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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,382
33,803
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
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.

We still have domestic oil production, oil shale, and coal reserves (liquifaction). Any of those would be more than adequate to supply our armed forces. Though I agree that 10 years is a very unrealistic time span to convert.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
6-8$ a gallon of gas sounds good to me for non-business purposes.

Get you suburbanites off your lazy asses.

Yeah that would really help democrats stay in office.
 

Genx87

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

You are kidding me right? You think a bus and train system would work, if only for those pesky cars? Here is a clue for you, if the majority of people dont want to ride a bus now, they wont want to ride one in the future. If the riders were hit with the full cost of their addiction, I think even the miniscule amount of ridership in many cities would cease to exist immediately.


 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Nuclear power and electric cars would be the ONLY way to reduce the US's oil dependence.

Nuclear power is safe these days. Much of the modern world uses it extensively, just look at France and Japan. The US should really start to build more nuclear power plants.

I oppose the building of new coal power plants.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.

You are kidding me right? You think a bus and train system would work, if only for those pesky cars? Here is a clue for you, if the majority of people dont want to ride a bus now, they wont want to ride one in the future. If the riders were hit with the full cost of their addiction, I think even the miniscule amount of ridership in many cities would cease to exist immediately.

And lets not forget much of the US has poor public transportation.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: homercles337
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.

Wow that is quite the retort you have there. Yes I would still drive everyday, want to know why? Because that train will stop at my neighbors and my neighbors neighbors. Ill spend the next 6 hours getting to work as we stop at everybodies house on the way to my work.

Now why dont you do yourself a favor and take your head out of the uptopian skies and realize unless you live on an island(NYC) that suburban growth is a natual product of our society. And trains + buses dont work and they wont work in the future.

The only selfish in this current argument are the people who blindly support\use mass transit while not having to pay their fair share for it.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Let's not forget that fossil fuels and their derivatives are used to make many things aside from electricity and powering transportation. Plastics for instance are made from coal, natural gas, and/or petroleum.

So even if we could magically convert all our power to solar, and made all vehicles run on farts, we'd still be consuming a hell of a lot of fossil fuels.
 

Steeplerot

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

You are kidding me right? You think a bus and train system would work, if only for those pesky cars? Here is a clue for you, if the majority of people dont want to ride a bus now, they wont want to ride one in the future. If the riders were hit with the full cost of their addiction, I think even the miniscule amount of ridership in many cities would cease to exist immediately.



Funny, public transit worked fine until the auto industry pushed out public transit for profit, sorry, autos are a luxury that we have abused, give me convenience or give me death only works for so long.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.

You are kidding me right? You think a bus and train system would work, if only for those pesky cars? Here is a clue for you, if the majority of people dont want to ride a bus now, they wont want to ride one in the future. If the riders were hit with the full cost of their addiction, I think even the miniscule amount of ridership in many cities would cease to exist immediately.



Funny, public transit worked fine until the auto industry pushed out public transit for profit, sorry, autos are a luxury that we have abused, give me convenience or give me death only works for so long.
Public transit worked as long as people lived close to their place of employment.

As people spread out, the cost of public transportation to support them became more expensive.

Then comes the NIMBY for public transportation expansion.

 

Steeplerot

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

Public transit worked as long as people lived close to their place of employment.

As people spread out, the cost of public transportation to support them became more expensive.

Then comes the NIMBY for public transportation expansion.


Not true, LA lead the way for the blueprint for urban sprawl thanks to auto industry who made sure to scrap light rail underhandedly trumpeting it as the wave of the future.

It is still nothing but a scam.

Suburbs will grow over quickly, back to what they were before, it is just a matter of getting people out of them and this stupid unsustainable living patterns and habits, the sooner the better.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Public transit worked as long as people lived close to their place of employment.

As people spread out, the cost of public transportation to support them became more expensive.

Then comes the NIMBY for public transportation expansion.


Not true, LA lead the way for the blueprint for urban sprawl thanks to auto industry who made sure to scrap light rail underhandedly trumpeting it as the wave of the future.

It is still nothing but a scam.

Suburbs will grow over quickly, back to what they were before, it is just a matter of getting people out of them and this stupid unsustainable living patterns and habits, the sooner the better.
the Teople moved out to the burbs because of what they determiend would provide a different environment than what they could get wihtin the urban area.

The urban ares now do not have the living space and/or facilites to support a mass exodus back into the core.

And many cities have become so blighted that the some of the core would have to be raxed and rebuilt.

There was plenty of suburban sprawl (as you call it) well before LA.
LA was just popular due to the climate and "fantasy" since the past 40-50 years. Plus they desired to keep all their smog for themselves

 

Steeplerot

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

Public transit worked as long as people lived close to their place of employment.

As people spread out, the cost of public transportation to support them became more expensive.

Then comes the NIMBY for public transportation expansion.


Not true, LA lead the way for the blueprint for urban sprawl thanks to auto industry who made sure to scrap light rail underhandedly trumpeting it as the wave of the future.

It is still nothing but a scam.

Suburbs will grow over quickly, back to what they were before, it is just a matter of getting people out of them and this stupid unsustainable living patterns and habits, the sooner the better.
the Teople moved out to the burbs because of what they determiend would provide a different environment than what they could get wihtin the urban area.

The urban ares now do not have the living space and/or facilites to support a mass exodus back into the core.

And many cities have become so blighted that the some of the core would have to be raxed and rebuilt.

There was plenty of suburban sprawl (as you call it) well before LA.
LA was just popular due to the climate and "fantasy" since the past 40-50 years. Plus they desired to keep all their smog for themselves



No, they moved out because of cheap oil and developers could buy up farmers land easier then actually having to pay to develop within cities.

Suburbs started with greed and it will end them, good riddance.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The reality is that the transportation problem in most parts of this country, and Los Angeles in particular, has a long history. Prior to World War II, every major city in the United States moved to the silent hum of public transportation, usually in the form of electric streetcars, trains and trolleys. Los Angeles, in fact, had the largest electric train system in the world at that time. It linked the entire metropolitan area and carried some 80 million passengers long long before the GV1.

The auto industry, however, had other plans for the country. Suffering from the economic slump of the Depression and far from being secure that the "car culture" would catch on, large auto companies began targeting mass transit systems as enemy No. 1 in the hopes of selling more cars. General Motors was the first, forming a front company in 1932, called United Cities Motor Transit, with the intention of buying out cities' transit systems and running them aground. Through GM's efforts, New York City's massive trolley system was dismantled in only 18 months.

After being caught in Portland, Ore., GM joined together with other automotive industry players, including Greyhound Bus Lines, Firestone Tire and Rubber, Mack Manufacturing, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum. Together, they formed a new company called National City Lines (NCL), and poured some $10 million into its development by 1937. It was worth the investment for them; NCL eventually destroyed the transit systems of more than 45 cities in the United States. Most importantly, it firmly established the automobile as the primary transportation vehicle in the rapid economic expansion of the postwar years.

By 1955, only 12 percent of streetcars remained across the nation that had been running in the mid-1930s.

These companies were eventually convicted in federal court of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an illegal conspiracy.

Unfortunately, justice was not served by the slap on the wrist each received in penalties. Each company was assessed a $5,000 fine, and each individual official implicated was fined a single dollar.



Public transit is as viable as ever, but once again you have bought into large corporate BS with an ethics problem to boot.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,424
478
126
Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Public transit is as viable as ever, but once again you have bought into large corporate BS with an ethics problem to boot.

Here in Minnesota we just passed an ammendment to fund more mass transit.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
And in Las Vegas last year a proposal was shot down because the "consultants" were "directed" evaluate/propose a light rail that missed the strategic transit centers and potentially impacted public safety.

Went along a back west side of the strip - would cause people to walk from the back side of a casino to the strip and then across to the hotels on the east side; avoided UNLV and the airport.

Light rail is only useful if there is a decent feeder system and convinent desirable stops.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,382
33,803
136
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
The reality is that the transportation problem in most parts of this country, and Los Angeles in particular, has a long history. Prior to World War II, every major city in the United States moved to the silent hum of public transportation, usually in the form of electric streetcars, trains and trolleys. Los Angeles, in fact, had the largest electric train system in the world at that time. It linked the entire metropolitan area and carried some 80 million passengers long long before the GV1.

The auto industry, however, had other plans for the country. Suffering from the economic slump of the Depression and far from being secure that the "car culture" would catch on, large auto companies began targeting mass transit systems as enemy No. 1 in the hopes of selling more cars. General Motors was the first, forming a front company in 1932, called United Cities Motor Transit, with the intention of buying out cities' transit systems and running them aground. Through GM's efforts, New York City's massive trolley system was dismantled in only 18 months.

After being caught in Portland, Ore., GM joined together with other automotive industry players, including Greyhound Bus Lines, Firestone Tire and Rubber, Mack Manufacturing, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum. Together, they formed a new company called National City Lines (NCL), and poured some $10 million into its development by 1937. It was worth the investment for them; NCL eventually destroyed the transit systems of more than 45 cities in the United States. Most importantly, it firmly established the automobile as the primary transportation vehicle in the rapid economic expansion of the postwar years.

By 1955, only 12 percent of streetcars remained across the nation that had been running in the mid-1930s.

These companies were eventually convicted in federal court of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in an illegal conspiracy.

Unfortunately, justice was not served by the slap on the wrist each received in penalties. Each company was assessed a $5,000 fine, and each individual official implicated was fined a single dollar.



Public transit is as viable as ever, but once again you have bought into large corporate BS with an ethics problem to boot.

at least post your source if you are going to copy/paste
http://www.dailybruin.com/DB/issues/97/04.21/view.ritter.html

By what standard is public trans viable? No mass transit system in the country collects sufficent fares to cover their expenses and capital improvments so the rest is made up in subsudies/taxes/grants from the government.

There are certain places where I think the expense is justified, but not tons of them.
 

boredhokie

Senior member
May 7, 2005
625
0
0
You people talk about alternatives like we have the option to gracefully switch from Oil to an alternative fuel to run our nation's infrastructure. You're dead wrong if you think this.

"For now we need oil, maybe in the future we can consider doing this or that" <-- dull-witted thinking of someone who has no grasp of anything outside Kentucky.

Americans in power (baby boom) are undeniably fat and lazy. It's going to take a massive infrastructure crash to spur us on to a new technology. But then it won't be a "hmm maybe we can use corn to power the ol' hummer," but "holy crap how is my family going to eat with every grocery store and wal-mart shut down from $12 diesel?".

Use your heads - baby boomers do us a favor and try to stop selling out our economy to Iran, we're already one of their biggest debtors thanks to you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
" They've already proven that what they SAY they are going to do and what they ACTUALLY do are two different things. "

Nifty bit of posturing, considering the source, and who he's supported all along. Repubs didn't get tossed out because they delivered on their promises, that's for sure...

Just trying to poison the well before anybody else gets to drink...

Dems can start on energy independence by passing a bill strengthening and raising CAFE standards incrementally over the next 10 years- the vast majority of oil consumption is in gasoline... they can also promote transit and alternative energy.

And, I'm afraid, they also need to tell people the truth, that our current energy consumption pattern is unsustainable. So, if we want our children to have lives as rich as our own, we need to find ways to conserve, and to preserve our resources for future generations. Sucking all our oil out of the ground as fast as possible to blow it out the tailpipes of our SUV's isn't really the answer...

As to whether or not such independence is possible, that depends on the willingness of people to change, and to adapt to new situations, something we'll have to do anyway, sooner being better than later, unless you're in the oil business, and care only about this quarter's profit...
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
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.

Yeah, let foreign nations rape it for their benefit instead. How do the dems propose we get energy independence? Are we supposed to start collecting our farts.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Biodiesel is not the answer, sorry folks.

In a few years we won't have the luxury of using farmland to grow fuel, we will need it to feed ourselves. We are rapidly reaching the limits of what the Earth can sustain in terms of population. By 2050 we all may be starving, nevermind having gas to drive our hovercars.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,382
33,803
136
Originally posted by: ayabe
Biodiesel is not the answer, sorry folks.

In a few years we won't have the luxury of using farmland to grow fuel, we will need it to feed ourselves. We are rapidly reaching the limits of what the Earth can sustain in terms of population. By 2050 we all may be starving, nevermind having gas to drive our hovercars.

There are areas of land that cannot support food crops but can grow energy crops. Algae is also very promising since it can be fed off wastewater, light, and power plant emissions in tube farms.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
If the Democrats can figure out how to be energy independent in 10 years, I'll pledge lifelong allegiance to them. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
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.

Nice way you avoid answering even a simple question.....typical Democrat..lol
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If the Democrats can figure out how to be energy independent in 10 years, I'll pledge lifelong allegiance to them. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
They pull that off and I swear I'll convert to socialism and spend the rest of my days living off the dole. :)


On a serious note, doublethink is IMO tailor-made for democratic authoritarian types with cult of personality issues.