Pelosi: Our Coasts Need Lasting Protection from Oil and Gas Drilling

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

First step is to cut the greedmongers off from the black heroin.

Greedmongers, the people who drive to work everyday?


That would be the lazy, selfish and irresponsible in most cases, not the greedmongers.
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

No, the reason foreign imports of oil are up is because America's domestic production capability peaked in the early seventies. The amount of oil you can produce has been on a downward trend since then, and no amount of new production brought online can buck that depletion rate.

So, with that in mind, if you continue to use oil and its products as the basis for your energy foundation, you will never be free. And relatively soon, the sources of most of your oil, Canada and Mexico, will peak themselves, and you'll be ever more reliant on those nations you despise that have surplus oil and are willing to or coerced into selling you their own resources.

So, energy independance cannot be achieved while on the oil fix. I can see how this Democratic policy can feed into that aim. Don't keep supplying the addict. Of course, that's not what this policy about, rather that the value of other resources is too great to allow them to be damaged by further oil production. I'm sure they'll be singing a different tune in more desperate times ahead, when even you would be thankful they left a few places alone for possible future production.

American energy independance in ten years? While a laudable goal, a rather laughable one as well. I'd like to see further details on the measures they'll take. Good luck for both our sakes.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,498
7,556
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

First step is to cut the greedmongers off from the black heroin.

Greedmongers, the people who drive to work everyday?


That would be the lazy, selfish and irresponsible in most cases, not the greedmongers.

Well, I'm saying that's where our demand comes from and until you stop people from driving the only thing sealing away our natural resource of oil is going to do is ensure more foreign oil.

Your title
"Democrats intend to achieve energy independence within 10 years."
is exciting and enthralling, but it will not happen.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,423
478
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

Solar is still expensive
Bush has mentioned more coal and gets railed.
We have had huge population increases
New home (in my area) have energy codes. Furnances are more efficient than ever.

Its the roadways.

Lets say I work in town A, where I make enough money to live in town B. The problem is town be 20 miles away. My only option is to drive to work. Town A is so expensive to live in or is not a good place to raise a family. Town B doesnt offer jobs that allow me to work in Town B and live in Town B.

I know people who drive 80 miles a day to work and 80 miles back because thatw where they can afford to live. Now compound similar situations for millions.


Hey, that sounds like Dave.
btw I think this situation can be handled by telecommuting. There are lots of jobs that shouldnt require people being in a cubicle to perform.


I agree, they should be allowed to work from home. The company he works for is quite large and the manager not only thinks working from home is a bad idea he thinks the programmers should program in one of those "war room" type settings...no cube at all just tables.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

First step is to cut the greedmongers off from the black heroin.

Greedmongers, the people who drive to work everyday?


That would be the lazy, selfish and irresponsible in most cases, not the greedmongers.

I think you need to think a little more before engaging in such gross exaggerations. Otherwise, you sound like someone who's never had a job or had a bill to pay.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

First step is to cut the greedmongers off from the black heroin.

Greedmongers, the people who drive to work everyday?


That would be the lazy, selfish and irresponsible in most cases, not the greedmongers.


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo


I agree, they should be allowed to work from home. The company he works for is quite large and the manager not only thinks working from home is a bad idea he thinks the programmers should program in one of those "war room" type settings...no cube at all just tables.

That actually sounds like AGILE development, something that we are trying in my company. Co-location is a big piece.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: Genx87
Achieve energy indepdendence by closing off our natural resources? This is the line of thinking for the past 30 years that has increased our foreign imports of oil from ~30% to over 60%.

People like you lap it up and ask for more.

Please explain to us how to achieve energy independence in a realistic way while not tapping internal resources?

No, the reason foreign imports of oil are up is because America's domestic production capability peaked in the early seventies. The amount of oil you can produce has been on a downward trend since then, and no amount of new production brought online can buck that depletion rate.

So, with that in mind, if you continue to use oil and its products as the basis for your energy foundation, you will never be free. And relatively soon, the sources of most of your oil, Canada and Mexico, will peak themselves, and you'll be ever more reliant on those nations you despise that have surplus oil and are willing to or coerced into selling you their own resources.

So, energy independance cannot be achieved while on the oil fix. I can see how this Democratic policy can feed into that aim. Don't keep supplying the addict. Of course, that's not what this policy about, rather that the value of other resources is too great to allow them to be damaged by further oil production. I'm sure they'll be singing a different tune in more desperate times ahead, when even you would be thankful they left a few places alone for possible future production.

American energy independance in ten years? While a laudable goal, a rather laughable one as well. I'd like to see further details on the measures they'll take. Good luck for both our sakes.

Think about what you just said, you said no amount of "new" production will wean us off foreign energy imports. That in of itself makes no sense whatsoever and is the reason why we are where we are today.

You are right in saying no single source is going to solve our issue. However not tapping our own resources because of that hasnt solved the problem either, only made it worse.

The addiction will be solved when the price becomes too much to handle. While we are an oil based economy it doesnt make sense to not use the resources we have domestically in some hope it will wean us off the addiction. It clearly wont attain "energy" independence.

If they are serious lets see them get back to building nuclear power. But I think you will see them fail at that as well.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies. You know it is true and it is you peoples fault we are in this situation.

Realizing we have a problem takes admitting it to yourself first.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies.

Hey brainiac, he pays for the gasoline, nobody is handing it to him for free.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies.

Hey brainiac, he pays for the gasoline, nobody is handing it to him for free.



BS, my taxmoney goes to subsidize oil industry, roads, and health care for all the accidents autos cause, much less the toll on the planet we all have to share.

Not to mention stupid oil wars in the mideast.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies. You know it is true and it is you peoples fault we are in this situation.

Realizing we have a problem takes admitting it to yourself first.

Please explain to us how to achieve nirvana and be carbon neutral like you. I really want to know. What do you do for a living? How do you get to/from work? How do you power your home?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies.

Hey brainiac, he pays for the gasoline, nobody is handing it to him for free.



BS, my taxmoney goes to subsidize oil industry, roads, and health care for all the accidents autos casue.

Your idea of a subsidy is funny. If you want subsidies look at your mass transit systems across the United States. The Minneapolis mass transit system only collects enough revenues to cover about 15-20% of their budget. The rest of the budget comes from gas taxation and vehicle taxes\fee's.

If anything the drivers you so hate make it possible for leeches like yourself to take a bus or train somewhere for cheap.


 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Genx87

If anything the drivers you so hate make it possible for leeches like yourself to take a bus or train somewhere for cheap.

Wrong, if cars were gone (someday hopefully soon) there would be plenty more riders to even it out. What you all want is conveniences at the expense of our future, safety, economy. and reputation around the world.

Someone is gonna have to roll these autos and roads up soon, hopefully I will see it in my lifetime.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies. You know it is true and it is you peoples fault we are in this situation.

Realizing we have a problem takes admitting it to yourself first.

Please explain to us how to achieve nirvana and be carbon neutral like you. I really want to know. What do you do for a living? How do you get to/from work? How do you power your home?



My house is hydro, and I take trolleys powered by hydro from up in the mountains. (Some wind also) I usually walk though, as I live close to work, and would have it no other way.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

My house is hydro, and I take trolleys powered by hydro from up in the mountains. (Some wind also) I usually walk though, as I live close to work, and would have it no other way.

Well then I commend you for that.

However, your approach cannot be adopted by the majority of people in this country. It has nothing to do with being selfish or lazy.

There are some exceptions to this in which I would agree with you. For instance, anyone who drives a Hummer is an asshole, period. But for the majority of people commuting to work, they are doing so out of necessity. There are simply no alternatives available to them in order to provide for their families.

 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: Genx87
Your idea of a subsidy is funny. If you want subsidies look at your mass transit systems across the United States. The Minneapolis mass transit system only collects enough revenues to cover about 15-20% of their budget. The rest of the budget comes from gas taxation and vehicle taxes\fee's.

If anything the drivers you so hate make it possible for leeches like yourself to take a bus or train somewhere for cheap.

Jebus christ, i should put this in my sig for "dumbest, head buried in sand" post ever. Mass transit is not profitable because of selfish bastards, such as yourself, that refuse to use it. That, and the fact that unconstrained suburban growth necessitates autos. If you had a train stop outside your front door in your suburbs would you drive everyday? You need to get over your blind capitalist perspectives and start looking at reality.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA


Thanks for calling 95% of ATers lazy, selfish and irresponsible. Oh, and 97% of Americans. Good job insulting folks. You're a winner.

And thanks for being a pig with our resources because you are too lazy to move closer to work or take a bike or bus, no apologies. You know it is true and it is you peoples fault we are in this situation.

Realizing we have a problem takes admitting it to yourself first.

Please explain to us how to achieve nirvana and be carbon neutral like you. I really want to know. What do you do for a living? How do you get to/from work? How do you power your home?



My house is hydro, and I take trolleys powered by hydro from up in the mountains. (Some wind also) I usually walk though, as I live close to work, and would have it no other way.

I hate to break it to you but your utility company stilll burns fossil fuels or purchases power from those who do or use nuclear.

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

My house is hydro, and I take trolleys powered by hydro from up in the mountains. (Some wind also) I usually walk though, as I live close to work, and would have it no other way.

Well then I commend you for that.

However, your approach cannot be adopted by the majority of people in this country. It has nothing to do with being selfish or lazy.

There are some exceptions to this in which I would agree with you. For instance, anyone who drives a Hummer is an asshole, period. But for the majority of people commuting to work, they are doing so out of necessity. There are simply no alternatives available to them in order to provide for their families.



Realistically no, I cannot expect such things, but I am firm about it as a lot of it is laziness and people not willing to go out of their way to improve the situation in the long run, if I was harsh, I apologize, but I would rather someday have children who can live a good life with a decent quality of living. Inaction happens a lot because people never say anything and staying with the status quo is just plain easier.

If I could afford solar and wind I would be on the roof today installing, but for now I pay a little extra to use hydro on my electric bill, so that will have to do.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: K1052


I hate to break it to you but your utility company stilll burns fossil fuels or purchases power from those who do or use nuclear.

I live in nuke free area, and like I said in post before this I pay extra to use hydro and wind on my electric bill, it is the least I can do. Although if you get regular plan it is a mixture of mainly natural gas and hydro/wind here. But the gas generators are brand new super efficient ones I hear. *shrug*

I dunno thats pg&e's thing, hopefully when I move back into my place I will be off the electric grid again soon enough again.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,356
33,747
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052


I hate to break it to you but your utility company stilll burns fossil fuels or purchases power from those who do or use nuclear.

I live in nuke free area, and like I said in post before this I pay extra to use hydro and wind on my electric bill, it is the least I can do. Although if you get regular plan it is a mixture of mainly natural gas and hydro/wind here. But the gas generators are brand new super efficient ones I hear. *shrug*

All you are really doing is shifting the source. The same amount of fossil fuel will be burned. You are just insuring that your particular source is hydro for a premium. I'd grant you more credit if you were installing solar since you would be actually reducing demand on the grid and adding back in.

Most of the newer NG plants built are cogeneration plants (combined cycle) which are certainly better than older NG plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: K1052


I hate to break it to you but your utility company stilll burns fossil fuels or purchases power from those who do or use nuclear.

I live in nuke free area, and like I said in post before this I pay extra to use hydro and wind on my electric bill, it is the least I can do. Although if you get regular plan it is a mixture of mainly natural gas and hydro/wind here. But the gas generators are brand new super efficient ones I hear. *shrug*

All you are really doing is shifting the source. The same amount of fossil fuel will be burned. You are just insuring that your particular source is hydro for a premium. I'd grant you more credit if you were installing solar since you would be actually reducing demand on the grid and adding back in.

Most of the newer NG plants built are cogeneration plants (combined cycle) which are certainly better than older NG plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Probably so, but is the the best I can do until I get wind/solar back up and totally unplug again.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Although this "sounds" like a great plan, the ten principles listed have no bite. It's like setting a goal with no strategy to get there.

There are so many flaws in it...independance in 10 years? That is truly laughable lol How about we just take a few items here:

1. How do we power our military? Aircraft carriers, jeeps, planes, jets, tanks, etc all use oil based fuel. The most likely candidate for replacement is hydrogen; however, for commercial use it's unrealistic as the sheer volume needed to power the military, not to mention how long it would take, and tax dollars to convert, vehicles for hydrogen use.

2. Although many jobs *could* telecommute, most cant. What do you do for the large cities (even small ones) where there is no room to park, much less house millions of people so they can walk to work. Like it or not it's simply not possible.

Those two things alone are pretty much an impossiblilty even if given 20 years. Theres nothing wrong with dreaming a little and thinking of a life without fossil fuel....but to think it could realistically happen...well...I dont know what to tell you. Even if we got 99% of Americans to go along with your "plan", talking about it wont change anything. Its simply unrealistic.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Washington, D.C. ? Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on news media reports that President Bush is considering lifting the presidential moratorium protecting Alaska?s Bristol Bay from oil and gas drilling:

?The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 showed the world the devastation and destruction that oil spills could have on Alaska?s fragile waters. Under intense pressure from an angry public, Congress did the right thing by placing Alaska?s Bristol Bay under a moratorium; President Clinton later also signed an executive moratorium. Oil spills would devastate Bristol Bay?s prolific fishing industry, Native American communities, tourism industry, abundant marine life, and diverse and endangered wildlife.

?The American people paid $95 million to buy back leases from oil companies to ensure that Bristol Bay would be forever protected from devastating oil spills. Yet this week, with the stroke of a pen, President George W. Bush is expected to reverse progress and turn back the clock by lifting the presidential moratorium. Allowing oil drilling to go forward in Bristol Bay puts our precious environment at risk. Allowing new oil company leasing of these lands is an insult to all taxpayers who have helped protect them.

?Our domestic oil supplies are valuable but limited. We should not sacrifice our marine ecosystems, robust tourist economies, and fishing communities for the sake of extracting every last drop of oil from American soil.

?Our fragile coasts, from Alaska to California to Florida, require greater protection than a mere presidential moratorium that can be easily lifted. Lasting protection under the law is essential. So is a comprehensive plan that builds our economy around clean, homegrown, renewable energy sources and exciting new technologies.

?While the Bush Administration dances to the oil companies? tune, Democrats intend to achieve energy independence within 10 years.?

Link

Now THIS is the kind of action Dems should be taking, quit with the raping the continent for those last few drops, there are better ways.

followed the link expecting to see the great 10 year planned layed out.
More empty rhetoric.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: daniel49

followed the link expecting to see the great 10 year planned layed out.
More empty rhetoric.

Would love to see it also, thing is they are not in power yet, gotta wait, cross your fingers. ;)