of the matter is in Miami, and many North American cities, public transportation isn't a feasible option for the foreseeable future, and it has nothing to do with the lifestyle of the citizens and everything to do with a lack of city planning from the highest levels. Miami built out rather than up.

[explodo]

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.

If we're talking about public transit, and we are/were, both continents have had since the train was invented. I doubt city planners in London circa 1100 were saying, "No, no. We had better not put that there. We might have to put a public transit system there in 1902."

 

I don't really understand how can you seriously argue against expanding public transportation in the name of your selfish desire to cruise around. Not everybody can afford that same thing. Expanding public transit doesn't force it upon you to use it. It just means we're ready when gas prices hit 8 dollars a gallon. A network like the one in Europe obviously doesn't work for very practical logistical reasons in most of our newer cities and certainly not to span the country, but we could easily take steps to improve trains traveling up and down the east coast or maybe throw a high-speed line in the midwest that does something like Chicago/Detroit/St. Louis/Kansas City/Omaha/Minneapolis/Milwaukee.

[Moe_Syzlak]

How many people in China are on the Internet debating the use of oil to increase the standard of living to the detriment of mother earth?

 

That's the funny thing about liberals; they don

[owl]

How many people in China are on the Internet debating the use of oil to increase the standard of living to the detriment of mother earth?

I don't know. Do you want to know what our standard of living is doing for China?

That's the funny thing about liberals; they don

[Guest Jules]

I don't really understand how can you seriously argue against expanding public transportation in the name of your selfish desire to cruise around.

I don't see where he did this.

[JUDE]

If we're talking about public transit, and we are/were, both continents have had since the train was invented. I doubt city planners in London circa 1100 were saying, "No, no. We had better not put that there. We might have to put a public transit system there in 1902."

 

I don't really understand how can you seriously argue against expanding public transportation in the name of your selfish desire to cruise around. Not everybody can afford that same thing. Expanding public transit doesn't force it upon you to use it. It just means we're ready when gas prices hit 8 dollars a gallon. A network like the one in Europe obviously doesn't work for very practical logistical reasons in most of our newer cities and certainly not to span the country, but we could easily take steps to improve trains traveling up and down the east coast or maybe throw a high-speed line in the midwest that does something like Chicago/Detroit/St. Louis/Kansas City/Omaha/Minneapolis/Milwaukee.

 

I haven't argued against anything, christ. I'm just a proponent of options and people being just a tad realistic with their expectations for any transit system.

 

Oh and rest assured, if gas hits $8 a gollon, I will still be able to afford to "cruise around" at will.

[owl]

Have you ever been to South Florida? You can't just say that and then say we have to adopt mass transit. This isn't Chicago. It isn't New York. The cities weren't planned with this in mind.

 

It's fine to criticize if you actually have an idea of what to do, but the fact of the matter is in Miami, and many North American cities, public transportation isn't a feasible option for the foreseeable future, and it has nothing to do with the lifestyle of the citizens and everything to do with a lack of city planning from the highest levels. Miami built out rather than up.

Yes I have on many occasions and I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that it's not something that people will be able to postpone for much longer. Population densities will increase in some areas, and others will become ghost towns. The rich will continue to do what they do. The rest will have to find a way.

 

Oh and rest assured, if gas hits $8 a gollon, I will still be able to afford to "cruise around" at will.

And rest assured, you will not hesitate to let us all know how rich you are.

[Guest Jules]

The rich will continue to do what they do. The rest will have to find a way.

[owl]

I'm not saying that's what I want. I'm saying that's how it will be, drilling or not.

[embiggen]

Oh and rest assured, if gas hits $8 a gollon, I will still be able to afford to "cruise around" at will.

 

 

"oil futures"

[Moe_Syzlak]

I haven't argued against anything, christ. I'm just a proponent of options and people being just a tad realistic with their expectations for any transit system.

 

Oh and rest assured, if gas hits $8 a gollon, I will still be able to afford to "cruise around" at will.

Do you have a lot of money? I must've missed that.