|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2008, 07:17:13 PM » |
|
As I read it, that is NOT what the Time magazine article concluded. It said Obama was right in what he said. Obama mentioned tire pressure and auto maintenance. Between the two, around 7% of our oil consumption could be saved if these were maintained properly. Since offshore drilling would only amount to 1% of our oil consumption, then all we have to assume is that some cars out there don't have proper maintenance and tire pressure. Not all of them, not even half of them. Not even a third of them. Since reasonable people can agree that this is doubtless the case, then Obama was making a sound response to an individual who was asking what action they could personally take. The whole constroversy is all a lot of nonsense, really, but the Republicans are pretty desperate to find something to ridicule Obama about. They certainly don't want to talk about McCain's cozy relationship with Big Oil--notice how McCain's "solutions" to high gas prices always work to the advantage of his friends in the oil industry? Proper tire inflation would reduce demand for oil! Can't have that! So the GOP chose to treat this as a big deal, and as far as I can tell the media didn't fall for it (for a change.) This thread makes it clear that Obama's response was a reasonable and responsible answer to a citizen, while the GOP response was dishonest (they inferred that this was Obama's entire energy policy) and irresponsible. Typical. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 07:23:07 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2008, 07:32:27 PM » |
|
It is all projected probabilities based on expert opinion that could easily be wrong. Who is saying that the 200,000 bbls are a sure thing? Maybe the experts miscalculated the depth of the oilfields due to a faulty sonar echo. Maybe they will only yield 50,000 bbls. No one can be absolutely certain about any of this. There is still a crap shoot element to oil drilling. This is a discussion of the hypothetical neue. No one can prove the 200,000 bbls until the drilling is done and the yield is measured many years from now. But here are some statistics to consider; Government and tire manufacturer statistics state less than 9% of all drivers regularly check tire pressures. http://www.tirepressuremonitor.com/news.htm A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study released today
revealed that about a third of the light trucks and a quarter of the cars on
U.S. roads have at least one substantially underinflated tire. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2001/08/29/028414.html As JPN pointed out this all much to do about very little . Obamas comment was off the cuff in response to a request for advice on what an individual could do. The larger issue here is that Mcshame felt he had to lie about it and misrepresent it as Obamas only energy policy. It is no doubt largely smoke, keeping us from talking about McSames energy policy that mainly helps big oil so they will financially buoy up his campaign. McCain's domestic drilling plan is more a bribe than a real energy solution for the nation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 08:08:16 PM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2008, 07:38:10 PM » |
|
But if we're searching around for reasons to ridicule the opponent, here are some really good examples of how ridiculous McCain is: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207543.php Do we really want to watch this man representing our nation for the next four years? Jeeze. Have the Republicans no pride in their country at all? ===================== Update: And while the Republicans are trying to paint Obama as being an out of touch effite, I can't imagine Obama's wife saying the following: Cindy McCain once told Vogue, explaining the purchase of a 7th or 8th house, this one a beach house, "When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, 'Oh this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go. Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn't get in the place. So I bought another one.” |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 07:54:34 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2008, 08:25:38 PM » |
|
Holy crap JPN I just watched that vid. At first it was amusing and then it got frightening that this is the best they got. I have seen the onset of Alzheimer's and this sure looks like it. What is frightening is that almost half the country would hand our leadership over to this obviously impaired old man.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2008, 04:21:33 AM » |
|
As JPN pointed out this all much to do about very little. And I've said as much and was happy to let it die until the Time article popped up. Like you said, 200,000 is speculation. It could be a million...could be 2 or 3, who knows? What I don't understand is why oil, which we know is there and can certainly help, can't be a part of an overall energy strategy that attacks the problem from all angles. Why can't Congress vote on it? Where is the harm? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2008, 11:19:17 AM » |
|
As JPN pointed out this all much to do about very little. And I've said as much and was happy to let it die until the Time article popped up. Like you said, 200,000 is speculation. It could be a million...could be 2 or 3, who knows? What I don't understand is why oil, which we know is there and can certainly help, can't be a part of an overall energy strategy that attacks the problem from all angles. Why can't Congress vote on it? Where is the harm? Because it's a gimmick that will return a pittance in 20 years. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2008, 11:25:06 AM » |
|
Because it's a gimmick that will return a pittance in 20 years. If that was true, wouldn't it make sense that oil companies wouldn't touch drilling with a ten foot pole? Instead, the oil companies want to drill. What harm does it do to us to just let them do it. If they don't find anything, fine...we've also building nuclear and other things as well. No conservative wants to put all of our eggs in the oil basket...but it should be part of the overall strategy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2008, 03:27:05 PM » |
|
who knows? So I guess the Republican attempt to ridicule Obama over it is a measure of their desperation and dishonesty, eh? What harm does it do to us to just let them do it. The scary thing is, I think you're being serious. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 03:28:48 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2008, 06:34:23 AM » |
|
The scary thing is, I think you're being serious. Of course I'm serious. We HAVE TO HAVE OIL. Period...........end of story. SOMEBODY is going to drill for it. Please tell me the harm in letting domestic oil suppliers do the drilling? I have not heard a compelling argument against it. Saying we won't get it out of the ground tomorrow is NOT a compelling argument. Say that we won't find enough is NOT a compelling argument. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2008, 09:48:37 AM » |
|
The scary thing is, I think you're being serious. Of course I'm serious. We HAVE TO HAVE OIL. Period...........end of story. SOMEBODY is going to drill for it. Please tell me the harm in letting domestic oil suppliers do the drilling? I have not heard a compelling argument against it. Saying we won't get it out of the ground tomorrow is NOT a compelling argument. Say that we won't find enough is NOT a compelling argument. It is vitally important right now for us to maybe have a little more oil 20 years from now. What this country needs is more "psycholgical impact" to solve the oil crisis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2008, 12:00:23 PM » |
|
It is vitally important right now for us to maybe have a little more oil 20 years from now. What this country needs is more "psycholgical impact" to solve the oil crisis. Instead of trying to be clever, why don't you try and add something to the conversation? What is on the horizon that is about to make oil obsolete? Until now, I've heard zero argument AGAINST drilling. Not one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +112/-105
Posts: 1,108
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2008, 02:02:15 PM » |
|
As I understand it, the drawbacks to offshore drilling are risk of spillage and obstructed oceanfront views in some cases. There are of course the emissions, but that is in no way unique to offshore. I could be missing something, but these seem like the greatest concerns.
Regulation, along with a bond held for cleanup purposes, should they arise would make me more open to the idea of offshore drilling. I do mostly wind, and some coal work, so I hear a lot about ruined views. I grew up near both a nuclear plant, LNG facility, and close to the county landfill. I don't have much patience with the NIMBY argument, which is basically how I see the viewshed opposition issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
|
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2008, 09:15:23 PM » |
|
Instead of trying to be clever, why don't you try and add something to the conversation? What is on the horizon that is about to make oil obsolete? Until now, I've heard zero argument AGAINST drilling. Not one. I'm amazed anyone needs to spell it out for you. I take it you aren't exactly a member of the Sierra Club. Environmentalists see two basic problems from offshore drilling: pollution from everyday operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers.
"Today's technology is much better at routine drilling, at avoiding the kinds of seepages that were common a generation ago," says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen.
Even so, there are still risks.
When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be discharged back into the ocean.
The water pumped up along with the oil may contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals.
"Basically, oil and water don't mix," says Melanie Duchin of the environmental group Greenpeace, who lives in Alaska and still sees pollution from the 11 million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, which supplanted Santa Barbara as the nation's worst. "Oil smothers wildlife."
From her vantage point in Santa Barbara, Calif., a city known for beautiful beaches and wealthy residents, Mayor Marty Blum recalls black: the color of more than 3 million gallons of oil that flowed from a drilling rig blowout in 1969 and covered 35 miles of coastline with a thick layer of goo. I once spent two weeks on Navy Reserve duty at Corpus Christi. I wondered why there were soapy bristle brush pads in front of the hotel entrance. Turns out they are for people returning from the beach to wash the tar off their feet. My favorite beaches don't have tar balls strewn along them. Bad for the things that try to live there. I'm not against offshore drilling. I'm not for jumping at it as a supposed short-term solution to a long-term problem: fossile fuels are a dead end. They will run out. In the meantime burning fossile fuels contributes to global warming. That's a bad thing. The sooner we acknowledge these facts, the better. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 09, 2008, 09:18:44 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +112/-105
Posts: 1,108
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #43 on: August 10, 2008, 05:13:23 AM » |
|
I agree about our need to look past fossil fuels. Just burning stuff for power isn't very inventive. It's the same basic approach our distant ancestors took when they harnessed fire. In the long run, we need to be a little smarter than the cave-man. The realization that all our high tech fancy shit (cell phones, ipods, computers, GPS, etc.) is largely powered by technology circa 1850 is comical to me. Produced water is a problem, but one that can be mitigated. In the context that we're discussing (policies of potential candidates), what worries me is that McCain is not likely to push for regulations to mitigate problems like produced water. Obama has said that he could agree to limited drilling as part of a larger plan. My concern here is that he would end up either taking the position of blind opposition, or neglect sufficient regulation as part of a compromise. Either way (especially considering the very low impact offshore drilling would have on our energy situation), Obama's ideas are closer to what I'd like to see happen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #44 on: August 10, 2008, 09:38:24 AM » |
|
I'm not against offshore drilling. I'm not for jumping at it as a supposed short-term solution to a long-term problem: fossile fuels are a dead end. They will run out. In the meantime burning fossile fuels contributes to global warming. That's a bad thing.
The sooner we acknowledge these facts, the better. That is NOT a compelling argument to not drilling...that it will run out. In the meantime burning fossile fuels contributes to global warming. That is an opinion and one that many scientists are backing away from. And even if 100% true, we will use oil for the foreseeable future regardless. We are NOT on the cusp of an alternative so we damn well better start getting our own domestic supply, even if it's not your option #1. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
