Archives

If America's serious about going green, some tradeoffs will have to be made - but that's most anything in politics (http://www.newsweek.com/id/150770)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Congress.jpgEvan Thomas - Newsweek - Aug 4, 2008

When it's all said and done - will we be better off in terms of energy legislation? -- Ed.

Jane and Michael Hoffman (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Michael+Hoffman) are not exactly your average, everyday couple. Jane was New York City consumer affairs commissioner in the Giuliani administration and Michael is a wealthy investor whose holdings, at one point, included a coal-fired power plant. One day, Jane served her husband, Michael, his favorite, tuna fish, for lunch. "The tuna looked too fresh at the market to pass up," she said. "Too bad we can't have it more than once a week. I guess we have you to thank for that."

Jane was making a point about how mercury emissions from coal settle in the water, where they poison the fish. Michael got the point. He sold the power plant and now runs the world's largest investment fund in renewable energy.
… http://www.newsweek.com/id/150770

You can tell by my poll I'm considering a run in 2010. :D

That is a good example of never underestimating a woman who wants something. Koodos to Jane for her efferts in helping make the world a better place. Now if only the congressmen's wifes where that willing to help. Hmmmmmmmm :D

It's amazing how convincing a woman can be.

That is a good example of never underestimating a woman who wants something. Koodos to Jane for her efferts in helping make the world a better place. Now if only the congressmen's wifes where that willing to help. Hmmmmmmmm :D

// or congressmen's mistresses ;)

I would have said no, because I think 75% of our energy should be generated by renewables and the FE standard should be 200 mpg because every car built in 2025 should be ELECTRIC with an optional range extending ICE!!! But then you know, we have to be realistic.

While I'm generally opposed to more offshore drilling, it might have to be part of doing business. Now, if oil companies would first use the acreage that they have leased before we look to expand said acreage, sure.

Throw the whole book at it. Drill at home AND push for alternative fuels, with tougher CAFE being the temporary stop-gap until Phev's come online and the power infrastructure is upgraded.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_the_democrats_correct_in_stating_that.html

Interesting info about the acres being leased

Its not a great compromise, but a reasonable one. Heck for higher renewables & cafe, I'd even be willing to not step on coal's neck....so hard.

I'm going to go against the crowd on this one.

In my own life, going green has been a slow evolutionary process. I find that, quite often, the people who are quick to 'jump onboard' are quite often just as quick to drop the cause and jump to somewhere else.

That being said, I do not support ANY plans for off-shore drilling and most certainly refuse to vote for anyone who wants to drill in Alaska. That area in Alaska was set aside with the intentions of having at least one spot on this planet 'untouched'. Is our resolve really that weak?

It seems to me that in our pain at the pump, we've completely forgotten about the issue of global warming. Stop and ask yourselves which is the bigger issue; higher fuel prices for Americans (which, for the record, are still much lower than that of Europe), or an environmental change that encompasses the entire planet?

I used to drive a Jeep Liberty that gave me about 18mpg. Now I drive a small sedan that gives me around 44mpg. This a choice the I made as an individual. That's an almost 200% increase. Everyone has the ability to make difference.:)

I still watch those two clowns on TV trying to sell me a bad bill of goods. But I don't believe them when they say that off-shore drilling is for the greater good. I believe that there is a better option than what they are offering.

How about this for a closing thought. Oil runs this country. When will they ever tell you that more drilling is bad?

I am for drilling offshore because there is no compelling reason not to. It makes no sense to import most of our oil from our enemies. "When will they tell you that more drilling is bad?" For the last 20 years is all. Hell, Nancy Pelosi won't even allow a vote on more drilling. The Dems won't allow more drilling, and now they won't even allow a vote on the subject. Anyone call that a democracy? 80 percent of Americans want more drilling.

At the same time, any energy bill should include a mechanism to support the high price of gasoline, in order to prevent backsliding and people getting back into SUV's. The gasoline tax should go up if gasoline prices drop. That would keep the marketplace working towards more fuel efficient vehicles. Use the gas tax to stabilize the price of gasoline to make sure investments in efficiency make sense.

Harry

Make everyone read Walden Two, compulsory sterilization, give truth drugs to news readers, stay at home and smoke weed and take up playing the ukelele. Tiny Tim for President.

80 percent of Americans want more drilling.

Careful with comments like that. You sound like a news poll where the questoin was asked, "Would you like more drilling if it would lower gas prices?", but then state X% people want more drilling. The people polled are effectivly abused by having their opinions restated in a way they never intended.

I suspect their are very few American's who would want more drilling if...
1. It didn't lower prices;
2. Caused more global warming;
3. Didn't reduce our depence on oil.

And I can't imagine that at least 2 of 3 aren't true. If it lowers prices we will buy more gas and thus more oil, with at least as much of it being forein. Consider this...
If we could actually pump half of our own oil and do it for $50 a barrel & then we keep buying the other half at $100, we will have average oil prices at $75. At that price we will consume more and thus end up buying more forein. Its not a good scenerio.
I'm laving global warming as a given at this point. Some don't believe it, but at this point there isn't going to be any conversion by debate.

There is very good reason to leave oil in the ground. Higher oil prices...which makes us get away from oil. That would ultimatly be better for our economy than additional use of domestic oil. Also let oil burt is less damage to the enviroment. Doesn't matter where it comes from.

I'm aginst pulling any more oil/coal out than we have to, but I'll compromise on the issue to get a kick start on heading the right direction.

How about this:
Offshore/Alaskan drill..Use some of the returns to invest in renewables (i.e. solar, wind, and ocean-wave-generated powers)...and yes...raise the standard to 45mpg wouldn't be bad either...

Or heck....go the Flintstone's route...let's us our feet *high sarcasm there...maybe?!*

Consider this...
If we could actually pump half of our own oil and do it for $50 a barrel & then we keep buying the other half at $100, we will have average oil prices at $75. At that price we will consume more and thus end up buying more forein. Its not a good scenerio.



Nonsense!

Oil is worth whatever it is worth on the world market. More US oil from offshore won't be worth $50, it will be worth whatever the world price is that day!

Increased supplies of US oil will tend to lower the world price, which is the whole point. Our resistance to finding our own oil, using everyone else's oil, and using too much oil is what has pushed the price of gasoline over $4/gal.

I agree that finding more oil isn't the solution. Using less is. But at the same time, sending boatloads of US $100-bills to our enemies not only funds them, but impoverishes us. There's more than oil involved, there's our outflow of cash. If we get too poor, we won't be able to switch to alternate energy sources because it takes a lot of money to do that.

Harry

I sincerely and honestly think that the gov't should appoint all our elite hypermilers as trainers to teach the entire America how to hypermile, covering costs and I'm sure 1 out of 2 people would be willing to do some of these things. The majority of people do not know that they can get better gas mileage, and if 1 out of 2 get 20% or better than they're doing right now, that's a 10% drop for the country.

When our country is between a rock and an empty oil barrel, it becomes our job to stand up for our country and protect the freedom we love. Not every war has to be bloody, not every war has to be fought on other people's homelands, but the war we need to fight lies on our turf. It is a war that is easily won by the unity of americans but just as easily broadsided by the ignorance of the majority of our society.

My friend, Ignorance can only be bliss for so long.

80 percent of Americans want more drilling.

Harry

I'll go ahead and argue that 80 percent of Americans are idiots and don't know what's best for them. I bet 80 percent of little kids would rather eat candy than their dinner, but we don't let them because it's not in their best interest.

The faster we get away from this outdated source of energy the better. But I cannot support a bill that will allow drilling in ANWR. "No environmental impact" they say. Bullsh*t. Neighboring Prudhoe Bay is already open to drilling and there an oil spill occurs on average every 22 hours! Oil companies have already shown they are exceedingly incompetent when it comes to environmental stewardship.

That area in Alaska was set aside with the intentions of having at least one spot on this planet 'untouched'. Is our resolve really that weak?

I have to comment when I see these type statements. I have worked for the past 10 years in Conservation planning, for 5 of those years I was a Park Ranger/ Regional Planner insuring that green spaces were used in a way that they were intended. Currently I work on short term management plans for state parks and natural areas. Having worked with the US forest service and the US fish and wildlife service on various projects I know that these spaces were never intended to be "untouched".

I went to the USFWS planning server and found the following documents:


http://arctic.fws.gov/anilcabits.htm
Title 10 references Oil and natural gas production

This will show a simple map of ANWR
http://arctic.fws.gov/manage.htm
area 1002 will be the only place we could drill according to the management plan.

http://arctic.fws.gov/wildernessman.htm
The wilderness area has the most limited access. Still hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, backpacking, river floating and camping are allowed. Area intended to be "untouched".

http://arctic.fws.gov/minman.htm
Largest land area and probably the most accessible of the refuge.
activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, backpacking, river floating and camping. Traditional motorized access using aircraft, motorboats and snow-machines is allowed. Guiding and outfitting services and related temporary support facilities are permitted. "untouched"?
Currently managed under a "Minimal Management" classification.

Granted oil and natural gas leases are not the most ideal activities within a refuge. You have to realize what a National wildlife refuge is and its management plans state oil and natural gas exploration is a use that is allowable.

I don't understand why people are not more concerned about the oil and natural gas leases inside lands managed by the National park service. NPS lands are more restrictive of uses than the wildlife refuges will ever be.

Management plans are the most important document a green space has. Its the roadmap the park managers are told to follow for the management of that area. What's allowable and not are always listed in these plans.

If you want to leave an area untouched by humans the worst thing you can do is make it a city park, state park, national park, national recreation area, wildlife refuge because by the definition of those agencies they will allow and assist in the massive impact by humans and equipment.

It's nearly better to keep something in private hands with a conservation easement restricting future development by owners. impact will be very minimal.

I am for drilling offshore because there is no compelling reason not to. It makes no sense to import most of our oil from our enemies. "When will they tell you that more drilling is bad?" For the last 20 years is all. Hell, Nancy Pelosi won't even allow a vote on more drilling. The Dems won't allow more drilling, and now they won't even allow a vote on the subject. Anyone call that a democracy? 80 percent of Americans want more drilling.

At the same time, any energy bill should include a mechanism to support the high price of gasoline, in order to prevent backsliding and people getting back into SUV's. The gasoline tax should go up if gasoline prices drop. That would keep the marketplace working towards more fuel efficient vehicles. Use the gas tax to stabilize the price of gasoline to make sure investments in efficiency make sense.

Harry

However, the Dems will allow oil companies to drill on area they already have leased (including offshore areas). What they will not allow is expansion of that drillable area until current land has been used. Why do they seem so hell bent on expanding to new areas and getting an area of Alaskan wilderness when they already have so much land that they could drill tomorrow?

Besides, I'd heard several times that the limiting factor was refining capacity. In that case, more oil on the market, no matter where it came from, would not increase supply.

So, I ask you, what's going on here?

Nonsense!

Oil is worth whatever it is worth on the world market.

I believe you are incorrect, but it depends on something I'm uncertain of.

If an American oil company pulls and refines oil from America, the oil only costs what it takes to get out of the ground. It will still have an impact on the international market as that company wouldn't be importing as much oil which decreases international demand, which should decrease price. Your idea holds true if one company gets the oil and places in on the world market where anyone could buy. Not sure which way it will occur.

A thought for compromise - allow offshore and ANWR drilling but require reclamation of say 10x-100x the ocean/land being drilled. I dont know the economics of it, but I think that having the drilling companies cleanup existing ocean/lands may help reduce the environmental impact somewhat.

However, the Dems will allow oil companies to drill on area they already have leased (including offshore areas). What they will not allow is expansion of that drillable area until current land has been used. Why do they seem so hell bent on expanding to new areas and getting an area of Alaskan wilderness when they already have so much land that they could drill tomorrow?

Besides, I'd heard several times that the limiting factor was refining capacity. In that case, more oil on the market, no matter where it came from, would not increase supply.

So, I ask you, what's going on here?

Yes - over 40 million of the 68 million often-discussed currently leased acres are, in fact, offshore. No one in any position of power is trying to ban offshore drilling in its entirety...the current debate specifically involves the coastal regions.

I have to comment when I see these type statements. I have worked for the past 10 years in Conservation planning, for 5 of those years I was a Park Ranger/ Regional Planner insuring that green spaces were used in a way that they were intended. Currently I work on short term management plans for state parks and natural areas. Having worked with the US forest service and the US fish and wildlife service on various projects I know that these spaces were never intended to be "untouched".

I went to the USFWS planning server and found the following documents:


http://arctic.fws.gov/anilcabits.htm
Title 10 references Oil and natural gas production

This will show a simple map of ANWR
http://arctic.fws.gov/manage.htm
area 1002 will be the only place we could drill according to the management plan.

http://arctic.fws.gov/wildernessman.htm
The wilderness area has the most limited access. Still hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife observation, backpacking, river floating and camping are allowed. Area intended to be "untouched".

http://arctic.fws.gov/minman.htm
Largest land area and probably the most accessible of the refuge.
activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, backpacking, river floating and camping. Traditional motorized access using aircraft, motorboats and snow-machines is allowed. Guiding and outfitting services and related temporary support facilities are permitted. "untouched"?
Currently managed under a "Minimal Management" classification.

Granted oil and natural gas leases are not the most ideal activities within a refuge. You have to realize what a National wildlife refuge is and its management plans state oil and natural gas exploration is a use that is allowable.

I don't understand why people are not more concerned about the oil and natural gas leases inside lands managed by the National park service. NPS lands are more restrictive of uses than the wildlife refuges will ever be.

Management plans are the most important document a green space has. Its the roadmap the park managers are told to follow for the management of that area. What's allowable and not are always listed in these plans.

If you want to leave an area untouched by humans the worst thing you can do is make it a city park, state park, national park, national recreation area, wildlife refuge because by the definition of those agencies they will allow and assist in the massive impact by humans and equipment.

It's nearly better to keep something in private hands with a conservation easement restricting future development by owners. impact will be very minimal.

Thank you for those links. I haven't completely read through them, but I did glance through them. Also, I appreciate what you do for a living.

'Untouched' was obviously the wrong word and I apologize. I'm writing from a perspective where the idiots around me are chanting the slogan, "if there is oil, drill it!" It is exasperating beyond reason. These individuals really could care less if an oil drilling operation 'bothers a bunch of deer" and would never donate a dime towards an unfortunate clean-up. So when I wrote 'untouched' I should have written 'left in a natural state; ie NO oil wells.

Here's a thought. Is doing the right-thing with a compromise still doing the right-thing?:confused:

I am for drilling offshore because there is no compelling reason not to. It makes no sense to import most of our oil from our enemies. "When will they tell you that more drilling is bad?" For the last 20 years is all. Hell, Nancy Pelosi won't even allow a vote on more drilling. The Dems won't allow more drilling, and now they won't even allow a vote on the subject. Anyone call that a democracy? 80 percent of Americans want more drilling.

At the same time, any energy bill should include a mechanism to support the high price of gasoline, in order to prevent backsliding and people getting back into SUV's. The gasoline tax should go up if gasoline prices drop. That would keep the marketplace working towards more fuel efficient vehicles. Use the gas tax to stabilize the price of gasoline to make sure investments in efficiency make sense.

Harry

Only 10% of our imported oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Canada is our largest foreign importer of oil. The next largest importers of foreign oil to the US in no particular order are Venezuela, Mexico and Nigeria. Venezuela has vowed not to reduce our oil imports in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. There may be practical reasons for this. For one thing Venezuelan crude is of a heavy sour quality meaning it has an API, (American Petroleum Institute) rating of 29° and has a high sulfur content. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2003/venezuelan/vzimpacts.htm The refineries in the US are the closest ones that can process this heavy sour crude. The oil shipments from Venezuela are about a 5 days trip away from the Gulf Coast refineries by tanker. Other markets are further away and are more expensive to ship too.

As to why not drill the question should be why? Consider the report in this link posted by another Cleanmpg member. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html Specifically the report states in paragraph 5, 1st sentence that, "Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS." When you add the risk of environmental damage from drilling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where the most promising reserves are, you have to ask is it worth it. Further, the risk from hurricanes to the rigs themselves may make drilling a very expensive endeavor if it is attempted at all. Then there is the shortage of rigs and men to operate them and you begin to wonder what all the emphasis on offshore drilling really about is?

[QUOTE=07mpshei;132148]I'll go ahead and argue that 80 percent of Americans are idiots and don't know what's best for them. I bet 80 percent of little kids would rather eat candy than their dinner, but we don't let them because it's not in their best interest./QUOTE]

That may well be the best description of American's and our politics I have ever heard. The biggest problem now are the parents...er, politicians who want to be our friend instead of doing their sometime unfriendly job.

As a tree-hugging californian, I'm pretty opposed to offshore-drilling. After all, that's my ocean view (quite helpful for generating dollars for the state economy) not to mention risking my neighborhood with accidents/leaks. Theoretically, I would support some limited offshore drilling, but I'd want a GUARANTEE that the standards would NEVER EVER NEVER go down just because Big Business whined a little. Considering what happened before to California's strict emission standards (see "Who Killed the Electric Car"), I'm waaaay too skeptical to just say sure, no problem.

P.S. According to the Department of Energy, even if we immediately starting drilling in the Atlantic AND the Pacific AND the ANWR, we would not see any difference in the price of gas until... 2030.

I voted no because the numbers are, in my opinion, too conservative. It would be way better to aim too high and fall short than to aim at an easy target and not get all the savings possible by aiming much higher, or as high as possible.

I agree completely with earthling, above. As for drilling, the rules of supply and demand would govern the market, in my opinion. More drilling, as a temporary measure, to get more oil to help lower prices, and to help get America out of this recession before it gets worse. When prices begin to recede, then state and federal gov'ts bump up the taxes to stabilize prices. For any permanent solution to oil consumption, there will have to be much higher taxes. Right now, our own Gov Arnold is talking about raising state sales tax. Duh, raise the gas tax, as a temporary measure, to fix the budget and to encourage folks to conserve.

America can live with a recession. Americans adjust their spending and expenses to live the highest quality of life that they can. That means that they buy the biggest car they can afford, sadly, rather than an economical car that meets their needs. People have forgotten, or are confused about, the differences between 'wants' and 'needs'. In CA, that tendency is especially bad; everyone, seemingly, buys a big fat super dooper gas guzzler. My own neighbor used to own a Navigator and a Hummer. In the last year, they've traded down. As for me, I'm still riding the city bus and expect to until I retire.

Faithful and True

Americans adjust their spending and expenses to live the highest quality of life that they can. That means that they buy the biggest car they can afford, sadly, rather than an economical car that meets their needs.

Two problems with that. First, you're generalizing Americans: not all of us go by the spend, spend, spend philosophy. Indeed, I'd argue that historically it's in fact a profoundly UN-American attitude.

Second, while it's pretty much a given that people will adjust their behavior to improve their quality of life, the tricky part is determining how & what they perceive as quality. For instance, having to drive an oversized, handles-like-a-waterbed SUV would significantly diminish my QoL, as would having to make car payments and fill the tank. Likewise, couch-potatoing to the point where I could no longer see my toes (let alone my abs) would diminish my QoL, while being able to hike to the top of our local 10,000 ft mountains any afternoon I care to significantly increases it.

Anyway, the point is to change peoples' perceptions of what constitutes QoL. The Detroit automakers successfully did this when their advertising sold people on the idea of the SUV, just as credit card companies &c sold people on the "buy now, pay later" idea. So the problem becomes one of finding financial incentives to persuade them to change back.