The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:12:41 -0000

Added capacity is not known. The key is the wildcaters and the amount they can bring into play. The second key is the amount that can be brought into production using existing capped wells. Im guessing perhaps another 200k bbls per day. Im guessing the Wildcaters can bring in another 1 million bbls per day.

The Big 5 could produce new oil in large quantities in 3 to 5 years if given the right leases to do so. Florida for example. Anwar.

Oil Futures are a future guarantee that a company can buy oil at a future date for a future price. This is essential in planning for next month or next years budget so that a company or corporation can continue to make money reasonably well despite rising fuel costs.

But what many people fail to understand that is without a moving floor on oil futures there is panic in the market. Oil and gas is being bid up by ever increasing fears that oil and gas will rise. The more it rises the more its bid up in fear that it will rise. A cap or ceiling would allow for oil prices to not plummet below an established floor thus ending the overwhelming speculative nature of oil. The war in Iraq has not affected oil production, but what it has done is rise fears that something bad is going to happen.

Reducing this fear by drilling, expanding additional oil reserves and putting a crash proof ceiling on oil prices prevents the frenzied bidding to continue.

The oil and gas conundrum is a result of fear. Congress is trying to force the bidders to not be afraid and thats impossible without a floating ceiling that prevents a collapse of the prices AND the knowledge that people are actively seeking new oil and are going to bring that into production as quickly as possible.

Oil companies are not actively exploring areas they believe no oil exists. Congress prevents them from drilling in areas that oil is most likely to exist. Ie off the coast of Florida. Or allows them to drill in extremely deep water which until very recently was so expensive as to be not worthwhile.

The hurricane after Hurricane that hit the gulf in 2006 and not one oil leak showed the distance we have come in the industry since the 70's and the continual oil spills. Double hull tankers mean oil is almost impossible to spill now.

Let them drill. Oil is safe now. Oil is NOT our future. Green is. But UNTIL Green is the norm, oil is the storm.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:57:49 -0000

Jspencer

So Im a thinking to myself. Why should Bush curtail emmissions when we are going to run out of fossil fuel before anything really happens anyways. I can only conclude its the left wanting to destroy global corporations which stand in the way of socialism and such.

Other then that I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.

If you go back and read my original post I think anyone can see from my hillbilly drawl that it was in jest......but

The world is screwed. 7 billion people can be pretty demanding. By 2030 their will be 9 billion and the planet will not be able to support them.

But okay I have a proposal for you. The USA is roughly divided in about 60/40. About 60 percent of the people believe in global warming.

Okay so why dont those 60 percent stop driving cars. Give em up. That would reduce our oil intake by about 10 million bbls per day. Then those same eco nuts could give up using electricy which would further reduce our need for oil by about another 4 million barrells. Then they could spend their money on wind generators and solar panels and that would reduce our oil needs by another 2 million bbls thus ending our need to import any more oil.

The result of all these savings would be that I can then drive my SUV buying 1.79 dollar per gallon gasoline, use my air conditioner while paying for these things while the green conservationists would pay no energy bill and would have no gasoline bill and would have no carbon emissions.

The problem is solved. At least for America.

So why is it that the tree huggers demand. Why not just do. Give up all your global warming stuff and let the rest of us have ours. Because that is exactly what you are asking America to do.....give up our stuff and let the world go right on doing what they want.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

JSpencer — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:04:08 -0000

Comment #12, last line: "I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming." - Neocon

This seems to be at the heart of your rationale. It has also been the operative response from our current administration. I suppose the hoped for result is that by ignoring a problem, it will cease to exist. Not much of a strategy I'm afraid.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Ricorun — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:55:22 -0000

Neocon: Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future.

Okay, now I understand where you're coming from. Had you made that connection in the first place I wouldn't have hassled you.

So let's assume the US government does everything it can to assist the oil companies: (1) how much added production are we talking about, and (2) how much is it likely to cost us taxpayers?

And wouldn't you say it's equally true that the US government could do everything it can to assist the auto manufacturers to transition to high mpg vehicles?

Mind you, I'm not advocating either, just comparing them. In that regard it seems to me the first idea (assisting the oil companies) isn't likely to have much effect on price unless the increase in production is very large and sustainable. Oil is, after all, a fungible commodity. It seems to me the second idea (assisting the auto companies) would have a larger and lasting effect. The CAFE standards passed last year would reduce fuel consumption by 25% by 2015, and 40% by 2020. Based on current levels of consumption that represents 2 billion, increasing to almost 4 billion gallons saved per year -- while also reducing traditional pollutants and GHGs.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:07:43 -0000

Working in a business for 40 years. All these things go into whats in my head.

I only googled up information for you. NOT me.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:55:02 -0000

Let me try this one more time in really simple terms.

Oil companies make money selling oil. Mostly.
Oil is not an infinite source. Their holes in the ground dry up. Become economically unsound investments at a certain date in the future. One of the links I think I pointed you too was of the declining production rates of existing oil wells for Exxon.
Oil Companies are pretty certain as to their available oil reserves that they can harvest for markets. In addition to replace the current oil they are pumping they are continually looking for new fields to develop.
When they find a new field, it is this new field that determines how fast they produce the current field that is actually pumping oil.

So to make a long story short. Current production is determined by future oil finds. To remain solvent and a major corporation the oil companies must continue to look for new oil and gas in order to keep their futures healthy. For them their future is in finding more oil and gas that they can economically harvest into profits for them and oil for our country and this world.

So when you hear that so and so has hit oil or has drilled and capped wells then what they are doing is exploring.............not pumping. The oil industry is like many other industries. It requires knowledgeable people to run oil rigs and know what they are doing. Many times there is just not the human resources to develop a find as it takes two different sets of people to drill and then to develop a find into existing producing fields.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:40:29 -0000

Now that I did say.

You came over here in which I was discussing epa regulations and global warming to continue a debate about drilling. That I said in another thread and I stand by that. If you read farther I explained that statement.

It would take 9 to 18 months for the Oil companies to retool in order to expand current production. I also said that by turning the wildcaters we could bring oil to market in 9 to 18 months and that in 30 days we could get oil to market by opening up the capped wellls that are sitting idle as we speak. I even referenced they were doing that around Los Angeles right now.

Essentially in the last decade the oil companies exploration has become stagnant as they turned to a new unique concept of letting smaller oil companies(Wildcaters) explore and find oil and then BUYING out those companies and their resulting oil finds.

Most oil companies are running at or near the capacity for which they were intended to drill. This is not a big conspiracy to defraud the American people. To expand this capacity it would take 9 to 18 months of retooling AND huge incentives by the US government to insure that they can continue to be a vialble oil company when they pump out their existing reserves much faster then planned with not a lot of deveolping oil fields in their future. Finding oil is a lot like gambling. Its out there. But WHERE? Thats the million dollar question and if we fall for the Pelosi talking points that their are just a gabazillion acres of oil if they just look is deflecting the reality of oil exploration.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Ricorun — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:07:37 -0000

Me: So let's see... Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to.

You: Nope I didnt say that either. I'm not going to restate what I wrote.

Allow me to restate what you wrote: Secondly your wrong I can get oil to the market in 30 days and drillers can get oil to the market in 9 to 18 months..........Just turn em loose. Both the GOP who wants to protect the Oil companies monopoly and the Democrats who want to save the squirrells use the same talking points and they are all lies.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Ricorun — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:27:54 -0000

Neocon, I'm still looking into the other things you posted (it takes a while to watch all those videos). But allow me to respond to your most recent post first:

AS to Rico. You said you tried to find information but cant. Those are links I found in like 1 hour of looking around Google. Wasnt hard. If you cant extract information from them, then that is your fault. Not mine.

Actually, I already knew essentially everything in your first five links. The problem is, none of it addressed your central point -- a point which you have made on this thread and a previous one, which is, in your own words, this: But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.

Now you seem to be ignoring it entirely. Either that or I mistook your meaning of "we" to mean the domestic oil industry, not "we" the international oil industry. Which is it?

To the extent that there might be something we agree on it would be this: a large amount of the known world oil reserves are held under the control of nationalized oil companies, most of whom are not reliable friends of the US. Given that scenario, whether or not they are gaming the system to one extent or another is less relevant than what we, the US (from now on let's assume "we" means the US, okay?), can do about it. Oil is a fungible commodity, right? The price is set world-wide, right? So even if you're right that "we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure" unless it amounts to more than a few percent of the world supply it's not likely to have much of an effect on price. Not now, not ever. Other issues may be involved, but not price. Can we agree on that, or is that also debatable?

Perhaps it's a fool's enterprise, but my whole purpose in spending time on blogs like this is to learn things I didn't already know. You have presented a contention I can't verify -- assuming your definition of "we" is the same as mine (i.e., the US). If it is then I'm very interested, because if you can convince me it could change my opinion substantially. But if you can't, then it seems the available evidence suggests that if the price of oil is the predominant issue, the quicker we can break our dependence on oil the better off we'll be (again, I'm using "we" as I defined it -- the US).

Maybe I've been too hard on you. But trying to get any useful information from you has been like pulling teeth. You might say I'm playing the role of the dentist, pressing you as hard as I can to extract the necessary information. I don't care what your opinion is, I want your facts. School me.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:53:16 -0000

Secondly You are trying to discredit me when you asked this question to which I am responding.
Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity? No? Your response was:See, those are the issues I'd like some documentation for. I can find some talk about it. But it's mostly hearsay, nothing substantive.

I just posted them so that we can all see how easy it might be to actually get information and expand your mind other then just trying to tear down my position. I repeat my knowledge is in my head. You know sorta like you. You have your perceived arguments organized and categorized based upon your collected knowledge. Im not asking you for links because frankly I don't care what you have to say. You are just attempting to discredit me by asking for my documentation. I am willing to play along to a certain extent because Im bored today and you amuse me.

So let's see... Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to.

Nope I didnt say that either. I'm not going to restate what I wrote. If you want to continue to misrepresent my position then go for it. However you might want to learn to distinguish between production and capacity. They are two totally different aspects of the oil game.

Unless I missed something here Im not in school and I dont have to document much of anything.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:46:52 -0000

Pacatrue. My point is simple

Green is the future. It will be here in 2030. But What about today? The tree huggers want to wait till 2030 because they believe that this gas problem will pass. I dont.

So its either drill and go green.......BOTH. Or just pretend it will all go away. I prefer not to let it all go away because this oil problem is a very real one. Supply for the first time in history is actually starting exceed production. Most people in the business already believe that oil will decline in importance but the world needs time to change.

Lastly I am not opposed to EPA regulations if they are imposed wisely. However Congress never does anything wisely and this ops post was essentially lets throw GM and Ford and Chrysler to the EPA dogs for the sake of curtailing emmisions on factories thus doing two things. Punishing the factories and punishing Americans because no corporation pays taxes. WE DO.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

pacatrue — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:25:40 -0000

Neocon, my summary of your position on global warming is that you think we might be indeed causing warming which will flood portions of many of the cities in the state in which you live (California, correct?), but there's nothing we can do about it, so we might as well have a good time while we wait and drill more oil. Is this basically it?

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Ricorun — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:16:25 -0000

So let's see... Your primary point is that American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to. So you spray me with an article about Saudi Ariabia, one about Nigeria, one about the dynamics of oil production in OPEC vs. non-OPEC producers, a five-year old article questioning Exxon-Mobil's arrogant business plan, and finally a link of links in which the synopsis of the lead article reads:

This Energy Watch Group report uses data from ten world regions to project the future of global oil supply. The study finds that oil production reached its peak in 2006 – earlier than most experts had predicted. After large oil fields pass their production peak, new smaller fields have to be developed. But smaller fields reach their peak quickly. The report predicts that the production rate of oil will decrease by 2030 and costs will increase. The supply gap will affect all aspects of daily life as consumers are forced to lower their energy usage.

So where's the one that "proves" American oil companies are sitting on production that they can bring on-line in a veritable instant if they wanted to. Where's one that even discusses the possibility?

Oh, some new additions to your post... I'll be back...

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:44:21 -0000

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu...

http://www.rigzone.com/NEWS...

http://www.globalpolicy.org...

The globalpolicy one is an exceptional link for some insight.

http://www.globalpolicy.org...

Im not sure your trying to hard to find information. I found those links in about 5 minutes googling.

http://www.arabnews.com/?pa...§ion=0&article=109119&d=20&m=4&y=2008

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

http://www.theoildrum.com/

This is a really good summary by market experts......watch the video. I must continue to reiterate a position I have always held. Oil is not our future. But it is our present and unless we get serious we are in deep trouble. That is not to mean that Green should be abandoned. Not at all. I am totally in favor of all efforts to go green. All. I would advocate for even more money to be spent on Green. But that is 2020 and beyond. That is not today.

Today we are in trouble. Today we depend on oil and everyone I talk to seems to think this is just going to go away. it is not.

Finally, the oil service industry is not in particularly good shape to meet the needs of a rapid worldwide ramp up in activity. A lot of the rig fleet, and much of the equipment are old. Very little spare capacity exists. This combination will compromise the service response, but the most disturbing shortage by far is the lack of specialized E&P professionals. A lot of skilled people have either been laid off, or have retired from the industry in the last 18 years. This shortage is as acute on the service side as it is on that of the operators. Training their replacements takes time, and there is already a great deal of evidence to suggest that the industry is fighting over the core of professionals that remain. The oil drum.

http://rrrocks.wordpress.com/

For you conspiracy theorists.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:28:31 -0000

As far as EPA standards go, are you saying you want to reduce them or eliminate them? If so, why? And which ones?

Nope. Im not saying that at all. Again look at the ops post instead of mine:

It’s true. And he’s still got plenty of ways to worsen things before his term is over, leaving us a country discredited in the eyes of our own allies, a more toxic and unstable environment, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an enormous deficit.

Now, if you think the American Big 5 (and others) are suppressing production, then I presume you're in favor of calls for those companies to be investigated, right?

Nope. They have a business model and they are following that model. Now if congress wishes to mandate that they increase production well then congress needs to also mandate that in 1o years they will be able to replace their existing reserves with new reserves if they are going to increase production in order to meet an ever increasing world oil demand.

Quite frankly Neocon, I don't think you're making much sense. You seem to be talking in circles.

That is because I have to talk in circles for the democrats to keep up with what Im saying. However I have no doubt that I am not making sense to you when your sole purpose is to discredit everything I say.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Ricorun — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:25:19 -0000

Neocon: Talking about the big three automakers Rico. Also other industries that must pass rigid EPA standards.

With regard to the automakers, CAFE standards, the pillar of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8 (the House by 314 - 100). I heard Boehner on C-Span the other day applauding his party for helping to pass the bill. McCain did not vote. But he has voted in the past to maintain the existing standards. In fact, back in 2002, he favored mandating a 36-mpg level by 2016. More recently, of course, he wants to modify them. Go figure. In 2007 Frank Luntz (sp?), the CEO of GM said that rather than passing CAFE standards congress should mandate $4/gal gas. That would work just as well. Well, guess what? It sounds like it's a moot point.

As far as EPA standards go, are you saying you want to reduce them or eliminate them? If so, why? And which ones?

But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.

Funny thing is, I have tried rather hard. I can't find anything. And why are you so secretive?

Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity? No? Well neither is the big 5 and neither are the small cap firms. In addition you have 1000's of capped wells that could be brought to life with subsidies. In addition where in the HELL is congress with mandated energy conservation????

See, those are the issues I'd like some documentation for. I can find some talk about it. But it's mostly hearsay, nothing substantive. Kinda like Gull Island. Apparently you know where to find some solid stuff. So again I ask, why are you being so secretive?

My take on OPEC is, I don't think anyone's really sure. Bush has tried now on several occasions with little success. Finally the Saudis recently announced they'd increase production by 500,000/day. That doesn't sound like much (although it's at least half of what the EIA estimated production of ANWR would ever be even under their most optimistic estimate). And apparently the announcement didn't make much of a splash. Gas prices have risen more than $10/gal since.

Now, if you think the American Big 5 (and others) are suppressing production, then I presume you're in favor of calls for those companies to be investigated, right? Funny thing is, my impression is the Dems are for it, the Reps against it. The Dems also appear to be far more in favor of energy conservation measures than the Reps.

The truth. They want the economy to continue tanking because they believe it favors the Democrats.... the Democrats want to punish the Oil companies that are the only hope out of this mess

I had no idea the oil companies were so masochistic.

Quite frankly Neocon, I don't think you're making much sense. You seem to be talking in circles.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:04:52 -0000

It is rather insignificant as to whether climate models are correct or not. Climate change is happening. The only real question is are we causing it? Most likely. Can we fix it? Doubt it. 7 Billion people are pretty demanding.

The infrastructure is in place for a world of needy cancer cells. Somehow the Democrats want to make the patient undergo chemo Therapy in order to rid the world of this nastiness that is being inflicted upon it.

That is a very apt point and it is exactly why this discussion ends going no where. Those who want to fix the problem view us as cancer that must be irradicated.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

pacatrue — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:34:27 -0000

DLS, the point of my apparently poor volcano analogy is that the climate models remain the same no matter who or what is advocating for them. I still can't tell from your comments whether you think the climate models are accurate or made up by nefarious liberals with our nefarious plots to rule the world through home gardening. You stated a couple times that you think we might be changing the environment through human action, but then seem to label any response to the models as political (and I infer you mean therefore not real).

Anyway, again, my failed analogy was simply to point out that climatology is apolitical. Either we are forcing the climate or we are not. Only, the response to those climate models is social and political, and no matter how wise or stupid the response is, the model remains the same. (Sounds like a song.)

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:12:33 -0000

Try watching on C-span what happens when the Democratic Congress tries to do something, Filibuser, obstruct, and more filibuster by the GOP is what happens.

You mean like these?

McCONNELL LEADS TWO MORE SUCCESSFUL FILIBUSTERS AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY(which included a child tax credit or more commonly known as pork) AND A WINDFALL GAS PROFITS TAX.

So here we are in a cruch. Needing more energy not less and the Democrats want to punish the Oil companies that are the only hope out of this mess by taxing the crap outta them.

The Democrats when it comes to energy are just clueless. Jimmy Carters windfall profit tax did nothing but raise gasoline prices.

BUT........this is a perfect example.........GO GREEN>>>>PUNISH THE OIL COMPANIES in the same congressional setting. Now thats leadership.

Your congressman sucks!! Time to vote him out. I know Im voting mine out.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

runasim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:04:44 -0000

"it is the democrats with a majority in both houses that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."

Try watching on C-span what happens when the Democratic Congress tries to do something, Filibuser, obstruct, and more filibuster by the GOP is what happens.
And the Pres. is only too happy to veto anything useful.

This kind of srawman has long ceased to take in anyone who follows how Congress actually functions. Besides, even if the Democrats had veto proof majorties in both Houses, how could they, in 2 years, undo the harm the GOP did in 8?

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

Neocon — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:49:22 -0000

The insolvency idea doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that they're raking in record profits. How do you make sense of that?

Talking about the big three automakers Rico. Also other industries that must pass rigid EPA standards. But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.

Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity?

No? Well neither is the big 5 and neither are the small cap firms. In addition you have 1000's of capped wells that could be brought to life with subsidies. In addition where in the HELL is congress with mandated energy conservation????

The truth. They want the economy to continue tanking because they believe it favors the Democrats. Im just pointing out that it is the democrats with a majority in both houses that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

THE DEMOCRATS determine what legislation gets discussed, moved and passed. NOT BUSH and not the GOP.

While Congress Fiddles, America Burns.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

StockBoySF — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:49:24 -0000

DLS you mentioned that this is a nation that values a clean environment....

I disagree with you... we have a leadership which cares more about energy indutry profits... and encourages pollution because for the Bushies it's "too expensive" for industry to curtail their polluting activities.

We also have all those Americans who love the SUVs... and now they are trying to get rid of them... not because they're polluting... but because gas is expensive.

There may be some Dems and Republicans who believe in a clean environment, but even on these pages the disdain for "lefty tree huggers" is clearly evident. If folks truly cared about the environment in this country they would recognize that those tree huggers are, on the one hand absolutely correct, but on the other hand do go a bit overboard and the solution to pollution/global warming is to have aggressive goals in developing renewable/alternative energy sources (good for the economy and creates jobs) and conservation.

Unfortunately most people dismiss the "tree-huggers" when they're more "correct" than folks who want to take baby steps... so that no one will be inconvenienced. Except that we are all "inconvenienced" by the rising energy costs.... which will only continue to increase.

Oil was like $25/bbl or so when Bush took office. It is now around $145/bbl. If it rises at the same rate in the next 8 years (which it won't- I hope) it would cripple the economy. Even if it just doubled in the next eight years, which it probably will... and that would be considered a really slow growth rate in the price.... we're looking at $10/gal gas....

Yet most people want action done about it, yet no one wants to be inconvenienced and take responsibility. If the "tree-huggers" so many people disdain were taken more seriously then higher energy costs wouldn't hurt quite as bad.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

StockBoySF — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:26:57 -0000

DLS: "With energy I fear three things with a Dem administration, especially any that threatens to be another Carter administration or a McGovern administration. One is the cost of transportation and even availability of fuels. The second is the cost of heating this winter. Gas is going to be expensive! (Heating oil is still used in the USA, believe it or not; the Northeast is a big consumer of the stuff.) The third is the cost of electricity."

Uhh I hate to tell you, but don't we have the Bush administration, their record-profit oil allies (and Bush's failure to do ANYTHING about energy conservation) to blame for increasing energy costs?

If we had heeded warnings years ago (and had leaders who took global warming seriously) then we would not be in the situation we're in. I blame both Dems and Republicans for this, but I particularly blame the Bush administration since he (Cheney) said conservation is a personal virtue and placed energy industry profits before the good of the American people and before the good of the environment. And he rolled back years- decades- of environmental regulations meant to curb pollution.

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

StockBoySF — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:20:10 -0000

Neocon, you mention deforestation as being a threat to the world- and you're right- that's part of what causes global warming and a human action which we should curtail, along with lowering our demand for energy, even if we just begin by changing light bulbs. A penny saved is a penny earned (or in this case, pollution not emitted into the air results in clean air).

Re: Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions

StockBoySF — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:15:00 -0000

"Cost-benefit analysis of any new regulations (and of any additional regulation reform) will, I fear, be absent in a Democratic administration."

Well, the Bush administration has never met a fact that it liked.... It has been the Dems who are more fiscally responsible than the GOP in recent years....