Abundant energy supplies off-limits

What's wrong with both? You haven't discussed any logical problems with our position.

You seem to believe that it is ridiculous to think we should spend more money on alternative fuels before we go to war or drill up all our public lands. How do you defend your position that this is ridiculous?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What's wrong with both? You haven't discussed any logical problems with our position.

You seem to believe that it is ridiculous to think we should spend more money on alternative fuels before we go to war or drill up all our public lands. How do you defend your position that this is ridiculous?

Cycloptichorn

Main problem: We need oil at this point in time.

We need to secure our own oil which we have but the Greens won't let us drill for. WE HAVE OUR OWN OIL.

The point of the article was that we have oil and the means to drill it in a clean way thanks to modern drilling equipment and technology. The Feds won't release the land for drilling because of the Green movement in our country.

The problem I see is that the same people who accuse the US of going to war for oil are the same people who won't let the govt release land for drilling of our own oil. We could solve the war and oil issue by drilling our own oil but they won't let us.

They want expensive energy at the cost of everyone else.

What is it going to cost to push our economy into a non-oil one? It is going to cost billions and most of it is going to come out of the private sector because they own the infrastructer.

How many cars are made right now that run on hydrogen? How many gas stations have filling stations for those types of cars? When it becomes more previlent we will do it. Right now it takes twice as much hydrogen to get around as it does gas. These are all problems that need to be fixed before we move to renewable energy. Until then we need oil because this change isn't going to take place overnight. Where do we get the oil?

We have been trying to drill in ANWR for years but the greenies won't let the US do it. These are the same people who complain about the war in Iraq being for oil but they lobby hard against the drilling at home.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, on Alaska's North Slope, is the new hope. The Prudhoe Bay oil field, one of the world's biggest reservoirs, is just sixty miles west of the refuge. Surveys carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that anwr may contain about ten billion barrels of recoverable oil. If this estimate turns out to be reliable, and if exploration starts next year, in 2025 anwr could be generating about a million barrels of oil a day.

This is a lot of fuel, but it dwindles next to our energy requirements. By 2025, according to the Department of Energy, Americans will be consuming almost thirty million barrels a day. With luck, an anwr oil field operating at full capacity could satisfy perhaps three or four per cent of that total, meaning that most of the oil we use would still have to be imported.

We don't need it so bad that we could do research to do away with burning it up just to move around. We will always need oil, but we don't need to waste it the way we do today - and pollute heavily in the process.

Rightly so. A short-term increase in the amount of oil available does nothing to solve the problem.

This is a false argument. The same people who complain that the gov't does nothing to get off of oil dependency, don't support it when the government takes steps to secure themselves to that same dependency. There is no discrepancy in these two arguments.

You are assuming that the proper solution is to get more oil, no matter where it comes from; this is false. The correct solution is to stop using it as much as possible.

Close; we want a clean and sustainable environment, at the cost of everything else.

Billions? How many billions?

Say, 400 or so billions? That's how much we've spent in Iraq these last few years.

The change isn't even starting, becuase those who run our society don't want to switch away from oil and certainly aren't spending any money to do so.

More expensive oil = net positive for America. I know you big business types have a hard time understanding this fact, but it is true.

So you are suggesting that we kill off every creature on Earth because oil for our comfort is more important? Are you also suggesting that alternative fuels do not exist?

You want more expensive oil but are you willing to put the pinch on the average American for higher gas prices? You can't tell me you were happy to see gas at around $3.00 or more a gallon. I'm sure you were complaining and wanting the govt to do something to get the price to drop. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Quote:

You want more expensive oil but are you willing to put the pinch on the average American for higher gas prices? You can't tell me you were happy to see gas at around $3.00 or more a gallon. I'm sure you were complaining and wanting the govt to do something to get the price to drop. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Actually, I was just fine with 3.00 oil; I sold my car two years ago and now ride bicycles and public tran. to get around.

I'll respond to the rest later...

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

You want more expensive oil but are you willing to put the pinch on the average American for higher gas prices? You can't tell me you were happy to see gas at around $3.00 or more a gallon. I'm sure you were complaining and wanting the govt to do something to get the price to drop. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Actually, I was just fine with 3.00 oil; I sold my car two years ago and now ride bicycles and public tran. to get around.

I'll respond to the rest later...

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

I guess as long as you are comfortable we can disregard the millions of Americans that must use their auto's for transportation to and get to their jobs. These people are bleeding.

In addition being self sufficient or at least being able to cut back on the need for imported energy will help reduce the deficit, borrowing from foreign nations and reduce our balance of payment gap.
In addition it will stop feeding the coffers of nation that hate and would do all the can to destroy the US.

Should we stop there? Of course not. The government should fund in a big way research into alternate forms of energy. Increase cafe standards [gpm] and impose conservation measures. As an example why not require that all new housing [in areas of the nation where appropriate] be solar energy equipped.

Drilling in the US won't make a dent in the amount of oil we use. ANWAR would add how much to the total? Even if the total percentage from US oil reserves added 15-20%, it wouldn't get us off of foreign oil. And it isn't a good long-term solution.

Drilling in the US won't make a dent in the amount of oil we use. ANWAR would add how much to the total?

Baldimo wrote:

We have been trying to drill in ANWR for years but the greenies won't let the US do it. These are the same people who complain about the war in Iraq being for oil but they lobby hard against the drilling at home.

Fact check:

Quote:

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, on Alaska's North Slope, is the new hope. The Prudhoe Bay oil field, one of the world's biggest reservoirs, is just sixty miles west of the refuge. Surveys carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that anwr may contain about ten billion barrels of recoverable oil. If this estimate turns out to be reliable, and if exploration starts next year, in 2025 anwr could be generating about a million barrels of oil a day.

This is a lot of fuel, but it dwindles next to our energy requirements. By 2025, according to the Department of Energy, Americans will be consuming almost thirty million barrels a day. With luck, an anwr oil field operating at full capacity could satisfy perhaps three or four per cent of that total, meaning that most of the oil we use would still have to be imported.

Source: The New Yorker