|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 23, 2008 16:29:47 GMT -5
Ahh Saunterelle and the slippery slope of "WHAT IFS".
Hey WHAT IF, there was a flood.....and sewage got into the drinking water , the water table , and nearby lakes and streams.
That's it please we neeeeeeeed a congress person to write legislation banning humans from relieveing themselves. I mean the sewage WOULD CAUSE AN ENVIROMENTAL DISASTER if these things happened....
Drilling off of the coastlines and REMOTE wilderness locations, has a mathematically acceptable level of risk : return. The problem is that to Liberal folk there is NO SUCH THING AS ACCEPTABLE RISK.
What IF it took 2-4 times the amount of energy to build a PRIUS as it does a standard car of the same size...
LIBERALS WOULD LINE UP TO BUY EM....it does and they do..and then factor in it taking about 3 years to offset this....and by Liberal math this should be completely outlandish..as ANYTHING that is not immediate is according to Liberals "not viable"...
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 23, 2008 17:33:05 GMT -5
Do you so easily forget the oil spill that wreaked havoc in Alaska in 1989? Here's a refresher from Wikipedia:
"The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, United States, on March 24, 1989. It is considered one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea. As significant as the Exxon Valdez spill was, it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.[1] However, Prince William Sound's remote location (accessible only by helicopter and boat) made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region was a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. The vessel spilled 10.8 million U.S. gallons (40.9 million liters) of Prudhoe Bay crude oil into the sea, and the oil eventually covered 11,000 square miles (28,000 km²) of ocean.
Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively. Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.[3][11] Due to a thorough cleanup, little visual evidence of the event remained in areas frequented by humans just 1 year later. However, the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[12] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[13]
Almost 15 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.[12] The team estimates some shoreline habitats may take up to 30 years to recover."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 23, 2008 17:55:25 GMT -5
The team estimates some shoreline habitats may take up to 30 years to recover. Has there been any subsequent spill? No... Since the one accident in the Santa Barbara Channel field in the 1970's has there been any subsequent spill? No... Is America cutting it's own throat by not exploring for and producing oil within it's own boundries? Yes... So some bunch of scientists, doubtless with an agenda to boot, have concluded that it will take 30 years for Prince William Sound to recover. But it will recover, and pretty much has to this point save for the opinions in the cited report. That is the thing, you know, about liberals and eco-naybobs. They get so hung up on "what man does" that they don't realize that our power is infinitely tiny compared to the power of nature to sustain itself. If man were to vanish tomorrow within a hundred years or a bit more most everything we've carved out and built on top of raw land would be reclaimed by nature. Our freeways don't have grass on them because the cars roll across them. But no cars and the freeways would be meadows with deer grazing on them within just a few years. We need energy, we need to produce it domestically. Failing to do so from this point forward only puts both us and our economy in that much more peril. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 23, 2008 18:11:51 GMT -5
Obviously you fail to understand nature's delicate balance. I'm glad you're not in charge of our environmental policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 23, 2008 18:13:12 GMT -5
If we all followed Saunterelles lead in life:
San Francisco - Would be a ghost town - FAR FAR TOO DANGEROUS --Remember 1906!!
EEE-GAD!
Space Program - Folded years ago let's not forget Apollo 1 ----Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Guerneville - LOOOONG GONE Why rebuild?
Parts of Downtown Petaluma - Buh Bye again why rebuild? 100 year floods WILL be back
Large Cruise Ships - Titanic Anyone?
Buildings the size of Murrah / WTC - Yeah right too many people inside..inherently dangerous.
Keep your slope slippery Saunterelle..you make PERFECT sense....even if it's only in your own mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 23, 2008 18:13:44 GMT -5
Santarelle has unwittingly made our point for us:
Since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, some important changes have taken place. Navigation in Prince William Sound has improved dramatically. All tankers in that reach are now required to be double-hulled. Since so much oil goes in and out of that reach, we have effectively made a majority of oil tankers be double-hulled.
But, if the threat of a catastrophe so outweighs the benefits we might receive from the resource, I would expect you, Santarelle, to be the first one to foreswear any further use of petroleum, lest another seabird get an oil bath. Let us know how dedicated you really are by living one week without using ANY petroleum products.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 23, 2008 19:04:02 GMT -5
Let us know how dedicated you really are by living one week without using ANY petroleum products. While this in theory is a nice sounding challenge. I would vote NO , as MOST of your garments you wear also have some sort of PetroChemical in them and I do not wish to see a buncha tree huggers in the buff. It's a safe bet that if your garments are colored in ANY way outside of RAW ORGANIC cotton. They have petrochemical on them, since that IS where the MAJORITY of dyes come from. Even when garment manufacturers take the "Low Impact" approach, the dyestuffs are still oil related by-products. Organic "Dyes" do not have the color fastness required for mass market, or even consistent reproducability. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 24, 2008 12:02:59 GMT -5
MrRoqOut, don't stop there. What about the food in the grocery store? How did it get there? It wasn't by donkey cart.
What about the plastics in Saunterelle's computer, cell phone, car dash, refrigerator,... where should I stop?
Our world economy is based largely on petroleum because it was a very cheap resource for three quarters of the 20th Century. To now claim that we can continue to thrive while demonizing the oil companies is the height of irresponsibility.
"Excess Profits Taxes" have not only backfired in the past, but also completely ignore other sectors of the economy that make even higher profits.
Saunterelle, please update us on your efforts to live oil-free.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 24, 2008 14:31:57 GMT -5
You're right, we rely heavily on petrol based products in our day to day lives. The solution should not be "where can we find more oil." It should be "since we've hit peak oil, oil is no longer cheap, and it keeps us beholden to the Middle East, lets pour money into new technologies that will break our dependence on oil." This is something we haven't done. The Republican plan (drill, drill, drill) just prolongs our problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 24, 2008 14:46:48 GMT -5
Dre-e-e-e-eem,
Dream,dream,dree-eeam.
What shall we do in the meantime?
One question oil-haters are never asked is this:
You say it will take 10 years to bring U.S. oil on line.
How long will it take to bring your "new" energy sources on line IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO REPLACE OIL?
And again, what shall we do in the meantime?
A vote for B. Hussein Obama is a vote for $10/gal gasoline.
Disagree?
Great!
Prove me wrong.
With facts, not rhetoric please.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 24, 2008 16:25:02 GMT -5
So Saunterelle you are buying into the whole "Peak Oil" nonsense just like you have the AL Gore Sky is falling anthropogenic global warming?
You SERIOUSLY HONESTLY BELIEVE - That Oil IS Biogenic or a "Fossil Fuel"(came from "Dinosaur Bones and plant matter/zooplpankton & algae" like they told us in school)
BUT REALITY SEEMS TO BE MORE IN FAVOR OF OIL BEING A-BIOGENIC - Abiogenic (from Naturally occuring deep carbon deposits related possibly to earths formation).
For me personally there is a-lot of evidence for Oil being Abiogenic. Like the Eugene Island Oil Fields as a classic textbook example. Or the fact that the Russians have been pulling oil from 40 THOUSAND (Kola SG-3) feet below the surface, I am pretty sure there are no "Dinosaur Bones" down there...
Please explain away oil coming from 40 THOUSAND feet below the surface of the earth. Or conversely explain to me HOW it is still Biogenic even at that depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 24, 2008 21:58:34 GMT -5
and all that darn petroleum based plastic used for saving lives in our hospitals! i can imagine that santurelle and others would prefer their IV tubes be made from hemp, right?
|
|
