Oh, I am going to regret this....
Its ok, we're all in this together!
Drilling massive holes in the ground and releasing thousands of tons of hydrocarbons does have a negative effect on the environment. Look at any oilfield; they're generally pretty lifeless.
Compared with what? If you are advocating for green energy, then raping the land by strip mining the earth for rare metals needed to produce the batteries needed to power all of those fancy wind generator and solar panels (even electric cars!), then their damage is relatively comparable. Oh yeah, and most of those rare metals? Not in America. More foreign exports, yay!
Drilling at home would reduce demand for foreign oil for a time, but there's no way to know if it would actually be cheaper.
Seeing as how expensive oil and gas is, the money savings would be massive. This also gets you out of having to play patty-cakes with Big Oil in the east, and actually produce a foreign policy that isn't tainted by Big Oil.
American workers would probably be paid higher wages, and the oil companies would probably use that as an excuse to keep gas prices high. Of course, that's conjecture, so things may turn out differently.
Indeed, this is unfortunately due to the massive hold that unions have over government and the other sectors of the economy. The only reason the price of oil is high in America is because it is bought from the middle east, at whatever price they set.
The current price is pushing $100 a barrel. Companies can easily produce oil for half of that, hell even a 1/3rd of that price and STILL make a profit.
Environmentalist science may well be bought and paid for. I'm not here to discuss whether it is or not. The question is, do you honestly believe that the oil companies aren't capable of spending much more to get the results they want?
It doesn't matter how much money is spent. Are they capable? Of course, but it doesn't matter what side you fight from, if you choose that argument it can easily be applied to your sources and then both would be rendered null and void. It is lazy to do so, and something that I would have hoped to avoid doing, but you know.. HE DID IT SO I DID IT TOO NYAH!
And anyways, the last source (I linked in my previous reply) was from the University of Texas in Austin (UToA).
Here's the thing about the world and economics: Money and power is fleeting. The world has been around for billions of years and if we don't want to turn it into a lifeless rock we need to take care of it.
Sorry to point out but the world is screwed anyways. Even if you tank America and turn it into the greenest piece of National Park there is, it is not going to stop every single country in the world from doing their thing. Think China, Russia, Europe or any of the Middle-eastern countries are going to "turn green"?
And even then, are you prepared to sacrifice your car, if you have one? Are you going to forgo heating your own home in winter (if you live somewhere cold)? Better not buy any meats from any retailers because they are the product of mass-farming, which is a huge producer of nasty pollution.
Lets stop here and let me point out something to you guys, because this is what you guys do not seem to understand about environmentalist ideology.
For us to come close to achieving that perfect balance between man and nature, we are going to literally have to condemn
BILLIONS of people to death. This is through lack of essential services, such as food, water, heating, and medical aid, police services, etc. Turn off millions of power plants around the globe, shut down every single high-way and wreck every single car, get rid of every single ship at sea, eliminate heating and plumbing for every single house and home and your still left with too many people trying to start fires with logs and shit to keep themselves warm, or turning into farmers to cultivate the land to feed themselves.
You can't argue that humanity has no effect on the world when we've driven countless species to extinction and devastate vast swathes of land and ocean with oil and chemical spills. We need to get cleaner, and that means less oil and gas.
I am not. What I am arguing for is fiscal sanity and freedom created by drilling for your own oil, and get off foreign gas, even if it eventually does come from Canada.
While yes, I do recognize that humans have been very destructive of the environment, this does not mean that we will always be destructive with it. The fact that we have a government that takes seriously the impact that these have is a good start, but to restrict such things and rely on other foreign powers that are nowhere near as sensitive to the environment as we are, is counter-intuitive.
The economy, however, doesn't have to suffer very much. Huge strides are being made in alternative sources of energy, and those new industries create jobs, creating wealth, thus keeping the flow of money moving and revitalizing the economy.
So why hasn't President Obama been trumpeting these companies? Seems very strange the biggest supporter on Green Energy isn't giving them the cheer-leading routine. Because if this was the case, then it would render the whole argument behind the Keystone pipeline pointless, since the economic benefit created by these new alternative sources of energy would create such an easy read-and-tell scenario for Obama to talk about.
It will be difficult and costly to turn away from (or at least drastically reduce our use of) fossil fuels, but the sooner we get it done the better off we and the Earth will be.
Hell, environmentalists can't even sacrifice themselves for the cause. No driving cars, taking buses, living in a nice heated house, enjoying all the amenities of society! But everybody else has to! "Gas for me but not for thee!" If you are unable to give up such things, why talk about screwing everybody else out of Oil and Gas? Not everybody is an environmentalist.
As for alternative sources, they are many, though they can't be used in all areas. Here in California, take a drive down any hill or country road and you're likely to see a few dozen/hundred wind turbines. I don't know how much power they actually provide, but I'm sure they help. Keeping them maintained and in good shape likely also employs a good number of people.
Wind turbines also have this nasty habit of killing birds you know? Hope you don't mind that! (Pro-bird people do, though)
Again, speaking from local experience, there is solar power. There's a small company just a few miles away from my house that sells solar power systems to local homes. In the right climate zones, these can more than power a house.
Unfortunately these are probably expensive as to target a specific section of people. Are these affordable enough for people who cannot afford much of anything aside from struggling to live? I doubt it. If they were, then this is good.
Finally, the monster in the closet that few politicians will talk about, we've got nuclear power. It produces no carbon emissions and provides lots of power. Storing the spent fuel, however, is still a problem. The sooner we find a solution, the better, and we'd need to devote lots of time and money.
Yeah, Nuclear power is pretty taboo. Nobody likes to deal with spent fuel rods and the possibility of another Chernobyl or Japan! Cheap, clean (relatively) and highly dangerous! Makes me wanna detonate one in Sim City :O
The real answer though is that we don't need to quit fossil fuels cold-turkey. We need to expand alternate , renewable sources so that we consume less oil. There's always gonna be some places where the best source of power and heat is an old-fashioned power plant, but if we can cut down on those carbon sources we'll be much better in the long run.
Agreed. The focus though should be on providing cheap energy for poor people. If and when alternative sources become fiscally viable for the public at large and do out-perform traditional sources of power, then the answer is clear. MORE OIL! Just kidding, but really, things need to be done in a manner that doesn't sacrifice people and their economic well-being just because "WE HAVE TO, OTHERWISE THE WORLD IS DOOMED".
Author
Topic: Totally Rage Worthy Economic Issues Regarding America! (Read 27889 times)