State of Union to Focus on Energy - Page 2

RedStorm · January 30th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

I'll also say I am not irreconilably opposed to drilling in ANWR, heck I spent the few years of my profesional career working on oil rig projects.

What I am opposed to is this being the first resort not the last. To date the GOP has avoided doing anything [significant] to address the consuption side of the equation. Detroit auto makers don't want that as it would require updating the products.

Conversely GW appears to be looking to give handouts to his oil industry buddies [where he made his cash].

Like I said, show me some real effort and progress to address our consumption of fossil fuels and ask me again.

The one thing that will spur conservation is hiking gas prices. Are you willing to see that happen?

jenna2891 · January 30th, 2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse

On the flip side, how about you present concrete proof to the contrary.

granted, we don't know how much oil we could gather, but it would definitely be enough to ease our dependency on foreign oil.

as for the environment, the amount of anwar that would actually be drilled on would be the equivalent of one square inch in an entire football field. in other words, not significant at all. also, the precious caribou that everyone is so worried about would actually benefit from having the oil lines there. studies have shown, in areas where oil lines were put in, the caribou are attracted to the heated pipes, which prompts them to reproduce. caribou numbers actually go up in the areas around the pipes.

nidan · January 30th, 2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i'm sorry, but i'm going to need a real explanation of how it would be ecologically disastrous, as well as it's lack of profitability.

Well firstly I never actually said either of those things, so I can't argue for or against them.

Drilling in ANWR has the potential for serious ecological problems. Not the least of which is the infrastructure required to support drilling. The statements regard the actual area affected are disingenuous as it ignores the connectivty items such as roads and piplines.

Regardless as I said, I am not totally opposed to drilling in ANWR, only based on the current appraoch.

As for being profitable. It would be hugely profitable for the oil companies, which is why they want to do it. The amount of oil there is insignificant terms of what we use asa country or the reserves in the middle east. We need to work on weaning ourselves off the drug. Unfortunatly reducing our dependance on foreign oil, means reducing our dependance on oil and that will require

Leadership
Pain, aka political pain as the transition won't be easy

The GOP appears to be uninterested in the pain involved both from the 'I want my cheap gas' folks and the industries that are content with the status quo. Cheap gas is obviously more important than redcuing our depenancey on oil.

If we could actually make significant srides in weaning ourselves then we could tell the middle east to go spin on it.

nidan · January 30th, 2006, 12:54 PM

Man you are fast and I see the GOP talking points I was expecting while I was tayping my last response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

granted, we don't know how much oil we could gather, but it would definitely be enough to ease our dependency on foreign oil.

We need to reduce our dependancy on OIL, not just foreign oil. The US oil reserves are insignificant compares to the middle east, so the only way to achieve what you suggest is to reduce total use of oil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

as for the environment, the amount of anwar that would actually be drilled on would be the equivalent of one square inch in an entire football field. in other words, not significant at all. also, the precious caribou that everyone is so worried about would actually benefit from having the oil lines there. studies have shown, in areas where oil lines were put in, the caribou are attracted to the heated pipes, which prompts them to reproduce. caribou numbers actually go up in the areas around the pipes.

The area argument is bogus, it's the disruption to the ecosysem as a whole that is significant. Roads, pipes, noisee people etc.

Like I said not irrevocably opposed to this.Let me hear how we will reduce our dependance on oil, including a plan with funding and some action. Then come back and ask me about ANWR again. Untiol then it's clear this is just a corporate giveaway.

nidan · January 30th, 2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedStorm

The one thing that will spur conservation is hiking gas prices. Are you willing to see that happen?

Yes and I would like to see major $$ put into reducing our oil depenancy. If that were to mean significant prices hikes to fund research so be it.

It's not like the price isn't going to go much higher anyway.

jenna2891 · January 30th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

Well firstly I never actually said either of those things, so I can't argue for or against them.

i'm sorry, i thought that's what you meant when you said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

Because the net engergy benifit was trivial, while the potential ecological damage was immense.

as for this,

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

The amount of oil there is insignificant terms of what we use asa country or the reserves in the middle east.

i had heard recently that we could get around 30% of what we are currently using in foreign oil. it may not be a majority, but it certainly sounds significant to me.

Quote:

If we could actually make significant srides in weaning ourselves then we could tell the middle east to go spin on it.

i honestly don't think it is realistic to wait around for the government to make people use less oil. that is a fundamental difference in the way you and i see this problem, i guess.

nidan · January 30th, 2006, 01:54 PM

No not really that different.

I'm not so naive to think we could get hughe reductions in oil usage quickly or painlessly. What I would like to see is some real effort in that area, not talk, not rhetoic but real effort.

As for 30% I have never seen an estimate that high

Dback Jon · January 30th, 2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

Actually, it is very true.

LoyaltyisaCurse · January 30th, 2006, 01:58 PM

What Bush or any president after him needs to do is challenge America and make a real committment to Fuel efficient technology.

It means not caving to the car and oil industry who have been fighting against it for the past 30 years. We could've been on the right track atleast 15 years ago, but since they are always allowed to fight it, it never happens.

You have to FORCE the industries to change, for if you wait it will never happen (just see the past 30 years for proof)

nidan · January 30th, 2006, 02:02 PM

Ok I found it.

It also I think assumes that the entirety of that area is opened to oil production not just the small footprint that has been talked about so far.

It still seems that there is little effort to try and reduce the consumption side.

jenna2891 · January 30th, 2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

Ok I found it.

It also I think assumes that the entirety of that area is opened to oil production not just the small footprint that has been talked about so far.

It still seems that there is little effort to try and reduce the consumption side.

that may be, and i think it needs to be addressed. however, expecting government to do anything about it is, in my opinion, foolish. the only real change will come from the people of this country who will be driven (no pun intended) to make the change themselves.

AzCards21 · January 30th, 2006, 02:04 PM

The problem as I see it LIAC is not only limited to forcing oil and car companies to do something it's getting consumers to join in with their pocket books.

I just don't see lots of buyers for the hybrids yet.

DWKB · January 30th, 2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

Detroit auto makers don't want that as it would require updating the products.

This seems like an odd statement to me. Not saying it is or isn't true, but with GM and Ford obviously drowning in their current business models, wouldn't it be obvious that they overhaul and begin looking for alternative ways to get market share? The articles I've read have said what's killing them the drop in large truck sales and the slow move to hybrids.

jenna2891 · January 30th, 2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWKB

This seems like an odd statement to me. Not saying it is or isn't true, but with GM and Ford obviously drowning in their current business models, wouldn't it be obvious that they overhaul and begin looking for alternative ways to get market share? The articles I've read have said what's killing them the drop in large truck sales and the slow move to hybrids.

i would think that, too.

Southpaw · January 30th, 2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzCards21

The problem as I see it LIAC is not only limited to forcing oil and car companies to do something it's getting consumers to join in with their pocket books.

I just don't see lots of buyers for the hybrids yet.

Baby steps.