America's Environmental Imperialism
Gas is $4 a gallon. Oil is $135 a barrel and rising. We import 2/3 of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas.
At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40% in the last 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports for 22 years, nearly a quarter-century of energy independence.
The entire Arctic refuge is 1/3 the size of the U.K. and the drilling site would be 1/7 the size of Manhattan. The footprint is tiny.
Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta in Nigeria, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor (see photo above of oil spill in Nigeria). Our environmental imperialism redistributes pollution to people who can least afford it.
~Charles Krauthammer, Critical Thinking on Energy
At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40% in the last 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports for 22 years, nearly a quarter-century of energy independence.
The entire Arctic refuge is 1/3 the size of the U.K. and the drilling site would be 1/7 the size of Manhattan. The footprint is tiny.
Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta in Nigeria, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor (see photo above of oil spill in Nigeria). Our environmental imperialism redistributes pollution to people who can least afford it.
~Charles Krauthammer, Critical Thinking on Energy
31 Comments:
There is not some 2,000 acre pool of oil waiting to be slurped up – oil drilling would occur over a vast area of almost 2 million acres. The famous “2,000 acre” figure that would supposedly be used for drilling includes only the spot where equipment actually touches the ground. That figure does not include roads, pipelines (except for the tiny footprint of their support posts), gravel mines, exploration wells, and other sites that severely affect the well-being of wildlife to roam. You can be sure that heavy industry will criss-cross the entire area before they are through.
Everyone who doesn't want to drill in the U.S. should stop bitching about gas prices.
Stop deluding yourself that we can have it both ways: No drilling and energy independence.
We are and will be a petroleum based economy for a long time to come.
"There is not some 2,000 acre pool of oil waiting to be slurped up – oil drilling would occur over a vast area of almost 2 million acres"...
Who cares if its over 200,000,000 acres of so called pristine wilderness?
If thin slicing a moose and feeding to the car would make it go then I'm hunting down the pefect deli slicer to get it done...
The EIA estimates ANWR drilling would reduce oil prices by about $0.75/b, and then only in 10 years. That would reduce gas prices by less than a nickel per gallon. For about 2 years.
Are you willing to ruin one of the last unspoiled places in the US just to save a few pennies per gallon? Do you value nothing about nature other than you own little pocketbook?
And what if we really need that oil someday? Where will it be then?
PS: And they aren't moose. They're caribou.
I was in Alaska near the end of the construction of the pipeline. I was one of many wearing green clothing every day.
The pipeline was supposed to disrupt wildlife. It didn't. Today there are more caribou than ever. Given the lifespan of a caribou, there are none alive today who have known life without the pipeline. We'd better be sure to keep the pipeline going so we don't disrupt the life they are used to, right?
Don't those pictures from the Mars exploerer in Mar's arctic look familiar? I'm not into the moon landings were faked conspiracy theories but, golly, the North end of Mars sure does look like the North end of Alaska.
I envision you, David, as a protestor looking for something worthwhile to protest. Basically, a rebel without a clue. Well, move along. There's nothing to see here.
Oh, yeah. I do have a recipe for moose stew that I picked up in Alaska. It starts, "Cut one moose into one inch cubes..."
Anonymous wrote:
> We are and will be a petroleum
> based economy for a long time to
> come.
Only at increasing risk and with increasing use of force. Worldwide oil production has been flat for several years, and the latest data show it starting to drop. In other words, we are past "Peak Oil." Procuring oil will, from here on out, be more expensive then ever before, and the reprecusions of that will storm through society.
If our economy is to grow, we have two choices: (1) seize the large middle eastern oil fields by force, and (2) invent new technologies that power society without oil.
Unless you personally are willing to go to the middle east and fight -- and suffer increasing terrorism here in the US -- you have no other choice before you. Drilling offshore and ANWR and shale will only delay this conclusion by perhaps a decade.
"The EIA estimates ANWR drilling would reduce oil prices by about $0.75/b, and then only in 10 years. That would reduce gas prices by less than a nickel per gallon. For about 2 years"...
Well dave not to be crass here but do you have something to back that up? A link maybe?
"Are you willing to ruin one of the last unspoiled places in the US just to save a few pennies per gallon? Do you value nothing about nature other than you own little pocketbook?"...
In a heart beat old son, in a heart beat... BTW have you had the misfortune to travel to that god forsaken bit of pristine wilderness?
"And what if we really need that oil someday? Where will it be then?...
I do believe the answer is a resounding HERE, HERE and most definitely HERE...
The other component the one has to analize in the price effect of bringing on more domestic production is the feedback loop that such an act has on exchange rates. EIA estimates and others ignore this fact. By producing more domestic oil, less must be imported. This means a lesser outflow of dollars, which in turn improves the trade deficit and strnegthens the dollar. A stronger dollar in tunr means that the oil we do import will be cheaper, ehich in turn means less outlow of dollars and so on. The benifits of increasing domestic production equivelent to a few percent of global supply is just not the dirrect effect of adding that much more oil onto the market. There are exchange rate and trade dynamics to consider.
i know it makes you guys feel better to blame the envionmentalists for the lack of oil but the theory just doesn't match up with the facts. actually i'm not against drilling in ANWR. go ahead. but it won't make any differance.
the White House’s own Energy Information Administration says so
here for offshore: EIA 1
here for ANWR: EIA 2
juandos wrote:
> Well dave not to be crass here
> but do you have something to back
> that up? A link maybe?
Sure.
EIA Report, March 2004. http://tinyurl.com/64kh8l
Bottom of page 7 to top of page 8.
juandos wrote:
>> "Are you willing to ruin one >> of the last unspoiled places in >> the US just to save a few
>> pennies per gallon? Do you value >> nothing about nature other than >> you own little pocketbook?"...
>
> In a heart beat old son, in a > heart beat...
So you don't care what is left of nature, as long as you can drive around for 25 cents/gallon cheaper?
> BTW have you had the misfortune
> to travel to that god forsaken
> bit of pristine wilderness?
I haven't had the pleasure. So what? Animals live there. They have the right to this earth just as much as you do.
> I do believe the answer is a
> resounding HERE, HERE and most
> definitely HERE...
Your North Dakota link points towards only 167Bb, and it says that only 1% of which is available. That's 1.67Bb. The world uses that amount of oil in about 20 days. The US uses that amount of oil in about 100 days. 3 months.
What do you propose to do after that?
What a miraculous turn of events!
Now bobble believes what the Bush White House has to say...
I guess the age of miracles isn't over...
O.K. dave, thanks for the link
I was guessing that is what you were referencing...
"So you don't care what is left of nature, as long as you can drive around for 25 cents/gallon cheaper?"....
Hmmm, didn't you believe me the first time?
If it takes feeding Bambi into a grinder so I can save 2 cents on the gallon, well I've got one handy...
What would really be cool though is if the federal and state extortionists weren't so heavy handed in their collective greed...
"I haven't had the pleasure. So what? Animals live there. They have the right to this earth just as much as you do"...
No they don't and no, you wouldn't find the coastal plain of ANWR the least bit pleasurable unless you have a fetish for swamps and mosquitoes...
"Your North Dakota link points towards only 167Bb, and it says that only 1% of which is available"...
That's right dave, there's never any new technology in the oil field business...
I seriously thought that was a story about Detroit when I saw the picture.
juandos wrote:
>> "So you don't care what is
>> left of nature, as long as you >> can drive around for 25
>> cents/gallon cheaper?"....
>
> If it takes feeding Bambi into a
> grinder so I can save 2 cents on
> the gallon, well I've got one
> handy...
Then you are an absolute and utterly crude fool. If you think that you can exist without healthy ecosystems all around you, you are a fool. And if you are so morally bankrupt that you refuse to grant the right of millions of other species to exist all so you can ride to work in an air-conditioned car at 15 cents/gal cheaper, then you are such a fool that it is difficult to even take you seriously. I don't even think you take yourself seriously. You're just a reactionary. You're utterly selfish.
No wonder you won't sign your real name to your posts. I would be embarrassed too.
What no hagiography about Obama? You disappoint me, my friends.
Dave,
Lighten up there. Juandos is just pulling your chain. Been there. Got the T.
You seem to assume that drilling necessarily implies complete environmental devastation. You seem to be unaware of the advances in drilling technology has advanced in the last 30 years?
No offence, just an observation. I leave you to duke it out with Juandos.
David,
If one imagines an oil well being drilled in Cornwall, is it conceivable that hedgehogs in the North of England would be adversely impacted?
Anonymous wrote:
> You seem to assume that drilling > necessarily implies complete
> environmental devastation. You seem > to be unaware of the advances in
> drilling technology has advanced in > the last 30 years?
No, I don't much about it, and I should. Can you suggest a good article or Web site or something I can read on the subject?
Thanks,
"Then you are an absolute and utterly crude fool. If you think that you can exist without healthy ecosystems all around you, you are a fool. And if you are so morally bankrupt that you refuse to grant the right of millions of other species to exist all so you can ride to work in an air-conditioned car at 15 cents/gal cheaper, then you are such a fool that it is difficult to even take you seriously"...
Good Afternoon david appell:
Let me guess then, the idea of clubbing baby harp seal for fun & profit is a non-starter with you, eh?...:-)
May I suggest as one place to start is here at this part of the API site: Performance where the oil industry explains their collective environmental stance...
Your ignorance (I'm trying NOT to be disparaging here) on what oil drilling and all its sundry support and transport facilities are all about seem to based in what passes for news from the MSM sphere and that of politicos with alternative agendas....
John Campbell, Mayor of Fortuna penned the following commentary back in Febuary of this year: Time to extract ANWR oil
Also you may want to consider the following: Drilling Is Destiny: This won't hurt a bit. Really
you refuse to grant the right of millions of other species to exist all so you can ride to work in an air-conditioned car at 15 cents/gal cheaper, then you are such a fool that it is difficult to even take you seriously.
Microencephalic moron^^^. I bet you think "bambi" can actually talk, too? I laugh and simultaneously chortle at your juvenile, sophomoric ideology.
I enjoy reading posts by people like Dave. So lets follow his logic here...he wants to "save" moose land which would be used for moose purposes (whatever they may be), instead of developing the land which would be for human purposes. I guess he thinks that Moose > Humans.
I would say we should drill there, thus helping millions upon millions of men and women. Isn't that much more important than saving some moose?
> I guess he thinks that Moose >
> Humans.
No. I think Moose = Humans, ethically, morally, practically, and spiritually.
> May I suggest as one place to start > is here at this part of the API
> site: Performance where the oil
> industry explains their collective > environmental stance...
These documents are a priori nothing but public relations, designed to sell you something and let oil companies make more money.
Why would you believe them -- they're obviously biased. They're advertisement. Like all advertisements, they're biased.
Instead, try reading some journalism: a recent Mother Jones article (about 2 months ago) on the environmental turmoil being created by oil shale production in Canada.
Ever hear of the Exxon Valdez?
Regardless of drilling safety, the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is heating up our planet and, by all calculations, will do so much more in the next decades, even if we stopped burning it tomorrow.
It is harming the planet -- creating droughts, heat waves, killing 150K people/yr, forcing diseases to places they have never been before, raising sea levels, threatening abrupt climate change, water shortages, snow pack deficiencies, extinguishing species, and more.
Don't you care that your grandchildren might be living on a planet with drastic environmental problems, and their lives might be limited by it?
dave appell said...
"Don't you care that your grandchildren might be living on a planet with drastic environmental problems, and their lives might be limited by it?"
No. Every generation has its share of challenges why should they be different?
Besides if overpopulation is a contributing factor to global warming then a "die-off" would be good for the long term health of the planet. Earth > Humans
"These documents are a priori nothing but public relations, designed to sell you something and let oil companies make more money"...
Nice bit of slander there dave appell since you have nothing credible to back it up...
"Why would you believe them -- they're obviously biased. They're advertisement. Like all advertisements, they're biased"...
Why shouldn't I? Why should I believe in some government paid hack with an agenda?
Why should I believe in some green tainted libtard (a.k.a. Mother Jones) who is obviously clueless in the face of science?
"Ever hear of the Exxon Valdez?"...
Ever hear of Green Peace?
Ever heard of the Sierra Club?
"Regardless of drilling safety, the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is heating up our planet"...
Well you've yet to show ANY credible evidence for that but then again liberals and facts are pretty much like water & oil, they don't mix...
"It is harming the planet -- creating droughts, heat waves, killing 150K people/yr, forcing diseases to places they have never been before, raising sea levels, threatening abrupt climate change, water shortages, snow pack deficiencies, extinguishing species, and more"...
Just curios but on what planet is this happening on? In which galaxy?
We know its NOT happening on planet earth regardless of your fruitless efforts to convince yourself of it...
"Don't you care that your grandchildren might be living on a planet with drastic environmental problems, and their lives might be limited by it?"...
No of course not since your self induced nightmares are your's and those of your ilk...
The Global Warming Scam
Juandos wrote:
>> "Regardless of drilling safety,
>> the CO2 produced by
>> burning fossil fuels is
>> heating up our planet"...
>
> Well you've yet to show ANY
> credible evidence for that
Here is your proof:
IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007), WG1, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/2007/02/ipcc-global-warming-report.html
David,
Many climatology scientists have objected to the way the IPCC has presenting the scientific findings on climate change.
The summary for public policy makers for example was released in Feb., 2007 and hyped in the press months before the scientific findings which went largely unreported. This document was written by public policy makers not scientists. Frankly, if you are not aware of what pressure is being placed on scientists then you should be.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
The subject was oil exploration in Alaska not global warming.
You have stated that you do not have any knowledge of the advances that have taken place in oil drilling technology in the last 30 years, yet you argue without any presenting any data to support your argument that drilling will cause widespread environmental degradation and severely impact wildlife. Does one ask if you consulted your ouji board?
30 years ago, multiple well shafts would have to be sunk to tap into the oil supply. Today, a single well shaft can do the same job by drilling vertically and then horizontally in different directions to tap into the oil. Drilling technology allows extraction of oil that would previously been unreachable.
If you don't know much about oil extraction, then perhaps it is time you did some reading. Check the pre-conceived conclusions at the library door.
"IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007), WG1, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703"...ROFLMAO!
Yeah, that's the ticket... Trot out more less than credible UN propaganda david appell...
That'll convince me everytime...LOL!
Keep trying lad, keep trying...
The entertainment value is priceless...:-)
Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
> juandos wrote:
>> "IPCC 4th Assessment Report
>> (2007), WG1, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p.
>> 703"...ROFLMAO!
> Yeah, that's the ticket...
> Trot out more less than credible
> UN propaganda
Juandros, you didn't even look at this graph, did you?
Let alone try to understand it, let alone argue against it scientifically.
You just dismissed it because of its source. Actually, to correct you, it doesn't come from the UN, it comes from scientists, a few of whom have also worked with the IPCC, but most of who have not. And none of them are members of the UN -- the UN has no climate modelers of its own. It comes from places like NASA, the Hadley Centre in the UK, NOAA, and others. People with far more education, capability and experience that you will ever have.
You can see Supplement 9.2 of the IPCC 4AR for a very detailed account of where these graphs come from.
Instead of dismissing something because of who printed it (when you don't even understand who wrote it), why don't you critique the graph's scientific claims?
> This document was written by
> public policy makers not
> scientists.
No, it wasn't. It was written by scientists (I've interviewed them; they are listed at the beginning of each section) who fly all over the world for long meetings in which they frequently argue over every sentence and sometimes every word.
All statements in the document are heavily referenced to the scientific literature. The IPCC assessment reports are, for the most part, summaries of what scientists have published elsewhere, with suggestions for policymakers added.
"Juandros, you didn't even look at this graph, did you?"...
Hmmm, you just refuse to get it don't you David Appell?
There is NOTHING the corrupt UN or any of its daughter agencies can say that's worth paying attention to...
The fact that 'so called' scientists threw their lot in with the corrupt UN speaks volumes of their own individual lack of honesty and credibility...
Juandro, then you can read the following reports by the National Academy of Sciences:
"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change."
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/
Or try:
"Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties"
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11175
Post a Comment
<< Home