|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 13, 2008 11:44:40 GMT -5
democratic energy policy:
1. sit in the dark
2. read by candlelight (only organic candles)
3. huddle close together under a blanket
4. no matter how cold it gets DO NOT light a fire unless, of course, you have purchased the requisite amount of carbon offsets.
5. trade your roomy vehicles in for priuses. so what if you have to sit on someone's lap.
speaking of electric cars.........where does the electricity come from that is necessary to charge these cars? answer: coal burning power plants for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 18, 2008 12:20:34 GMT -5
This article in today's Chronicle pretty much sums up the Republican energy plan: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/17/national/w163034D20.DTL&tsp=1 Does anyone seriously believe that offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is the answer here? We wouldn't see any benefits for at least 3 years and by that time we should be well on our way to weening ourselves off oil altogether. Unfortunately, the Republicans are so beholden to the oil companies that they do everything they can to ensure record profits, even allowing them to drill in our pristine Wildlife Refuge. Imagine an oil spill there! We would be the laughing stock of the world once again, for destroying our most precious land. Thank God the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate! |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 18, 2008 13:32:17 GMT -5
Our most precious land is not ANWR.
ANWR is a frozen tundra hosting a few species of migratory animals.
The foot print of drilling would be 1% of 1% of the land.
As far as weaning us off oil, good luck!
All infrastructure worldwide is already built & it all runs on oil.
Which animated fantasy world were you speaking of?
How many years to bring new embryonic fuels online to the extent that oil is made obselete?
Where in the U.S would you allow us to drill?
When should we start drilling? Now? 3 years from now? Never?
These are serious questions.
Please reply as realistically as possible.
No rhetoric enclosed; none desired in reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 18, 2008 15:13:57 GMT -5
i challenge sauntarelle and anyone else who is against "big oil" to go through even ONE day without using products produced by refined oil. fuels are only part of the product line. like it or not our wolrd depends on these products. www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/uses/uses_home.html |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 18, 2008 15:29:03 GMT -5
This article in today's Chronicle pretty much sums up the Republican energy plan: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/17/national/w163034D20.DTL&tsp=1 Does anyone seriously believe that offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is the answer here? We wouldn't see any benefits for at least 3 years and by that time we should be well on our way to weening ourselves off oil altogether. Unfortunately, the Republicans are so beholden to the oil companies that they do everything they can to ensure record profits, even allowing them to drill in our pristine Wildlife Refuge. Imagine an oil spill there! We would be the laughing stock of the world once again, for destroying our most precious land. Thank God the Democrats are in control of the House and Senate! Ahhhhh haaaa haaaa haaaaaaaa, you are a great comedian. Oh wait, you were serious? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 18, 2008 15:30:04 GMT -5
Right now, all of OPEC is laughing all the way to the bank. Time we kicked them in the teeth and use our own oil, while we seek alternative energy. Or are you just to stupid to see the truth of it all?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 18, 2008 17:50:26 GMT -5
This just in..... The Democrats have announced their solution to the gas crisis: And, we'll get the Social Security Administration to run them! |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 18, 2008 18:09:53 GMT -5
ANWR is right next door to Prudhoe Bay. Here's a good introduction to oil production on the North Slope. Saunterelle, the oil exploration will be strictly regulated in ANWR. because the area is so marshy in the summer, the exploration will be done in the winter, when things are frozen solid. When the spring thaw comes, the only remaining traces will be the wellheads. The Dems have been protesting ANWR for the last 15 years, saying that it will be more than 10 years to bring the oil on line. Imagine where we'd be now if we had drilled 15 years ago. The residents of Alaska, especially the local Inuits, are not opposed to the drilling, although I'm sure you'll be able to dredge up one who is. The locals see it as a sorely needed source of revenue, and don't understand why the yahoos in the Lower 48 refuse to drill for what we already know is there. As a subscriber to Backpacker Magazine, I received an issue that had a report from a man who hiked in the Brooks Range, the area south of the proposed drilling leases. The author made the argument that the pristine area would be destroyed by allowing oil production, yet all of the area that he talked about was outside the area proposed for drilling. I pointed this out to the editors in an email, but got no response..... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 18, 2008 22:38:10 GMT -5
all day long i hear the democratic and eco-wacko talking heads saing that drilling more will not yield any lower gas prices. they all say (including obama) that it will only amount to about .01 cent cheaper gas.
they never mention that if by drilling for more oil here that the money for each barrel purchased STAYS here and does not go to foreign suppliers! i would much rather buy a barrel from the good ol' USA than the saudis anyday. wouldn't you? dems are constantly complaining that bush is sending jobs overseas well how many jobs do you think would be created if we pulled more oil out of our own soil? it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 23, 2008 11:39:54 GMT -5
Sen. Obama has announced another short-term solution to the petroleum price situation: In a nutshell, Obama is saying, "To heck with the laws of supply and demand! We will regulate our way out of this!" Who here thinks that will really work? It didn't work the last time. Why will this time be any different? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 23, 2008 12:53:26 GMT -5
Your position on domestic drilling assumes there is no environmental disaster from a line breaking. However, it has happened before and is likely to happen again. Do you really want it to happen along our coastlines or on our most pristine land in Alaska? Some places should remain sacred. The Republicans have no shame!
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 23, 2008 16:00:21 GMT -5
Yes it does. I always assume a line will not break & a plane will not crash. There's risk, of course, but I'm still flying to Philadelphia regardless.
The only sacred places are U.S. Military Cemetaries.
And you are correct; no shame, all brain!
|
|
