Bush Lifts Executive ban of Offshore Drilling Posted: 4 months ago by shep182
President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit. "This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said.
Comments: 19 Score: [-] 231 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 4 months ago by shep182:
Somehow, this doesn't seem like a viable solution. It has been said that we wouldn't see a difference in PATP (Prices at the Pump) for 10 years, and then it would be a matter of like 10 - 30 cents per gallon. This is a band-aid measure on an arterial problem.... it may hold, but not for long...
Instead of drilling out the coastline and destorying protected habitats, why not invest the money in renewable energies? Research, grants, wind-turbines, tidal-turbines, solar-panels... .hell... even hydrogen or power cells...
if we invested a fraction of the money they want to spend to harvest the last remaining oil reserves on American soil, we could perfect these alternative sources in the same amnt of time, if not a fraction of that...
Lets hope congress realizes this is a knee jerk reaction and placation to oil companies and keep them from destroying what may be our last chance to escape fossil fuels and avoid WWIII being over f**king oil.
Score: [-] 160 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by vexingmodstwo:
« shep182 : Somehow, this doesn't seem like a viable solution. It has been said that we wouldn't see a difference in PATP (Prices at the Pump) for 10 years, and then it would be a matter of like 10 - 30 cents per gallon. This is a band-aid measure on an arterial problem.... it may hold, but not for long...
Instead of drilling out the coastline and destorying protected habitats, why not invest the money in renewable energies? Research, grants, wind-turbines, tidal-turbines, solar-panels... .hell... even hydrogen or power cells...
if we invested a fraction of the money they want to spend to harvest the last remaining oil reserves on American soil, we could perfect these alternative sources in the same amnt of time, if not a fraction of that...
Lets hope congress realizes this is a knee jerk reaction and placation to oil companies and keep them from destroying what may be our last chance to escape fossil fuels and avoid WWIII being over f**king oil. I say they do all of the above. It's not like we're suddenly going to get rid of all our cars.
Score: [-] 62 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by ieldanth:
We have currently a vast infrastructure based on oil and even if we manage to get away from gasoline and diesel fuel, that isn't the only thing oil is used for. Oil is used for everything from plastics to pesticides. Just because the reward is years down the road doesn't mean we should just sit on our hands and do nothing.
Score: [-] 167 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by dork:
Its not a bad idea people just won't like it because Bush is doing it.
Score: [-] 60 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by shep182:
« dork : Its not a bad idea people just won't like it because Bush is doing it. I really dont think it is... and not just because Bush is doing it... tho that is as good a reason as most you will hear...
We have to move away from the oil economy... we HAVE to... do you know why? Because its not a renewable resource... we are seeing the leading edge of a complete economic colapse because we put so much stock in rotten dinosaurs... eventually... whether its next week or next century... there will be NO MORE OIL TO PUMP... it will just be gone... *poof* never to be heard from again... when that day comes, we will either be prepared, having seen years ahead of time that we were in a downward spiral and changed our way of thinking, or we will be devistated, never to recover with the last remaining humans murdering each other over a quart of gasoline.
Dramatic?.... perhaps... but it wont be far from tht truth.
Score: [-] 109 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by vexingmodstwo:
« shep182 : I really dont think it is... and not just because Bush is doing it... tho that is as good a reason as most you will hear...
We have to move away from the oil economy... we HAVE to... do you know why? Because its not a renewable resource... we are seeing the leading edge of a complete economic colapse because we put so much stock in rotten dinosaurs... eventually... whether its next week or next century... there will be NO MORE OIL TO PUMP... it will just be gone... *poof* never to be heard from again... when that day comes, we will either be prepared, having seen years ahead of time that we were in a downward spiral and changed our way of thinking, or we will be devistated, never to recover with the last remaining humans murdering each other over a quart of gasoline.
Dramatic?.... perhaps... but it wont be far from tht truth. I don't think anyone would argue that we have to move away from oil.
The issue is that while we transition to other forms of fuel, there is still a need for it. The entire planet runs on oil. Yes, we need to move away from it but that will take decades and in the mean time we still need the oil.
Cold turkey is not an option for us (read Earth).
Score: [-] 74 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by fentwin:
« dork:Its not a bad idea people just won't like it because Bush is doing it.
I don't think it's just because Bush suggested it, though I'm sure a few take that stance.
It has been touted by McCain as a way to relieve immediate pressures which I think most people see as unrealistic.
If safety measures were adhered to (via regulation and oversight - something we haven't seen much of in eight years) and possibly new ones developed, then I say go for it. As ieldanth
said above, it can be done, and safely perhaps, with an eye to the future.
I wonder how the whale oil magnates felt when that supply dwindled and we moved to a petroleum based society?
Think about it. Our grandparents (mine at least, you whippersnappers) lived through the industrial revolution. We are living through the computer revolution as well as what ever follows the petroleum" revolution".
Score: [-] 66 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by ieldanth:
« fentwin I wonder how the whale oil magnates felt when that supply dwindled and we moved to a petroleum based society?
Bitter. Especially since the Civil War was raging and many of their whaling ships were caught and sunk by the Confederacy. On top of that, 3 year expeditions just to fill one ship were not uncommon at the time and many of the former whalers simply gave up and joined the ranks of the oilmen. I think that is the most likely scenario to play itself out as oil supplies dwindle. Many of the players will simply move to the next energy source and leave a few to squabble over what's left.
Score: [-] 42 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by dork:
« shep182:I really dont think it is... and not just because Bush is doing it... tho that is as good a reason as most you will hear...
We have to move away from the oil economy... we HAVE to... do you know why? Because its not a renewable resource... we are seeing the leading edge of a complete economic colapse because we put so much stock in rotten dinosaurs... eventually... whether its next week or next century... there will be NO MORE OIL TO PUMP... it will just be gone... *poof* never to be heard from again... when that day comes, we will either be prepared, having seen years ahead of time that we were in a downward spiral and changed our way of thinking, or we will be devistated, never to recover with the last remaining humans murdering each other over a quart of gasoline.
Dramatic?.... perhaps... but it wont be far from tht truth. It will not just "be gone" it will not just "poof" yes there will be a time when the wells run dry but were going to have an approximation of when that is going to be. Yes, in the mean time we should develop a back up energy source. If we had hydrogen powered cars it would make a world of difference. Its one of the most promising long term solutions. We need something developed at least before the oil runs out but the sooner the better.
The reason this is a good idea is because sure we may not see any oil for some time, but think about what happens if the middle east cuts off their supply to us. We would be f**ked. We have no idea what kind of relationship we will have with the middle east but I don't think we will be best buddies anytime soon.
It wont get us away from oil but it will get us away from our dependency on foreign oil which is a start.
I think it might lower prices earlier than that because of the security drilling our own oil would bring us. Just know that the oil will be here at a certain time may lower prices. Probably not, I have to admit I don't know what all goes into the decision of the price of gas.
Another thing, is although the article didn't mention if the offshore drilling would happen in international waters. If it does well its a good thing were doing it because I heard the Chinese were thinking of drilling for oil near our coast. (the article doesn't work anymore but the comment that ieldeanth made has a quote from the article that proves my point)
If its not in international waters, well its still good because well like I said we'd have our own oil that we know is going to be there for us
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by ImNotBlue:
« shep182 : Somehow, this doesn't seem like a viable solution. It has been said that we wouldn't see a difference in PATP (Prices at the Pump) for 10 years, and then it would be a matter of like 10 - 30 cents per gallon. This is a band-aid measure on an arterial problem.... it may hold, but not for long...
Instead of drilling out the coastline and destorying protected habitats, why not invest the money in renewable energies? Research, grants, wind-turbines, tidal-turbines, solar-panels... .hell... even hydrogen or power cells...
if we invested a fraction of the money they want to spend to harvest the last remaining oil reserves on American soil, we could perfect these alternative sources in the same amnt of time, if not a fraction of that...
Lets hope congress realizes this is a knee jerk reaction and placation to oil companies and keep them from destroying what may be our last chance to escape fossil fuels and avoid WWIII being over f**king oil. The reason something like this is good, while I agree we need more investment (not necessarily money... throwing money at a problem, does not necessarily solve the problem... we must figure out what the problem is first, then proceed as needed, financially or otherwise) in renewable energy... we can't (as vexing said) stop "cold turkey."
If we were to put all of our resources into renewable energy, and ignore oil, we might get renewable energy faster. But, the cost to the American public could bankrupt the country as a whole. Imagine if gas prices continue to climb... how many people will be unable to drive to work, to feed their family, or heat their home? And as oil prices rise, so do the prices of everything else... dooming the economy to a fully fledged depression, for who knows how long.
We need a comprehensive (buzz word, means nothing) solution... one that allows for increased drilling currently —to support our current demands, while weaning us off oil— as well as, increased production and development from alternative sources. A little Column A, a little Column B.
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by tragluk:
"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said.
THIS is what I have a problem with. Gee Bush, does that mean the only thing between those vast oil reserves for the past 7 years was YOU?
He's playing it. It's not a 'solution for the good of the people', it's a political play. "Look at congress, it's THEIR fault!"
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by smarty1052:
« tragluk : "This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said.
THIS is what I have a problem with. Gee Bush, does that mean the only thing between those vast oil reserves for the past 7 years was YOU?
He's playing it. It's not a 'solution for the good of the people', it's a political play. "Look at congress, it's THEIR fault!" That's what I was thinking.. I'm kind of torn on the topic though.. I mean it would be nice to have our own oil even if it is a few years from now.. but destroying the habitat and endangering the wildlife.. i dunno..
What if years from now we invent a car or something that can run for a year off of one gallon of oil.. but then all the oil is used up.. I kinda like the idea of saving it to see waht future technology could use oil for..
Kinda like if you were stranded somewhere and had a piece of steak that never spoiled would u want to eat it right away and never have steak again.. or just keep eating bugs and stuff then one day for a special occasion or maybe you find a way to clone the steak, lol.. i'm weird
Score: [-] 26 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by dork:
« tragluk : "This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said.
Read the next line, heck ill even put it here for you
From the article
"Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981"
Score: [-] 20 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by tragluk:
« dork : Read the next line, heck ill even put it here for you
From the article
"Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981" Yes, he's pushing them now, he's pushed the burden of the issue off to them so that he's not responsible himself for it.
Bush's money is from Oil. Bush Sr. enacted the Executive Order. Now Bush Jr. is repealing the executive order even though it doesn't do anything because the congressional order is still there.
In other terms..
You own an apple tree. So you say that everybody has to eat YOUR apples and everybody agrees to it. Then when there is pressure you say "Ok, everybody can eat all the apples from the other places... OH YEAH, you can't anyways because everybody has agreed not to. But it's not MY fault you can't."
He's not saying "Let's get to work on some new technologies." No, that would undercut his oil money. He's not saying "I'm going to open the federal reserves" or "I'm going to stop exporting oil to help everyone domestically" No. He's saying "I'm opening the ban (which still exists) so that in 5-10 years you MIGHT see a decrease at the pump of 30cents 10 years after I've left office."
Score: [-] 10 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by bunnysutra:
I think I'll go ahead and put my horse and buggy on reserve now. :) it was a good ride, that whole automobile craze thingee...
Score: [-] 16 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by siennablue:
« ImNotBlue : The reason something like this is good, while I agree we need more investment (not necessarily money... throwing money at a problem, does not necessarily solve the problem... we must figure out what the problem is first, then proceed as needed, financially or otherwise) in renewable energy... we can't (as vexing said) stop "cold turkey."
If we were to put all of our resources into renewable energy, and ignore oil, we might get renewable energy faster. But, the cost to the American public could bankrupt the country as a whole. Imagine if gas prices continue to climb... how many people will be unable to drive to work, to feed their family, or heat their home? And as oil prices rise, so do the prices of everything else... dooming the economy to a fully fledged depression, for who knows how long.
We need a comprehensive (buzz word, means nothing) solution... one that allows for increased drilling currently —to support our current demands, while weaning us off oil— as well as, increased production and development from alternative sources. A little Column A, a little Column B. We don't need to doom the economy, or choose a little from column A or B, all we need to do is take the money from the Iraq war, and the new war against Iran ... and use it for renewable energy. Of course, knowing our politicians, they would probably outsource it all.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by ImNotBlue:
« siennablue : We don't need to doom the economy, or choose a little from column A or B, all we need to do is take the money from the Iraq war, and the new war against Iran ... and use it for renewable energy. Of course, knowing our politicians, they would probably outsource it all. See, this is the problem I have with that solution... it's based on our "logic," but isn't necessarily true.
Why do you (we) think that more money would solve the problem? Are we sure that the renewable energy people don't already have enough money? Perhaps they have all the money they need, they just haven't figured it out yet. And what is to say that if we dumped a whole bunch of money in their laps, they'd be able to figure this stuff out any faster?
Think about it in terms of medical research. We've been dumping money into MS research, cancer research, AIDs research, etc, for years and years and years. But are they closer to finding a cure? Well, maybe a little... but they're still not there. They've had a lot of money over the years, but haven't concluded anything yet. I'm sure one day they will... but more money, may not immediately solve the problem.
"More money" sounds logical... if you pay more, you get more... but in research science, that isn't necessarily the case.
Plus, if we're all blown up, bleeding on the sidewalk, alternative energy isn't going to be all that helpful.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by siennablue:
« ImNotBlue : "More money" sounds logical... if you pay more, you get more... but in research science, that isn't necessarily the case.
Plus, if we're all blown up, bleeding on the sidewalk, alternative energy isn't going to be all that helpful. We don't need to be all blown up bleeding on the sidewalk over a fight for oil if we get rid of the need for oil, and quit killing millions of people to in order to control THEIR oil.
I actually do agree with you about putting excessive money into new resource technology... to just stop making $2 billion dollars a day out of thin air to cover the war would give us less inflation, and we would be able to put some real input into education, some real input into health care, and some real input into fighting big oil, who quickly buys up any new technology that threatens their profits.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 4 months ago by ieldanth:
Ideas are cheap, its the implementation that costs so much. We shouldn't go around throwing money at anything until we are sure it is a good solid approach to solving the problem and we are ready to implement it. This may lead to frustration at a lack of apparent progress, but we should only implement that which has a good chance of success.
Alternative energy is too vague a term to really fund on a large basis. You can fund wind farms, solar arrays, hydrogen generators, corn fields or giant hamster wheels if you want, but don't throw it all under a general heading of 'alternative energy', otherwise much funding will end up being wasted.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 >