I have to admit that I had no I have to admit that I had no idea how environmentally devastating an oil rig failure could be. I think the upcoming environmental catastrophe is going to be a wake-up call for America. If the slick swings around the East coast and pollutes a good chunk of the Eastern seaboard, I would expect that we will see some major changes in energy policy. We’ve already seen the long-delayed wind farm in Ted Kennedy’s old district finally approved.
For those of you that plan to reduce your energy consumption, what are your plans? Do you plan to downsize your vehicle? Buy an electric/hybrid? Reduce energy consumption at your business and residence? Install solar panels? Move off-grid?
I’d like to hear what others are planning to do to see if I can adopt similar measures. I can’t in good conscience continue to mindlessly consume energy as if it there are no environmental consequences (which is pretty much what I’ve been doing).
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
8:18 AM
It’s good to see that there It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill!
svelte
May 2, 2010 @
10:34 AM
IForget wrote:Has the massive [quote=IForget]Has the massive oil spill in the Gulf spurred you to do more to conserve energy?
[/quote]
Yes. I don’t plan on getting my arse out of my chair all day today.
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
12:55 PM
IForget wrote:It’s good to [quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
1:39 PM
flu wrote:IForget wrote:It’s [quote=flu][quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.[/quote]
Do you have something against minorities?
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
4:12 PM
IForget wrote:flu [quote=IForget][quote=flu][quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.[/quote]
Do you have something against minorities?[/quote]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
4:14 PM
flu wrote:
Nice, try. [quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.
scaredyclassic
May 2, 2010 @
4:17 PM
i really wish seat belts were i really wish seat belts were never mandated and there really should be no seat belt law whatsoever. we need to allow some truly self-imposed risk to thin the herd.
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
4:28 PM
scaredycat wrote:i really [quote=scaredycat]i really wish seat belts were never mandated and there really should be no seat belt law whatsoever. we need to allow some truly self-imposed risk to thin the herd.[/quote]
Scaredy, your should learn by now…Americans can’t take care of themselves. That’s why they need government to tell them what to do.
Seatbelt law, helmet laws are a few of the better laws
Define irony: consider this
1)Social security: for people can’t save for themselves
2)Mortgage bailouts: for people that can’t afford to pay for their homes
3)Credit reform bill: for people that can’t afford to pay for the credit bills and/or can’t read the about all the finance charges that CC companies ream you with if you just make mimimum payments
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
4:21 PM
IForget wrote:flu [quote=IForget][quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.[/quote]
Hey, you’re posting on this. Or are you excluding yourself from the idiot list too, just like you like to exclude yourself from anything but “your fair share”?
davelj
May 2, 2010 @
4:58 PM
IForget wrote:flu [quote=IForget][quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.[/quote]
So, IForget… I assume you don’t drive, right? And you don’t have any kids, nor are you going to have any, yes? And your total carbon footprint is below that of the average human on earth (recall, average would probably mean a relatively poor person in India or China without a car and other mod cons), yes?
I’m just trying to make sure you’re really an environmentalist, that’s all.
patientrenter
May 2, 2010 @
8:18 AM
IForget wrote:…
I’d like to [quote=IForget]…
I’d like to hear what others are planning to do to see if I can adopt similar measures…[/quote]
Nothing major will change unless we apply significant new taxes on oil.
A doubling of its price would have a real impact. To minimize economic disruption, it should be implemented gradually and predictably. For example, we could apply taxes that increase, on a pre-determined schedule, by 5% every year for 20 years.
By spreading the pressure of the adjustment evenly over a long period, there would be an incentive to start adapting immediately, but there would not be massive disruptions. By giving lots of time and laying out the end result clearly, it makes it possible for investors to plan energy alternatives, housing developments, transportation etc around the future prices.
The extra taxes could be used to pay the costs of our military and expenditures in the Middle East, most of which are ultimately to protect oil sources. Eventually, the taxes collected would exceed those costs, but then we all knew there would have to be extra taxes anyway to pay for the baby boomers’ retirements, and at least this tax is economically efficient.
Of course, since this is economically efficient, it will never happen in the US. Like medical care and housing finance and a host of other issues, we seem incapable of focusing on what is economically efficient. Some day a serious power will emerge that is focused on that, and we will lose out. Oh, wait….
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
8:24 AM
patientrenter wrote:
Nothing [quote=patientrenter]
Nothing major will change unless we apply significant new taxes on oil.
A doubling of its price would have a real impact. To minimize economic disruption, it should be implemented gradually and predictably. For example, we could apply taxes that increase, on a pre-determined schedule, by 5% every year for 20 years.
[/quote]
I’d actually like to see the price go up faster than that. Maybe a 15% or so increase every year until we get to $10/gallon or so and then 5% per year after that. Our oceans are going to be filled with oil if we keep extracting fossil fuels at the current rate.
[quote=patientrenter]
Of course, since this is economically efficient, it will never happen in the US. Like medical care and housing finance and a host of other issues, we seem incapable of focusing on what is economically efficient. Some day a serious power will emerge that is focused on that, and we will lose out. Oh, wait….[/quote]
Who’s the new superpower that is doing things right?
meadandale
May 2, 2010 @
8:59 AM
By ‘energy consumption’ you By ‘energy consumption’ you probably mean driving, right (since you seem to focusing almost exclusively on the cost of gasoline)?
The vast majority of electrical power in this country is generated using coal, natural gas and nuclear in probably that order.
By switching to hybrid/electric cars this means that we will be burning more coal/gas or splitting more atoms in order to fuel your vehicle. Are you ready to allow more power plants to be built to fuel your vehicle? Are you willing to let them build wind turbines near your home (consider how long that Kennedy worked to kill the wind project off of MA even though he was supposedly an environmentalist, because it would have spoiled his view).
Don’t forget that virtually everything you buy is wrapped in plastic that comes from oil, and virtually everything you eat is grown using fertilizers made from oil and farm equipment that runs on oil. Let’s also not forget that all the drugs you take use oil as the source of the chemical raw materials that are used in their manufacturing.
And I’ve obviously left out things like synthetic materials that are used in the manufacturing of clothing and many other products.
Get the picture?
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
9:25 AM
meadandale wrote:By ‘energy [quote=meadandale]By ‘energy consumption’ you probably mean driving, right (since you seem to focusing almost exclusively on the cost of gasoline)?
The vast majority of electrical power in this country is generated using coal, natural gas and nuclear in probably that order.
By switching to hybrid/electric cars this means that we will be burning more coal/gas or splitting more atoms in order to fuel your vehicle. Are you ready to allow more power plants to be built to fuel your vehicle? Are you willing to let them build wind turbines near your home (consider how long that Kennedy worked to kill the wind project off of MA even though he was supposedly an environmentalist, because it would have spoiled his view).
Don’t forget that virtually everything you buy is wrapped in plastic that comes from oil, and virtually everything you eat is grown using fertilizers made from oil and farm equipment that runs on oil. Let’s also not forget that all the drugs you take use oil as the source of the chemical raw materials that are used in their manufacturing.
And I’ve obviously left out things like synthetic materials that are used in the manufacturing of clothing and many other products.
Get the picture?
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Right on the mark.
We can never replace oil for all the reasons mentioned. The only scalable solution to replace burning fossil fuel for energy is to ramp up nuclear.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
9:26 AM
meadandale wrote:
So, by [quote=meadandale]
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Sounds good to me. Oil-based products should reflect their true costs (including all externalities), which they currently do not.
We already have the technology to make plastic out of organic materials:
If the government would quit subsidizing oil, I’m confident that something more environmentally feasible would be found to replace it.
meadandale
May 2, 2010 @
9:33 AM
IForget wrote:meadandale [quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Sounds good to me. Oil-based products should reflect their true costs (including all externalities), which they currently do not.
We already have the technology to make plastic out of organic materials:
If the government would quit subsidizing oil, I’m confident that something more environmentally feasible would be found to replace it.[/quote]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.
patientrenter
May 2, 2010 @
9:54 AM
meadandale wrote:…
Are you [quote=meadandale]…
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
We spend less than 5% of our GDP on oil. If we doubled the price, that would increase average US prices by 5%. Spread that over 20 years, and it’s 1/4% per year. I don’t like inflation or taxes, but given that higher taxes are coming anyway, I think this one makes more sense than most alternatives.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
10:09 AM
meadandale wrote:
Are you [quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil. No more not requiring oil companies to install $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers which would have prevented the multi-trillion dollar ecological disaster we are about to experience.
Are you aware that this oil well is expected to gush for 3 more months and spew between 100 million and 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf? The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.
meadandale
May 2, 2010 @
10:42 AM
IForget wrote:meadandale [quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil.[/quote]
Then clearly you want the government to stop subsidizing agriculture, especially corn? After all, these are not small family farmers, by and large, anymore but huge multi-national conglomerates.
mike92104
May 2, 2010 @
11:12 AM
What’s really needed is a What’s really needed is a reduction in consumption all together. We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck. I don’t understand a previous post saying it is not efficient. Also, if you really wanted to help out the environment, you would drive your current gas guzzling, pollution belching car until the day you die. The energy, and materials used in making a new one outweigh the slight savings in gas used.
As far as the gulf spill, I am upset that there wasn’t an immediate response to contain the spill. It seems as if they are just watching it all float away. There should be a containment team ready to go at the first sign of trouble.
patientrenter
May 2, 2010 @
1:05 PM
mike92104 wrote:….We’re [quote=mike92104]….We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck….[/quote]
If we double the price (in the slow and predictable way I describe above) then we will find more and more other things that give a greater bang for the buck.
mike92104
May 3, 2010 @
6:38 PM
patientrenter wrote:mike92104 [quote=patientrenter][quote=mike92104]….We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck….[/quote]
If we double the price (in the slow and predictable way I describe above) then we will find more and more other things that give a greater bang for the buck.[/quote]
You missed the point. The energy released from oil vs what is put into it is the best “bang for the buck” I meant. No other energy source comes close. Petroleum products have created one of the biggest leaps in technology ever. Having cheap abundant energy is what has brought us to a technological level sophisticated enough to even begin to think about replacing it.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
12:13 PM
meadandale wrote:
Then [quote=meadandale]
Then clearly you want the government to stop subsidizing agriculture, especially corn? After all, these are not small family farmers, by and large, anymore but huge multi-national conglomerates.[/quote]
Most definitely. I try to eat as little of that GMO crap as I can (yes, I realize corn is in most processed food, but I try to minimize my family’s consumption of that crap).
I don’t want any evil corporations to be subsidized — including Haliburton, Monsanto, Exxon, BP, Government Sachs, AIG, JP Morgan, etc.
I make enough money that I’m definitely willing to pay a few bucks more for food. I don’t want to put myself or my family at risk just so that Monsanto/BP/GS can make a few more bucks in profit.
Why the hell would you think anyone other than BigAG/BigOIL/BigFinance would be in favor of government subsidization of BigAG/BigOIL/BigFinance?
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
1:20 PM
IForget wrote:
I make enough [quote=IForget]
I make enough money that I’m definitely willing to pay a few bucks more for food. I don’t want to put myself or my family at risk just so that Monsanto/BP/GS can make a few more bucks in profit.
[/quote]
…and what about all those people who live on minimum wage? You plan to subsidize them by Obama-wealth-redistribution plan and pay more to feed others…Or do you expect the more “wealthy” to pick up the tab for that too? Sure, no one *minds* if everyone else has to *pay more*…as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
1:48 PM
flu wrote:
as long as it’s [quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but that’s exactly what the big corporations have been doing.
Examples:
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
-The financial industry lobbies against regulation of derivatives. The derivatives blow up costing American taxpayers trillions, meanwhile the finance fuckers take the government bailout money and use it to pay themselves massive bonuses.
-Monsanto creates GMO corn whose pollen subsequently contaminates all varities of corn around the world. Monsanto doesn’t give a rat’s ass because they got theirs.
All I want is for things to reflect their true costs — including externalities. I’m not asking for any special treatment and am happy to pay my fair share.
ybitz
May 2, 2010 @
2:14 PM
flu wrote:
as long as it’s [quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Perfect example of tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Individually, we’re all better off not paying a few more bucks to ensure we’re not destroying the environment. Without a third party enforcer (government) it has been proven over and over again that a large population will never do what is best overall for the group since the individual incentive to cheat is too high. Libertarianism is a wonderful concept, but without checks, our selfishness leads to disaster. Hey, I hate taxes and subsidizing poor people who don’t make enough to pay their own share of taxes, but if making oil/food more expensive so that we don’t screw ourselves down the road, that’s what needs to be done.
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
2:33 PM
IForget wrote:
-The oil [quote=IForget]
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
[/quote]
Anecdotal examples just don’t fly as it misses the complete picture. Maybe the, “$500k acoustic blowout” device just may not be the best equipment for the location of a particular well. Different technologies for different applications.
Don’t see the logic with stating the oil industry doesn’t care about ‘environmental destruction’. The last thing they want or need is to be shut down preventing them from making the untold billions by some environmental disaster.
By the way, there was not a drop of oil lost during both the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And rigs were severely damaged.
I suggest to hold you fire until they determine the exact cause of this rig failure.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
3:18 PM
Hobie wrote:
Don’t see the [quote=Hobie]
Don’t see the logic with stating the oil industry doesn’t care about ‘environmental destruction’. The last thing they want or need is to be shut down preventing them from making the untold billions by some environmental disaster.
[/quote]
Oil companies are only worried about next quarter’s P&L statement.
[quote=Hobie]
By the way, there was not a drop of oil lost during both the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And rigs were severely damaged.
[/quote]
Where’d you get that info? From Dick Cheney?
Why the BOP failed is not just a matter of history but the central question to which teams of engineers working round the clock in a command centre in Houston are seeking answers. If it can be reactivated in the next few days the total volume of oil released by the Deepwater Horizon well will still be a fraction of the 6.5 million gallons spilled in the Gulf as a result of Hurricane Katrina. If not, the Gulf Coast spill will eclipse the Exxon Valdez disaster within weeks. If caught in the Gulf Stream, it could eventually curl round the Florida Keys and poison
much of the US Eastern Seaboard.
[quote=Hobie]
I suggest to hold you fire until they determine the exact cause of this rig failure.[/quote]
See above. Or continue to post away mindlessly like you’ve been doing.
Anonymous
May 2, 2010 @
4:13 PM
By the way, the reason for By the way, the reason for using an acoustic Blowout-Preventer instead of the one that BP was using is because an acoustic BOP can be operated remotely (using acoustics). The cheaper BOP that BP was using has to be operated via wire, and the wires are now at the bottom of the ocean.
So for a mere $500,000 (the cost of an acoustic BOP), this multi-billion (maybe multi-trillion) dollar ecological disaster could have been prevented.
Hobie,
What was that BS you were spewing about oil companies and the environment again?
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
4:18 PM
IForget: Your smug reaction IForget: Your smug reaction hinders your learning therefore your sound judgment. First your news source colludes all petroleum releases as a result of hurricane Katrina/Rita. I am focusing on the offshore element only. You can’t mix a natural caused event and its associated damage into the current situation.
The Department of the Interior notes only 500BBS of oil were released off shore due to the hurricanes. To put that in perspective, there is about 70 BBS of natural oil seepage in Santa Barbara Channel daily. (And more prior to our drilling that relieved pressure) So when I say not a drop was spilled during two massive hurricanes you can now see my frame of reference.
I don’t like an oil spill any more than you do. Frankly, I am pissed that there wasn’t a larger spill response while it was still on fire. I don’t know if the rig was leaking then or after it sank before it started. And, since the leak was over a mile underwater it would take a while for it to float to the surface and even then may have been attributed to the rig fire only.
Take a look at this attached article before you launch into any rhetoric from the other spills associated from Katrina.
Whether the switch could have Whether the switch could have prevented the accident is beyond knowing. Though, profit over safety is the rule, not the exception with these types of things. Just like the mining accident the other week. The mining company was in constant violation of a myriad safety codes for years. Things like that are done strictly on cost benefit analysis. This was a black swan event surely predicted as an extremely low possibility not to effect the cost benefit analysis. Unexpectedly is the word of the decade.
Deep sea drilling like this is at the edge of human technological ability. If anything should remind you that oil is getting harder and harder to get, this should. We are talking 5000 ft below sea level and 30,000 ft below that. Talk about junky mentality — all to keep shipping plastic junk back and forth to increase McGDP
Civilization is tremendously out of balance with the flow of planetary energy. The consensus assumption of civilization is that an exponentially expanding consumption of material resources can continue, based on dwindling resources and a dying ecosystem. This is simply absurd and balance will “unexpectedly” be restored.
Whether anybody likes it or not we will be consuming less oil collectively. We really don’t have a choice in the matter. The totalitarian bitch that is “earth” will see to it.
afx114
May 2, 2010 @
4:46 PM
Remind me again how much a Remind me again how much a gallon of gas costs in Europe?
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
4:17 PM
IForget wrote:flu wrote:
as [quote=IForget][quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but that’s exactly what the big corporations have been doing.
Examples:
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
-The financial industry lobbies against regulation of derivatives. The derivatives blow up costing American taxpayers trillions, meanwhile the finance fuckers take the government bailout money and use it to pay themselves massive bonuses.
-Monsanto creates GMO corn whose pollen subsequently contaminates all varities of corn around the world. Monsanto doesn’t give a rat’s ass because they got theirs.
All I want is for things to reflect their true costs — including externalities. I’m not asking for any special treatment and am happy to pay my fair share.[/quote]
Well, that’s the problem with your statement. Unless you’re willing to pay for your share AND everyone else’s share that isn’t as fortunate as you are to be able to afford to pay more if costs go up significantly, who else do you expect people to pay for these people? In addition to paying more for just your expenses, are you willing to pay say an additional 25% in taxes just to support those who aren’t as fortunate as you? …Or do you just expect to pay for “your fair share”, and expect everyone else richer than you to pay for their fair share + everyone else that isn’t as lucky as you are…..Because if you are really as concerned about this, you could start donating 20%-25% of your income right now to those less fortunate on a voluntary bases already.
meadandale
May 2, 2010 @
10:44 AM
IForget wrote:The entire [quote=IForget]The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.[/quote]
Typical elitist liberal…
I’d suggest that you analyze your contribution to the demand for oil before you start throwing stones there pal. Unless you are living in a grass hut in the mountains you are contributing to the demand for oil every day.
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
1:31 PM
IForget wrote:meadandale [quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil. No more not requiring oil companies to install $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers which would have prevented the multi-trillion dollar ecological disaster we are about to experience.
Are you aware that this oil well is expected to gush for 3 more months and spew between 100 million and 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf? The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.[/quote]
Shit happens. Don’t blame the entire technology, blame the co. that was negligent. By your logic, if a pilot error that crashes a plane, is that enough for you to say, no more air travel because it’s environmentally unfriendly? Also, no one’s stopping each of us to live green. If you want, you really should consider not using a lot of what you use around the house. TV, computers,etc. A lot of that is unneccesary energy usage. Furthermore, blog entries here are contributing 0 to our productive society and wasting resources too. At that energy being used to cool down datacenters, all the toxicity from the PCB boards of computers that are tossed out, etc. If you want to put a true tax on things environmentally unfriendly, I wouldn’t mind if folks started paying $3k+ again for a PC or $1k for a cell phone.
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
9:51 AM
Of course, the solution is Of course, the solution is right in front of our eyes.
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.[/quote]
I love these claims of ‘zero polution’ cars. They still pollute…they just shift the pollution to the electricity generating location (yes Virginia, we still get most of our electricity from burning ‘stuff’).
afx114
May 2, 2010 @
11:13 AM
meadandale wrote:They still [quote=meadandale]They still pollute…they just shift the pollution to the electricity generating location (yes Virginia, we still get most of our electricity from burning ‘stuff’).[/quote]
This is still desirable because the pollution generation is shifted to a central location. It’s much easier to make a single centralized location (plant) more efficient than it is to make millions of individual distributed machines (cars) more efficient. For example, you can install emission capturing and storage technology on the plant, but try doing that to millions of individually owned vehicles.
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.[/quote]
Just being funny here 😉
GH
May 2, 2010 @
9:56 AM
I know most are against this I know most are against this kind of thinking because it reaks of Socialism, but if the Federal Government “printed” another couple of Trillion Dollars – Whats that along side the 10 Trillion on the line for banksters which has got us nowhere? and set a project to put solar panels on the roof of every outhouse, apartment, house and building in America, within 10 years we could be 100% energy independent, and in the short term would create tens of millions of much needed jobs. Once Energy Independent, we would not need oil, and our economy would be positioned for real gains.
Too bad this will NOT happen. Big oil will not have it, big power will not have it, the military industrial complex will not have it, and frankly, everyone with a vested interest in the collapse of our fragile economy will not have it, and trust me there are plenty of folks waiting in the wings to swoop in like vultures and carve up the loot once things really go south…
In the mean time, we will continue to wage war in the middle east, while at the same time sending a vast percentage of our GNP there to help fund Islamic extremists like Bin Laden…
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
12:55 PM
No. Where’s my Hummer? No. Where’s my Hummer?
ybitz
May 2, 2010 @
1:19 PM
Yes, we do get most of Yes, we do get most of electricity from burning fossil fuel, but that’s gradually changing. Though I have no source to cite, I think it’s less polluting to burn fossil fuel to produce energy to power electric cars, then for the cars themselves to burn fossil fuel for power. Think about efficiencies gained by scaling up, and ease of pollutant control with one big source as opposed to millions of individual polluting sources.
Anyone else thinking about getting a Nissan Leaf when it comes out? I don’t consider myself much of an environmentalist or early adopter, and I’m generally unwilling to voluntarily pay more for what’s better for the environment, but I think Nissan Leaf electric vehicles are cool. With the federal/california tax break, it’s ~$21k. That’s not bad for a new car that’s cheaper to operate than any other car out there. I know I cannot single-handedly wean off US’s addiction on foreign oil, but I’m glad to do what I little I can to help.
Coronita
May 2, 2010 @
1:23 PM
ybitz wrote:Yes, we do get [quote=ybitz]Yes, we do get most of electricity from burning fossil fuel, but that’s gradually changing. Though I have no source to cite, I think it’s less polluting to burn fossil fuel to produce energy to power electric cars, then for the cars themselves to burn fossil fuel for power. Think about efficiencies gained by scaling up, and ease of pollutant control with one big source as opposed to millions of individual polluting sources.
Anyone else thinking about getting a Nissan Leaf when it comes out? I don’t consider myself much of an environmentalist or early adopter, and I’m generally unwilling to voluntarily pay more for what’s better for the environment, but I think Nissan Leaf electric vehicles are cool. With the federal/california tax break, it’s ~$21k. That’s not bad for a new car that’s cheaper to operate than any other car out there. I know I cannot single-handedly wean off US’s addiction on foreign oil, but I’m glad to do what I little I can to help.[/quote]
And how to they generate electricity out here in CA? Hint, not majority from wind power/nuclear or hydro electric…If you’re just talking about getting more MPG, you’re better off going diesel and running part on bio-diesel.
Here’s your fill-up locations, if you don’t make it yourself in your own garage. http://www.nearbio.com/
ybitz
May 2, 2010 @
1:45 PM
flu wrote:
And how to they [quote=flu]
And how to they generate electricity out here in CA? Hint, not majority from wind power/nuclear or hydro electric…If you’re just talking about getting more MPG, you’re better off going diesel and running part on bio-diesel.
Flu…I looked into bio-diesel. NPR did a segment on this not too long ago, and the problem comes down to the amount of energy required to produce bio-diesel from corn (the main source available right now) is extremely high, and the overall energy balance is about neutral. In other words, you have to burn the equivalent of 1 gallon of bio-diesel to produce 1 gallon of bio-diesel, so it’s not a viable option. I think electric cars get much better mpg than bio-diesel cars, according to EPA’s wacky conversion for “equivalent” mpg for purely electric vehicles. I assume the calculation takes into account how much oil must be burned to create enough electricity to charge the car.
Where can I find out the source of electricity in San Diego? I couldn’t find anything on the SDG&E website other than saying current CA law requires 20% to come from renewable sources, and by 2020 33% must come from renewable sources.
no_such_reality
May 2, 2010 @
5:56 PM
Yes, I’ll be more Yes, I’ll be more environmentally aware. I’m going to establish new policies at my company this week in view of the environmental impacts of our massive oil consumption.
Henceforth, all supplementary and non-core competency positions will be eliminated as the obvious external costs of the employees commuting to the office outweigh their value added efforts.
In addition, my company can realize significant cost savings in labor be telesourcing the administrative and HR assistance from calls centers in India. The India labor pool is preferable since domestic sourcing will just encourage the excessive US consumption model. I’ll be able to use the cost savings to cover the cost savings by switching myself too green power from the DWP.
I still have to source janitorial and professional cleaning services, but I’ll be requiring the providers to insist that their workers commute by human power means or pay to be picked up in a company approved zero emission vehicles. To minimize unnecessary consumption, we will require the workers to stay in company mandated housing that is pedestrian distance away which will be provided a wholly own but legally separate LLC for a nominal fee generating a fair profit.
To eliminate the subsidizing of farmers that leverage excessive oil consumption, all employees will be required to shop at the company sponsored farmers market that is allowed on the former parking lot once a week. Employees will also be required to sign affidavits certifying that they only eat three meals a week with land based animal protein as it is a massive over consumer of petroleum based fertilizers. All protein must be purchased from the company certified organic and sustainable ranchers and fishery.
I feel good knowing I am doing my part.
garysears
May 2, 2010 @
6:49 PM
My thoughts on energy and why My thoughts on energy and why I voted “no”:
Oil and cheap energy in general is what allows our current standard of living and the current population of the earth and productivity of farmland.
We humans as a rule will not voluntarily lower our standard of living. If the United States lowers its standard of living by voluntarily reducing energy consumption (via regulation), other developing nations will not. No country wants to sacrifice growth for the sake of “the planet.” Cheap energy fuels the modernization of nations.
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change.
As far as climate change concerns and carbon, this means as much carbon as man can feasibly get into the atmosphere is going back into the atmosphere at a rate only impacted by economics. Whether we like it or not those dinosaurs are going to get into the air. That WILL happen regardless of U.S. policy on the matter.
I voted “no” on the poll. For me energy use is a question of individual economics rather than a moral issue. I agree it seems certain that significantly higher energy prices are coming… but in an unclear amount of time in the future. Until that time, the return on energy reduction/efficiency increase for the investment is not compelling. I cannot even be sure I’ll live where I live now or be in the house I live today when energy gets expensive enough to make economic sense to change my ways. I will not voluntarily make sacrificial changes today if I’m not certain to see the benefit. Legislation can change this. But that is why I personally wait, like most others.
Some people have the means to throw away money at non cost-effective energy efficiency and “green” technology. I believe this does more for the ego than the planet. I will drive my 10 and 17 year old vehicles until they are no longer cost effective to repair. I believe my approach does more for the health of the planet than scrapping them for newer more fuel efficient models.
Arraya
May 2, 2010 @
7:03 PM
garysears wrote:
This is a [quote=garysears]
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change. [/quote]
[img_assist|nid=13220|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=223].
Well, we are there, no need to conserve.
Consider it a natural emergency brake on economic activity. Just sit back and watch the economy shrink.
I wouldn’t expect high prices necessarily. Volatile is more like it. Spikes followed by a shedding of economic activity. >$120 puts the economy in a tail spin.
ybitz
May 2, 2010 @
8:11 PM
garysears wrote:My thoughts [quote=garysears]My thoughts on energy and why I voted “no”:
Oil and cheap energy in general is what allows our current standard of living and the current population of the earth and productivity of farmland.
We humans as a rule will not voluntarily lower our standard of living. If the United States lowers its standard of living by voluntarily reducing energy consumption (via regulation), other developing nations will not. No country wants to sacrifice growth for the sake of “the planet.” Cheap energy fuels the modernization of nations.
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change.
As far as climate change concerns and carbon, this means as much carbon as man can feasibly get into the atmosphere is going back into the atmosphere at a rate only impacted by economics. Whether we like it or not those dinosaurs are going to get into the air. That WILL happen regardless of U.S. policy on the matter.
I voted “no” on the poll. For me energy use is a question of individual economics rather than a moral issue. I agree it seems certain that significantly higher energy prices are coming… but in an unclear amount of time in the future. Until that time, the return on energy reduction/efficiency increase for the investment is not compelling. I cannot even be sure I’ll live where I live now or be in the house I live today when energy gets expensive enough to make economic sense to change my ways. I will not voluntarily make sacrificial changes today if I’m not certain to see the benefit. Legislation can change this. But that is why I personally wait, like most others.
Some people have the means to throw away money at non cost-effective energy efficiency and “green” technology. I believe this does more for the ego than the planet. I will drive my 10 and 17 year old vehicles until they are no longer cost effective to repair. I believe my approach does more for the health of the planet than scrapping them for newer more fuel efficient models.[/quote]
Aye, I agree. It just simply doesn’t make individual economic sense to do what’s right for the environment but bad for the wallet. Only legislation/taxes/credits will be able to able to alter people’s consumption habits. But of course, any deviations from the status quo on taxes will face stiff political pressure, but I think taxing fossil fuel usage and using the extra revenue to do alternative R&D and build up the necessary infrastructure is the necessary thing to do. This way, when the cost of fossil fuel goes up (all but certain), US economy will be hit less hard.
Arraya
May 2, 2010 @
7:20 PM
So, they’re gonna try and cap So, they’re gonna try and cap it with cement domes.
“There is nothing unique about the situation that should have prohibited the BOP from working as designed,” Holt said of the device.
The containment boxes being built to stop the leak — 40 feet tall, 24 feet wide and 14 feet deep — were not part of the company’s original response plan. But they appear to be the best hope for keeping the oil well from gushing for months.
The approach has been used previously only for spills in relatively shallow water. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said engineers are still examining whether the valves and other systems that feed oil to a ship on the surface can withstand the extra pressures of the deep.
“This is a completely new way of dealing with this problem,” said Greg Pollock, commissioner of the oil spill prevention and response program at the Texas General Land Office. “Generally speaking, nobody’s ever tried anything like this on this scale.”
If the boxes don’t work, BP also has begun work on its only other backup plan: a relief well that will take as long as three months to drill.
If that does not work the will drill relief wells which could take three months.
And it could start spewing 100,000 bbl per day. Which is about 35 Exxon Valdezs over 3 months. Which should knock out all gulf fishing industries and tourism. Which will decrease consumption — see it’s naturally regulating. No need to do anything.
The last GOM leak of this magnitude was back in 1979 which took 10 months to contain and it was in shallow water <200ft
briansd1
May 2, 2010 @
7:41 PM
I’ve already done my part. I’ve already done my part.
I live in an apartment, downtown, not in a McMansion.
I drive a small car when I’m not pulling cargo.
I’m not procreating. Procreation is the most environmentally destructive, high-carbon impact behavior.
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.
Hobie
May 2, 2010 @
8:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:
People who [quote=briansd1]
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.[/quote]
Memo to Pope….
an
May 5, 2010 @
9:52 AM
briansd1 wrote:I’ve already [quote=briansd1]I’ve already done my part.
I live in an apartment, downtown, not in a McMansion.
I drive a small car when I’m not pulling cargo.
I’m not procreating. Procreation is the most environmentally destructive, high-carbon impact behavior.
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.[/quote]
Do you mind tell me how much you spend in energy each month? Just because you live in a apartment doesn’t mean you’re a conservationist and just because you live in a McMansion doesn’t mean you’re a polluter. Do you also work in downtown as well? I know someone who live in a McMansion (3800 sq-ft) and spend about $40/month in gas/electric.
Lucky a lot of people don’t agree with your view on procreation. Else the human race would have been wiped out a long time ago. I’m pretty sure those family of 10 living in a 3rd world country, who don’t have cars, little to no electricity, grow their own food, etc. have a much smaller carbon foot print than you. So, procreation has nothing to do with conservation. If you really want to walk to walk, you’d buy an acre or two in middle of no where, raise your own pigs and chickens, veggies, and just live off the land. Many family with 10 kids in the 3rd world countries are doing just that.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
11:43 AM
AN wrote: So, procreation has [quote=AN] So, procreation has nothing to do with conservation. [/quote]
If you claim that with a straight face, then there’s no point discussing this subject further.
[quote=AN]If you really want to walk to walk, you’d buy an acre or two in middle of no where, raise your own pigs and chickens, veggies, and just live off the land. Many family with 10 kids in the 3rd world countries are doing just that.[/quote]
I spend about $50 per month on energy, less in the winter.
I like to run the A/C when it’s even a little hot. I’m not going to sacrifice my comfort for the environment. But I’ve done more than my share already.
Living on the land is very carbon intensive, AN. Burning oil, trash, plants is very polluting. Farm animals are very polluting. Do your research.
New Yorkers are the lowest per capita carbon emitters in the whole of USA. Farmers emit a lot of pollution.
Arraya
May 5, 2010 @
12:19 PM
San Antonio oil refinery [img_assist|nid=13245|title=San Antonio oil refinery explosion|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=733|height=500]
“All of a sudden I started hearing the explosions: one after another,” Holzwart said. “Then, after an explosion, you could see the flames coming above the top of the trees, over the top of the trees from my house.”
Holzwort said the explosions continued for about 45 minutes, but they gradually got farther and farther apart. So far, he had not been asked to evacuate from his neighborhood, which is west of the explosion.
briansd1 wrote:
I spend about [quote=briansd1]
I spend about $50 per month on energy, less in the winter.
I like to run the A/C when it’s even a little hot. I’m not going to sacrifice my comfort for the environment. But I’ve done more than my share already.
Living on the land is very carbon intensive, AN. Burning oil, trash, plants is very polluting. Farm animals are very polluting. Do your research.
New Yorkers are the lowest per capita carbon emitters in the whole of USA. Farmers emit a lot of pollution.[/quote]
Sorry to burst your bubble but even, I, who don’t conserve all that much spend about that much per person on energy. I know people who run AC/heater and spend about $20/person on energy. So you’re not even close to doing your fair share.
Who said anything about burning oil? If you live on the land, you have no oil to use. Burning trash, that’s reuse and recycle buddy. Farm animals are very polluting? Are you a vegan too? Those delivery trucks that deliver your food are pretty pollutant too. Same goes for the factory that package your food. Or the coal plan that produce the energy you need to heat/cool your apartment. Same with the oil rig that extract the oil for your car. Same with the refineries that break the oil into gasoline that you use. Same for the steel plan that produce the steel to built the high rise that you live in. I can go on. You have proof on the New Yorker statement?
Your inability to sacrifice your comfort is more taxing on the environment than those who don’t have those comfort but have 10 kids.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
1:19 PM
AN, pollution comes from AN, pollution comes from particles emitted and C02 (which is not a pollutant but cause climate change).
Yes, it’s extremely polluting to burn wood, coal or charcoals for cooking.
Farm animals emit a lot of C02 and other pollutants.
As far a NYC is concerned, despite its cold in the winter and hot in the summer uses less energy per capita than other cities, thanks to the density.
an
May 5, 2010 @
1:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, pollution [quote=briansd1]AN, pollution comes from particles emitted and C02 (which is not a pollutant but cause climate change).
Yes, it’s extremely polluting to burn wood, coal or charcoals for cooking.
Farm animals emit a lot of C02 and other pollutants.
As far a NYC is concerned, despite its cold in the winter and hot in the summer uses less energy per capita than other cities, thanks to the density.[/quote]
Once again, do you have proof to your NYC claim?
You got proof on your claim of extremely polluting? Last I checked, don’t we get most of energy from burning coal? Last I checked, we eat a lot of meat. Hence the obesity epidemic.
BTW, don’t you remember the slogan “Reduce, reuse,recycle”? People in the 3rd world who live off the land do A LOT of that. The pig will eat their left over, the poop from the animals they raise goes to fertilize their vegetables. They only burn wood enough to cook a meal for the family. Their meal is much more simplistic than yours as well, so the amount of wood they burn per person probably pollute as much as you starting your car each morning.
I blame industrialization/modernization as the main cause of pollution, not the procreation of the human species.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
2:15 PM
AN wrote:
Once again, do you [quote=AN]
Once again, do you have proof to your NYC claim?
[/quote]
There you go. People who are interested in environmental mitigation generally know that density equals less pollution.
[quote=AN]
I blame industrialization/modernization as the main cause of pollution, not the procreation of the human species.[/quote]
It used to be the human populations were kept in check by disease and malnutrition.
More humans means more environmental degradation. Think of the extinction of the Mayans because of over exploitation.
an
May 5, 2010 @
2:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:
There you go. [quote=briansd1]
There you go. People who are interested in environmental mitigation generally know that density equals less pollution.
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?
[quote=briansd1]It used to be the human populations were kept in check by disease and malnutrition.
More humans means more environmental degradation. Think of the extinction of the Mayans because of over exploitation.[/quote]
This doesn’t prove anything. I can say, it used to be that when we were living off the land, there were no environmental issue. But now that we became industrialized/modernized, things got much worse with regards to pollution.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
2:48 PM
AN wrote:
So, even when SD is [quote=AN]
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?[/quote]
You need to consider the extreme cold/hot weather conditions in NYC, as compared to So Cal and Hawaii.
an
May 5, 2010 @
2:50 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:
So, [quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?[/quote]
You need to consider the extreme cold/hot weather conditions in NYC, as compared to So Cal and Hawaii.[/quote]
It gets quite cold in Bakersfield in the middle of winter too. Cold enough that people will run heater all the time and same with summer. It gets over 100 there easily, so you’ll be running AC all the time in the summer.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
3:00 PM
AN, if you’re claiming that AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.
an
May 5, 2010 @
3:15 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, if you’re [quote=briansd1]AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.[/quote]
I claim that Bakersfield weather is much worse than SD. We are also more dense too. How do you explain that?
Btw, shouldn’t all the people who care about polution live in downtown SD then?
Hobie
May 5, 2010 @
3:58 PM
A little Transcranial
A little Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation would help this discussion now 🙂
an
May 5, 2010 @
4:03 PM
AN wrote:briansd1 wrote:AN, [quote=AN][quote=briansd1]AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.[/quote]
I claim that Bakersfield weather is much worse than SD. We are also more dense too. How do you explain that?
Btw, shouldn’t all the people who care about polution live in downtown SD then?[/quote]
Here are some more # for you:
Seattle:
Residential: #2
SF:
Residential: #7
LA:
Residential: #8
Why is SF and Seattle rank higher than LA, yet both places are colder than LA. If you go back to density as the reason, then why is Bakersfield ranked #1, beating out SF, LA, and SD. All 3 of those places have better than Bakersfield and is more dense than Bakersfield.
desmond
May 2, 2010 @
8:23 PM
I just voted no, is it to I just voted no, is it to late for me to be called an idiot? btw, b ri, that is not much of a list.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
12:39 PM
desmond wrote: btw, b ri, [quote=desmond] btw, b ri, that is not much of a list.[/quote]
I actually voted NO because I did everything already. I don’t think that I can save anymore energy.
Families who live in McMansions and drive SUVs can do a lot more.
BTW, I have and SUV myself but only use it for its cargo and towing purposes.
UCGal
May 3, 2010 @
12:54 PM
I voted no because I’m I voted no because I’m already aggressively conserving. I didn’t realize that put me in the same camp as Brian. LOL.
I drive a hybrid. I have a short commute. I walk my errands whenever possible – and walk the kids to school (much to their dismay). Even with my short commute – I carpool (I drive) with a neighbor twice a week. (He rides his bike on the other days.)
I try to shop for locally produced stuff – like produce, manufactured items like our solar tubes, etc.
We’ve taken steps to conserve water and power in our house – we’re already very close to being all in tier 1 electrical usage.
We’ve got plans for solar power, new windows, better insulation. In the meantime we have no AC and use a timed thermostat. We turn off our high efficiency lights when we leave a room.
We even do stuff like line drying a lot of our laundry to save power.
The granny flat we built was built to standards higher than title 20 codes for efficiency. Because of that the electric bill is averaging less than $30/month – for 2 people, all the lights/tv/electric bed, washer/dryer/ HVAC is electric heat pump. (Only gas is cooking and hot water.) These are 2 people who are home all day (retired).
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.
davelj
May 3, 2010 @
1:39 PM
UCGal wrote:I voted no [quote=UCGal]I voted no because I’m already aggressively conserving. I didn’t realize that put me in the same camp as Brian. LOL.
I drive a hybrid. I have a short commute. I walk my errands whenever possible – and walk the kids to school (much to their dismay). Even with my short commute – I carpool (I drive) with a neighbor twice a week. (He rides his bike on the other days.)
I try to shop for locally produced stuff – like produce, manufactured items like our solar tubes, etc.
We’ve taken steps to conserve water and power in our house – we’re already very close to being all in tier 1 electrical usage.
We’ve got plans for solar power, new windows, better insulation. In the meantime we have no AC and use a timed thermostat. We turn off our high efficiency lights when we leave a room.
We even do stuff like line drying a lot of our laundry to save power.
The granny flat we built was built to standards higher than title 20 codes for efficiency. Because of that the electric bill is averaging less than $30/month – for 2 people, all the lights/tv/electric bed, washer/dryer/ HVAC is electric heat pump. (Only gas is cooking and hot water.) These are 2 people who are home all day (retired).
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.[/quote]
This is all relative, of course. If every family in the world – including all of the poor ones in third world countries – used as much energy as your family does, we’d be in a massive energy jam. It’s like Al Gore trying to convince me he leads an “environmentally-friendly” life because he buys carbon credits as he flies around the world in private planes, provides electricity for his ginormous house, and has four children who will all likely procreate, with all that entails… but on a different scale than your own situation. I’m no environmentalist and I don’t really care what others do, but… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.
ybitz
May 3, 2010 @
2:06 PM
davelj wrote:… your idea of [quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.
davelj
May 3, 2010 @
3:16 PM
ybitz wrote:davelj wrote:… [quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.
afx114
May 3, 2010 @
5:07 PM
davelj wrote:I think that [quote=davelj]I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.[/quote]
Taking your logic to its conclusion, even the people in third world countries you mentioned should be ashamed because they burn their trash and aren’t living in caves as hunter-gatherers.
No one is saying we should all go back to living at absolute minimum survivability in order to maximize conservation. Saying so is a conveniently lazy straw man.
No doubt we as first worlders contribute the majority of environmental damage in this world. How is minimizing that impact in any way a bad thing? We’re not trying to throw a long-bomb hail mary touchdown here, we’re going for the first down.
davelj
May 3, 2010 @
6:40 PM
afx114 wrote:davelj wrote:I [quote=afx114][quote=davelj]I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.[/quote]
Taking your logic to its conclusion, even the people in third world countries you mentioned should be ashamed because they burn their trash and aren’t living in caves as hunter-gatherers.
No one is saying we should all go back to living at absolute minimum survivability in order to maximize conservation. Saying so is a conveniently lazy straw man.
No doubt we as first worlders contribute the majority of environmental damage in this world. How is minimizing that impact in any way a bad thing? We’re not trying to throw a long-bomb hail mary touchdown here, we’re going for the first down.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t think anyone should be ashamed about anything. You missed my point completely and assumed a straw man that I never set up in the first place. I’m not saying that folks shouldn’t conserve if they so choose. I’m just saying that one (1) shouldn’t kid one’s self about how much of an impact it’s going to have, and (2) should acknowledge that every family in the industrialized world is an energy hog relative to families in the third world regardless of what kind of conservation measures they put into place.
Again, I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone does on the environmental front. Want to bicycle to work? Great! Want to drive a Hummer? Super! I. Don’t. Care.
Rather my point is that folks in the industrialized world who are trying to conserve (and holding themselves up as a model for others to follow in many instances) shouldn’t spend a whole lot of time patting themselves on the back… because they’re still massive energy hogs from a global standpoint.
I, personally, am an energy hog. I drive an SUV. (Well, I live in a condo, so that’s not so hoggish – but that’s by accident!) And I don’t care. My accidental contribution to the environment is that I don’t have children and am not going to have children. So, where actions – as opposed to intentions – are concerned, I’m one of the great environmentalists on the planet. Again, completely unintentionally.
CA renter
May 4, 2010 @
12:51 AM
ybitz wrote:davelj wrote:… [quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
Exactly, ybitz.
UCGal’s family is using a fraction of what other similar families are probably using. She and her family should be commended for that. We’re not trying to compete with undeveloped nations. That’s not the point, and you know it, davelj.
UCGal
May 4, 2010 @
9:02 AM
What I do may be a drop in What I do may be a drop in the bucket – but it’s better than doing nothing. At least in my self-deluded world. If for no other reason than it gives me a (false in Dave’s view) feeling that I’m minimizing my impact.
Dave is correct in the assertion that my actions have little impact in the grand scheme of things. We’re one household. There is no way one household – either in a third world or a developed country – can have a big impact. But if everyone does baby steps – then, through sheer numbers, incremental improvements will happen.
If Dave wants to belittle my choices – that’s his choice. It won’t change my choices. I can’t solve energy consumption on my own, but I can take steps to minimize my own consumption. I can only change what is in my control.
Going back to the OP – at some point we will discover/develop an efficient source of energy and reduce our dependence on oil. We’ll have to within 100 years based on existing oil reserves and the increasing costs (environmental and financial) to produce oil. It will be better from a US Security position if we can break our dependency on foreign oil sooner.
davelj
May 4, 2010 @
9:06 AM
CA renter wrote:ybitz [quote=CA renter][quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
Exactly, ybitz.
UCGal’s family is using a fraction of what other similar families are probably using. She and her family should be commended for that. We’re not trying to compete with undeveloped nations. That’s not the point, and you know it, davelj.[/quote]
I’ll repeat myself… again… so long as UCGal is willing to say, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,” then I’m fine with that. And if folks find that commendable, I think that’s just super duper. What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road. I believe that’s what Al Gore would refer to as an Inconvenient Truth.
UCGal
May 4, 2010 @
9:15 AM
“I’m putting into place some “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,”
There I said it. But actually – some of the things I’ve done are inconvenient – but I’m sure you would discount that as well.
I agree I could do more. It would be nice to get our solar panels and live off grid. It would be nice to fully break my dependence on goods shipped from far away. For now I’m trying to reduce that. Since I haven’t I’m still a bloated energy hog. But baby steps – growing more of our veggies, etc… shopping at farmers markets that grow locally… I’m not there yet. If that makes me a bloated energy hog – so be it.
I’m not going to apologize for having 2 kids. Some of the impact was minimized by having them much later in life (effectively skipped a generation by having my first kid at age 39). And they’re a source of green labor (pulling weeds in the veggie garden, etc.) Much to their dismay.
Dave – feel free to criticize. Like I said, it won’t change my choices and it seems to make you feel good.
davelj
May 4, 2010 @
9:31 AM
UCGal wrote:”I’m putting into [quote=UCGal]”I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,”
There I said it. But actually – some of the things I’ve done are inconvenient – but I’m sure you would discount that as well.
I agree I could do more. It would be nice to get our solar panels and live off grid. It would be nice to fully break my dependence on goods shipped from far away. For now I’m trying to reduce that. Since I haven’t I’m still a bloated energy hog. But baby steps – growing more of our veggies, etc… shopping at farmers markets that grow locally… I’m not there yet. If that makes me a bloated energy hog – so be it.
I’m not going to apologize for having 2 kids. Some of the impact was minimized by having them much later in life (effectively skipped a generation by having my first kid at age 39). And they’re a source of green labor (pulling weeds in the veggie garden, etc.) Much to their dismay.
Dave – feel free to criticize. Like I said, it won’t change my choices and it seems to make you feel good.[/quote]
Like so many others, you miss my point. I imagine this is because folks read into things what they want to read. I’m NOT criticizing you for your environmental efforts. (Why is this so hard to understand?) I don’t give a shit what you do about the environment. Have 10 kids for all I care. Live in Montana on a self-sustaining farm. I. Don’t. Care.
My point is merely this: Don’t try to hold yourself up as some model of environmentalism because if you’re living in an industrial nation with two kids, with all that implies… it’s too late. The damage is already done. (Again – just to make sure you understand – “damage” I don’t care about.)
All I ask of folks is that whatever it is they are doing – whether growing their own veggies or driving a Hummer – be characterized in the proper context. You’re a well-meaning energy hog – you’re trying! – with little carbon monsters (re: kids, and I mean “monsters” in the most adorable context) who will likely reproduce, and so on, causing untold future damage to the environment. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just a fact. Accept it.
afx114
May 4, 2010 @
9:51 AM
dave,
I know you don’t care, dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?
Arraya
May 4, 2010 @
10:34 AM
afx – If you like the afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?
afx114
May 4, 2010 @
1:28 PM
Arraya wrote:afx – If you [quote=Arraya]afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?[/quote]
Not a bad idea! I’ve been a renter for a long time, but I finally bought! Check out my new digs:
davelj
May 4, 2010 @
3:13 PM
afx114 wrote:Arraya wrote:afx [quote=afx114][quote=Arraya]afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?[/quote]
Not a bad idea! I’ve been a renter for a long time, but I finally bought! Check out my new digs:
[/quote]
Great book. I thought the kid was completely nuts, but an interesting story.
davelj
May 4, 2010 @
11:09 AM
afx114 wrote:dave,
I know you [quote=afx114]dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. If you think about it, the damage that you as an individual will do to the environment during your lifetime – even if you’re a total energy pig – pales in comparison to the damage that your progeny, and their progeny, and so on and so on are going to do. Think about it in financial terms. Let’s say you buy a fully-amortizing 30-year note. That first payment (re: you) is a small fraction of the total present value of the note. The vast majority of the present value of the note is derived from payments in the future years (re: your descendants).
So, no matter what kind of conservation you do personally as an individual… your progeny will likely undo it many many times over.
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.
Arraya
May 5, 2010 @
6:16 AM
Well, population is only half Well, population is only half the issue. If you measured population in resource consumption, the US is a nation of 20 billion if measured against the consumption of the average Bangladeshi. Context is important. The world’s resource(mainly energy) budget can’t afford more american consumption patterns, which is mostly a, buy and throw away, cyclical pattern. Very simply, americans will be consuming less unless we can get emerging economies to reverse their trajectories. In the early stages of this squeeze the periphery will get kicked out first. Considering wealth distribution we can probably Bangladesh-ize the bottom 50%, in the US, without many statistical problems or any ill effects to the top 20%. They don’t consume much to begin with so losing them can be papered over easily.
Considering we are locked into oil “growth” for economic “growth”, world economic growth is over on global scale given the peak of world oil production. It has become a closed system for capital accumulation because of it’s interdependence with energy growth.
[quote]Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
Not under current economic dogma. Capitalist pricing mechanisms absolutely cannot consider anything external to the pricing mechanism, and will therefore destroy us, as everything that we depend upon as living creatures embedded within a web of life cannot be defined and controlled by something that cannot exceed its scope. Until that point is addressed, all of this is bankrupt from the start. Considering a barrel of oil is the equivalent to 1 year of human labor in energy terms, I don’t think it can “value” non-renewable resources either. All value it subjective. If it was appropriately valued it would seize the system up.
Most problems are fixable, but solutions are so far outside the status quo, threaten institutions and cherished beliefs that they will not be addressed in anything more than lip service or until we have a severe spiral of adversity. We currently have the technology and resources to bring energy stability but are locked into a global competition for remaining oil reserves. Also, it would take a massive infrastructure change, subsequent reorganization and probably global cooperation( some sort of oil depletion protocol that does not include obtaining it and burning it as fast as we can) to achieve, so good luck with that. Until energy stability is achieved civilization is not stable. Next up, is defaults as far as the eye can see.
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type
afx114
May 5, 2010 @
8:19 AM
We should also remember that We should also remember that birth rates in third world countries are much higher than they are here. According to the UN, the US ranks 139th with 14 births per 1000 of population compared to countries like Somalia, Chad, and Afghanistan who have over 40 births per 1000. So using dave’s criteria, these nations are worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis.
davelj
May 5, 2010 @
12:34 PM
afx114 wrote:We should also [quote=afx114]We should also remember that birth rates in third world countries are much higher than they are here. According to the UN, the US ranks 139th with 14 births per 1000 of population compared to countries like Somalia, Chad, and Afghanistan who have over 40 births per 1000. So using dave’s criteria, these nations are worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis.[/quote]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).
afx114
May 5, 2010 @
1:43 PM
davelj wrote:
I think you’re [quote=davelj]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).[/quote]
Dave, you’ve proved my point (notice my claim said “using dave’s criteria”). You mentioned above that having “zero children” fits your definition of the “model of environmentalism” and I was merely pointing out that there isn’t a very strong correlation between number of children and amount of negative influence on the environment. Birthrate stats show this.
Sure, number of children is a factor, but it is not the factor. Maybe you meant to say “zero children and living in the US?”
davelj
May 5, 2010 @
2:24 PM
afx114 wrote:davelj wrote:
I [quote=afx114][quote=davelj]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).[/quote]
Dave, you’ve proved my point (notice my claim said “using dave’s criteria”). You mentioned above that having “zero children” fits your definition of the “model of environmentalism” and I was merely pointing out that there isn’t a very strong correlation between number of children and amount of negative influence on the environment. Birthrate stats show this.
Sure, number of children is a factor, but it is not the factor. Maybe you meant to say “zero children and living in the US?”[/quote]
How about “zero children living in industrialized nations.” The problem with having a lot of children in developing nations isn’t so much the environmental impact – although that’s still considerable (ever been down to east Tijuana?), just not as much as in industrialized nations – but rather the quality of life that these children lead. Environmental considerations aside, being one of ten children in Ghana is a pretty tough way to grow up – assuming you make it to adulthood.
Having no children wherever you are, however, is still the optimal policy for the time being because if you don’t have children, you stop your carbon footprint in its tracks, regardless of where you are. People in developing nations are STILL multiplying their carbon footprints many times over (from a lower base than in industrialize countries, admittedly) when they have kids.
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
2:32 PM
I will add that the American I will add that the American business model depends on economic growth which depends on population growth and/or productivity growth.
If we don’t make the babies here, will import the babies or the grown adults who will consume enormously as Americans.
If populations everywhere were simply self-replacing, or better yet declining, there would be little need for migration.
So to conservatives here in America who want to stop immigration (legal or otherwise), you need to promote birth control abroad. Pretty simple solution that is relatively low-cost.
NotCranky
May 5, 2010 @
2:38 PM
This must be what lemmings This must be what lemmings talk about before they jump.
Coronita
May 5, 2010 @
4:33 PM
Russell wrote:This must be [quote=Russell]This must be what lemmings talk about before they jump.[/quote]
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.[/quote]
Well, that is the spiral the whole world is in, or at least, the western world. When large segments of population have dramatic drops in living standard , in a short period of time, coupled with a concentration at the top, it usually pisses them off and breeds misguided revolutions. Especially when they have been conditioned and promised otherwise. The underlying logic is irrelevant. Politicians campaigning on “It’s gonna get worse for most of you” dose not get them elected.
you also have to question the logic of giving somebody a tenth credit card when nine are maxed out to pa the other nine. Which is essentially what greece did. I guess they think are going to “hit it big” in the near future.
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.[/quote]
Well, that is the spiral the whole world is in, or at least, the western world. When large segments of population have dramatic drops in living standard , in a short period of time, coupled with a concentration at the top, it usually pisses them off and breeds misguided revolutions. Especially when they have been conditioned and promised otherwise. The underlying logic is irrelevant. Politicians campaigning on “It’s gonna get worse for most of you” dose not get them elected[/quote]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
O.K here is why I don’t care about the ecological damage kids do( very selfish on my part):
My 7 year old is starting to use the computer. He is doing a report for school on snakes.
This is what I saw in the search history this morning,in order from the start of his search to the last:
Two heded snacks
Two heed snakes
Pictures of two headed snakes
Three headed snakes
Shakira
BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks
afx114
May 5, 2010 @
9:46 AM
Russell wrote:BTW what is the [quote=Russell]BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
It was also made into a movie.[/quote]
Thanks, this is very interesting to me.
davelj
May 5, 2010 @
12:23 PM
Russell wrote:afx114 [quote=Russell][quote=afx114][quote=Russell]BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
Jon Krakauer, Into The Wild
It was also made into a movie.[/quote]
Thanks, this is very interesting to me.[/quote]
The protagonist (and this book is based on a true story) learns the hard way that Mother Nature is a cruel mistress.
Arraya
May 5, 2010 @
10:43 AM
Russell wrote:
Misguided is [quote=Russell]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
[/quote]
Regardless, people will be pissed as cultural promises are broken and global social entropy takes hold. It’s not a stable situation as the logic of the system impoverishes them and destroys itself. Forecast, is dark and gloomy with increased levels of propaganda, craziness, oppression and poverty on the horizon. Film at 11
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
[/quote]
Regardless, people will be pissed as cultural promises are broken and global social entropy takes hold. It’s not a stable situation as the logic of the system impoverishes them and destroys itself. Forecast, is dark and gloomy with increased levels of propaganda, craziness, oppression and poverty on the horizon. Film at 11[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, I was just stating my preferences.
CA renter
May 6, 2010 @
3:31 AM
Russell wrote:
Misguided is [quote=Russell]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
O.K here is why I don’t care about the ecological damage kids do( very selfish on my part):
My 7 year old is starting to use the computer. He is doing a report for school on snakes.
This is what I saw in the search history this morning,in order from the start of his search to the last:
Two heded snacks
Two heed snakes
Pictures of two headed snakes
Three headed snakes
Shakira
BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
As a parent of kids in the same age group, that one honestly had me laughing out loud. Awesome, Russ! 🙂
We have been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign — more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP’s liability for damage caused by what can be called a “mega-disaster.”
Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR’s federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.
Plans by BP to sink a 4-story containment dome over the oil gushing from a gaping chasm one kilometer below the surface of the Gulf, where the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed 11 workers on April 20, and reports that one of the leaks has been contained is pure public relations disinformation designed to avoid panic and demands for greater action by the Obama administration, according to FEMA and Corps of Engineers sources. Sources within these agencies say the White House has been resisting releasing any “damaging information” about the oil disaster. They add that if the ocean oil geyser is not stopped within 90 days, there will be irreversible damage to the marine eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic Ocean, and beyond. At best, some Corps of Engineers experts say it could take two years to cement the chasm on the floor of the Gulf.
davelj
May 6, 2010 @
6:08 PM
While I’m not an While I’m not an environmentalist, I’m certainly not pro-oil spilling. Having said that…
These numbers could be wrong… I have no idea – they’re just one group’s estimates:
“When BP’s oil rig off the coast of Louisiana exploded on April 22, a ruptured pipe began emptying 138 tons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. At that rate, the spill will have unleashed almost 2,200 tons of crude oil into the sea by May 7. And while that that may sound like a lot, that leaves this spill only 1/17th the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. Assuming a sustained rate of leakage, it will take an additional 252 days for the spill to reach the size of the 1989 Alaskan catastrophe.”
But even if they’re off by a factor of 2-3x, this spill is pretty small in the context of the last 40 years of major oil spills:
So, I’m assuming the Biggest Problem with this spill isn’t its size (which is still large) but rather its proximity to the Gulf shore. Correct me if I’m wrong. I ain’t an expert.
Arraya
May 6, 2010 @
6:43 PM
Numbers have changed pretty Numbers have changed pretty dramatically depending on who is reporting. “Official” number is about 5000 barrels a day, which is 200,000 gallons per day. The exxon valdez was about 11 million gallons to give context.
NOAA seems to think it could be 25,000-50,000 barrels a day, which is 1-2 million bbl per. BP told congress it could be as much as 60,000 bbl per day in a closed door meeting.
Other labs have stated that it is definitely north of 10,000 bbls (420,000)per day from measuring satellite images.
These videos represent 30-seconds of what has been happening on the floor of the Gulf for 20+ days. And this shows only one of the three gushers. The oil is like an iceberg revealing only 5% of itself on the surface. Worried yet?
Hobie
May 12, 2010 @
6:17 PM
Finally, a good Finally, a good sign.
“Satellite Imagery Shows Shrinking Slick, as Gas Slows Flow of Oil”
ybitz wrote:
Isn’t this kind [quote=ybitz]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
Not everyone will follow the zero children model.
But if you really want to lower the cost of living, and improve the quality of life for the next generation, don’t procreate. Adopt a child.
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
I didn’t say zero children FOREVER. But zero children for the TIME BEING would helpful. I saw an estimate a while back that if every family had just one child for the rest of the century that the earth’s population would get down to around 1.5 billion by the end of this century, which would be a self-sustaining population based on current technologies. I can’t vouch for that number or its conclusion, but that’s one informed person’s view. Personally, I don’t care. I ain’t gonna be around at the end of this century.
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. [/quote]
In the context of the Earth’s history, the extinction of the human race is not a big deal. Humans just happen to be at the top of the food chain right now and as one of them, it’s hard for you to imagine the planet without them. But in the larger scheme of things we are irrelevant.
afx114
May 4, 2010 @
9:54 AM
davelj wrote:What also must [quote=davelj]What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road.[/quote]
That’s only true if you have more than two kids. Think of each child taking the place of a deceased grandparent (of which there were 4 taking their toll on the environment), and eventually yourself and your spouse (2 taking their toll), and it works out to a net negative toll once you and your spouse pass (net 0 after 2 grandparents pass). If you only have 1 kid, the net is even lower. And yes, zero kids is the lowest, but by no means is one or two children going to make a difference in your grand scheme of things.
davelj
May 4, 2010 @
11:02 AM
afx114 wrote:davelj [quote=afx114][quote=davelj]What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road.[/quote]
That’s only true if you have more than two kids. Think of each child taking the place of a deceased grandparent (of which there were 4 taking their toll on the environment), and eventually yourself and your spouse (2 taking their toll), and it works out to a net negative toll once you and your spouse pass (net 0 after 2 grandparents pass). If you only have 1 kid, the net is even lower. And yes, zero kids is the lowest, but by no means is one or two children going to make a difference in your grand scheme of things.[/quote]
It depends on how long you and your kids live as well. Right now, births outnumber deaths by 77 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) after netting out all of the relevant factors. Many folks – and I have no opinion on this – believe that the CURRENT population of the Earth is unsustainable long-term – FORGETTING about actual population growth. This is debatable, as a lot depends on technological breakthroughs, etc.
But of this I’m virtually certain: If the world’s population started declining, most of our environmental issues would start to decline as well. As long as the population is increasing – whether you’re having one kid or six kids – the environment will continue to “decline” (define that however you choose). And this is particularly true if you live in an industrialized nation, where your progeny will be especially hard on the environment.
Again, I’m indifferent. But having zero children is the only truly environmentally sound choice. Consequently, I’m the Unintentional Environmentalist.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
4:16 PM
UCGal wrote:
So… I voted No [quote=UCGal]
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.[/quote]
I actually think that what UCGal is doing is commendable. If anything, her family is saving money every year that could go to other selfish or selfless purposes.
In the grand scheme of things, our existence on this universe is irrelevant. By that reasoning would could trash our planet all we want and that would make no difference.
But while we’re living here, it’s better to live in a clean environment than a dirty environment — in only for our own pleasure and comfort.
For example, the smog controls implemented since the 1970s have made our air cleaner to breathe in Southern California. But then are emitting more C02 than ever… so either way, we are causing climate change.
I truly believe that our human existence is irrelevant and several million years from now, what we do now won’t amount to much.
But I believe in selfish reasons to be environmentally concerned — comfort, cleanliness, beauty, etc..
A nice clean house is better to live in than a messy dirty house. But either way, you’ll die and that makes no difference.
air_ogi
May 2, 2010 @
9:26 PM
This is America, personal This is America, personal sacrifices are not part of what we are. Even after 9/11, when terrorists finances by Arab oil money attacked America, how many Americans decided to make a sacrifice and use a bit less gasoline? 1000, maybe?
What makes you think that will change after they see a couple of dead birds somewhere in Louisiana?
I personally am looking forward to jobs program, err cleanup, that Obama is going to implement using BP’s credit card and the improvement in tourism in California.
NotCranky
May 2, 2010 @
9:45 PM
air_ogi wrote:I personally am [quote=air_ogi]I personally am looking forward to jobs program, err cleanup, that Obama is going to implement using BP’s credit card and the improvement in tourism in California.[/quote]
I think we will be paying for this at the pump and possibly from lack of proper reimbursement where tax money is spent.
air_ogi
May 2, 2010 @
9:57 PM
Russell wrote:
I think we [quote=Russell]
I think we will be paying for this at the pump and possibly from lack of proper reimbursement where tax money is spent.[/quote]
I don’t know about paying much more at the pump. Oil companies have pretty high margins and at almost $90/barrel we are getting close to a point where elasticity kicks in.
Although I am looking forward to $140 oil as that cleaned up the rush hour traffic around golden triangle pretty nicely.
afx114
May 2, 2010 @
10:58 PM
In the initial press In the initial press conference they mentioned that this was a new well (Haliburton had just finished the final cementing of it 20 hours before the blowout), so any oil lost wouldn’t have an immediate effect on oil prices.
Coronita
May 3, 2010 @
6:48 AM
BP is @ $48.70/share today. BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.
meadandale
May 3, 2010 @
6:54 AM
flu wrote:BP is @ [quote=flu]BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.[/quote]
Obama has said recently that BP will be held accountable for all costs associated with the cleanup. That could cause their stock to get pounded in the near term. I think I’d hold off buying any stock until we see the bill.
Does anyone else think that Obama is drooling at this opportunity to villify the oil industry–and that he intentionally stalled sending in any aid in order to exacerbate the problem to make his point? This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.
Coronita
May 3, 2010 @
7:26 AM
meadandale wrote:flu wrote:BP [quote=meadandale][quote=flu]BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.[/quote]
Obama has said recently that BP will be held accountable for all costs associated with the cleanup. That could cause their stock to get pounded in the near term. I think I’d hold off buying any stock until we see the bill.
Does anyone else think that Obama is drooling at this opportunity to villify the oil industry–and that he intentionally stalled sending in any aid in order to exacerbate the problem to make his point? This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
Too late. I’m in @ $48.50. Obama is an interesting character, because isn’t he also the one approving for more drilling too? Anyway, I’m gonna roll the dice on this one. My last roll with another sin company worked out well when they were in hot water. Phillip Morris.
I wonder if BP is gonna cut that dividend (currently at 6.4%).
*Edit… Well, at $47.70 right now, it looks like this is gonna go in my long term capital gain/loss bucket….Lol.
briansd1
May 3, 2010 @
9:36 AM
meadandale wrote: This is his [quote=meadandale] This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
I thought you wanted small government.
Everyone knows that self-regulation equals no regulation.
Government is the enemy until you need a friend.
afx114
May 3, 2010 @
9:47 AM
meadandale wrote:This is his [quote=meadandale]This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
One thing is for sure: dude has had a lot of Katrinas!
Aecetia
May 3, 2010 @
11:55 AM
I think his Katrina is yet to I think his Katrina is yet to come. He will be able to blame BP for this and his supporters and the media will continue to look the other way. I think his teflon coating will hold for now.
Coronita
May 4, 2010 @
11:14 AM
Anyone see those 4 story Anyone see those 4 story containment things BP is building?
briansd1
May 4, 2010 @
1:05 PM
I also read that having pets I also read that having pets is high-carbon impact and environmentally destructive.
Sorry, I have a dog and two horses. I’ll consider not replacing the pets when they go. Of course, when they’re old an sick, euthanasia is the way to go.
briansd1
May 4, 2010 @
1:07 PM
Chemicals Meant To Break Up
Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica – April 30, 2010 5:44 pm EDT
The chemicals BP is now relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil from deep below the Gulf of Mexico could create a new set of environmental problems.
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
[quote]
BP (NYSE: BP – News) stock has plummeted in the wake of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obviously financial questions follow. Should investors bail while they still can? Should the rest of us take advantage of the plunge to buy in cheaply? What are the opportunities — and the risks?
(No one, incidentally, should feel remotely guilty about considering such hard-nosed matters “at a time like this.” Refusing to look at your stock portfolio is not going to make the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf any better or worse).
[/quote]
briansd1
May 5, 2010 @
9:07 AM
flu wrote:
So anyone want to [quote=flu]
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
[quote]
BP (NYSE: BP – News) stock has plummeted in the wake of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obviously financial questions follow. Should investors bail while they still can? Should the rest of us take advantage of the plunge to buy in cheaply? What are the opportunities — and the risks?
(No one, incidentally, should feel remotely guilty about considering such hard-nosed matters “at a time like this.” Refusing to look at your stock portfolio is not going to make the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf any better or worse).
[/quote][/quote]
Plummeted?
It’s trading at $51.90 right now. flu already made a couple bucks per share on his investment.
May 2, 2010 @ 7:55 AM
I have to admit that I had no
I have to admit that I had no idea how environmentally devastating an oil rig failure could be. I think the upcoming environmental catastrophe is going to be a wake-up call for America. If the slick swings around the East coast and pollutes a good chunk of the Eastern seaboard, I would expect that we will see some major changes in energy policy. We’ve already seen the long-delayed wind farm in Ted Kennedy’s old district finally approved.
For those of you that plan to reduce your energy consumption, what are your plans? Do you plan to downsize your vehicle? Buy an electric/hybrid? Reduce energy consumption at your business and residence? Install solar panels? Move off-grid?
I’d like to hear what others are planning to do to see if I can adopt similar measures. I can’t in good conscience continue to mindlessly consume energy as if it there are no environmental consequences (which is pretty much what I’ve been doing).
May 2, 2010 @ 8:18 AM
It’s good to see that there
It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill!
May 2, 2010 @ 10:34 AM
IForget wrote:Has the massive
[quote=IForget]Has the massive oil spill in the Gulf spurred you to do more to conserve energy?
[/quote]
Yes. I don’t plan on getting my arse out of my chair all day today.
May 2, 2010 @ 12:55 PM
IForget wrote:It’s good to
[quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:39 PM
flu wrote:IForget wrote:It’s
[quote=flu][quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.[/quote]
Do you have something against minorities?
May 2, 2010 @ 4:12 PM
IForget wrote:flu
[quote=IForget][quote=flu][quote=IForget]It’s good to see that there are at least two environmental terrorists who post here. No doubt they are looking forward to leaving behind a desolate, enviro-wasteland to the next generation.
Drill, baby, drill![/quote]
Actually, there’s 13 now… Looks like you’re in the minority.[/quote]
Do you have something against minorities?[/quote]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
flu wrote:
Nice, try.
[quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:17 PM
i really wish seat belts were
i really wish seat belts were never mandated and there really should be no seat belt law whatsoever. we need to allow some truly self-imposed risk to thin the herd.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:28 PM
scaredycat wrote:i really
[quote=scaredycat]i really wish seat belts were never mandated and there really should be no seat belt law whatsoever. we need to allow some truly self-imposed risk to thin the herd.[/quote]
Scaredy, your should learn by now…Americans can’t take care of themselves. That’s why they need government to tell them what to do.
Seatbelt law, helmet laws are a few of the better laws
Define irony: consider this
1)Social security: for people can’t save for themselves
2)Mortgage bailouts: for people that can’t afford to pay for their homes
3)Credit reform bill: for people that can’t afford to pay for the credit bills and/or can’t read the about all the finance charges that CC companies ream you with if you just make mimimum payments
May 2, 2010 @ 4:21 PM
IForget wrote:flu
[quote=IForget][quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.[/quote]
Hey, you’re posting on this. Or are you excluding yourself from the idiot list too, just like you like to exclude yourself from anything but “your fair share”?
May 2, 2010 @ 4:58 PM
IForget wrote:flu
[quote=IForget][quote=flu]
Nice, try. Technically, I am a minority. But just pointing out the flaw in you thinking most people would give a hoot about this and alter their lifestyle.[/quote]
This poll confirms my previous assumptions: Most posters on this board are idiots.[/quote]
So, IForget… I assume you don’t drive, right? And you don’t have any kids, nor are you going to have any, yes? And your total carbon footprint is below that of the average human on earth (recall, average would probably mean a relatively poor person in India or China without a car and other mod cons), yes?
I’m just trying to make sure you’re really an environmentalist, that’s all.
May 2, 2010 @ 8:18 AM
IForget wrote:…
I’d like to
[quote=IForget]…
I’d like to hear what others are planning to do to see if I can adopt similar measures…[/quote]
Nothing major will change unless we apply significant new taxes on oil.
A doubling of its price would have a real impact. To minimize economic disruption, it should be implemented gradually and predictably. For example, we could apply taxes that increase, on a pre-determined schedule, by 5% every year for 20 years.
By spreading the pressure of the adjustment evenly over a long period, there would be an incentive to start adapting immediately, but there would not be massive disruptions. By giving lots of time and laying out the end result clearly, it makes it possible for investors to plan energy alternatives, housing developments, transportation etc around the future prices.
The extra taxes could be used to pay the costs of our military and expenditures in the Middle East, most of which are ultimately to protect oil sources. Eventually, the taxes collected would exceed those costs, but then we all knew there would have to be extra taxes anyway to pay for the baby boomers’ retirements, and at least this tax is economically efficient.
Of course, since this is economically efficient, it will never happen in the US. Like medical care and housing finance and a host of other issues, we seem incapable of focusing on what is economically efficient. Some day a serious power will emerge that is focused on that, and we will lose out. Oh, wait….
May 2, 2010 @ 8:24 AM
patientrenter wrote:
Nothing
[quote=patientrenter]
Nothing major will change unless we apply significant new taxes on oil.
A doubling of its price would have a real impact. To minimize economic disruption, it should be implemented gradually and predictably. For example, we could apply taxes that increase, on a pre-determined schedule, by 5% every year for 20 years.
[/quote]
I’d actually like to see the price go up faster than that. Maybe a 15% or so increase every year until we get to $10/gallon or so and then 5% per year after that. Our oceans are going to be filled with oil if we keep extracting fossil fuels at the current rate.
[quote=patientrenter]
Of course, since this is economically efficient, it will never happen in the US. Like medical care and housing finance and a host of other issues, we seem incapable of focusing on what is economically efficient. Some day a serious power will emerge that is focused on that, and we will lose out. Oh, wait….[/quote]
Who’s the new superpower that is doing things right?
May 2, 2010 @ 8:59 AM
By ‘energy consumption’ you
By ‘energy consumption’ you probably mean driving, right (since you seem to focusing almost exclusively on the cost of gasoline)?
The vast majority of electrical power in this country is generated using coal, natural gas and nuclear in probably that order.
By switching to hybrid/electric cars this means that we will be burning more coal/gas or splitting more atoms in order to fuel your vehicle. Are you ready to allow more power plants to be built to fuel your vehicle? Are you willing to let them build wind turbines near your home (consider how long that Kennedy worked to kill the wind project off of MA even though he was supposedly an environmentalist, because it would have spoiled his view).
Don’t forget that virtually everything you buy is wrapped in plastic that comes from oil, and virtually everything you eat is grown using fertilizers made from oil and farm equipment that runs on oil. Let’s also not forget that all the drugs you take use oil as the source of the chemical raw materials that are used in their manufacturing.
And I’ve obviously left out things like synthetic materials that are used in the manufacturing of clothing and many other products.
Get the picture?
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:25 AM
meadandale wrote:By ‘energy
[quote=meadandale]By ‘energy consumption’ you probably mean driving, right (since you seem to focusing almost exclusively on the cost of gasoline)?
The vast majority of electrical power in this country is generated using coal, natural gas and nuclear in probably that order.
By switching to hybrid/electric cars this means that we will be burning more coal/gas or splitting more atoms in order to fuel your vehicle. Are you ready to allow more power plants to be built to fuel your vehicle? Are you willing to let them build wind turbines near your home (consider how long that Kennedy worked to kill the wind project off of MA even though he was supposedly an environmentalist, because it would have spoiled his view).
Don’t forget that virtually everything you buy is wrapped in plastic that comes from oil, and virtually everything you eat is grown using fertilizers made from oil and farm equipment that runs on oil. Let’s also not forget that all the drugs you take use oil as the source of the chemical raw materials that are used in their manufacturing.
And I’ve obviously left out things like synthetic materials that are used in the manufacturing of clothing and many other products.
Get the picture?
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Right on the mark.
We can never replace oil for all the reasons mentioned. The only scalable solution to replace burning fossil fuel for energy is to ramp up nuclear.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:26 AM
meadandale wrote:
So, by
[quote=meadandale]
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Sounds good to me. Oil-based products should reflect their true costs (including all externalities), which they currently do not.
We already have the technology to make plastic out of organic materials:
http://inhabitat.com/2010/04/30/japanese-researchers-make-elastic-plastic-out-of-water/
If the government would quit subsidizing oil, I’m confident that something more environmentally feasible would be found to replace it.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:33 AM
IForget wrote:meadandale
[quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
So, by reducing ‘energy consumption’ to reduce our reliance on oil you REALLY mean: eat less, buy less crap and take fewer medications, since those are large contributors to our oil consumption in addition to its use as a fuel. This also means that $10/gal gas will likely mean that all those things I mentioned above will skyrocket in price.[/quote]
Sounds good to me. Oil-based products should reflect their true costs (including all externalities), which they currently do not.
We already have the technology to make plastic out of organic materials:
http://inhabitat.com/2010/04/30/japanese-researchers-make-elastic-plastic-out-of-water/
If the government would quit subsidizing oil, I’m confident that something more environmentally feasible would be found to replace it.[/quote]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:54 AM
meadandale wrote:…
Are you
[quote=meadandale]…
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
We spend less than 5% of our GDP on oil. If we doubled the price, that would increase average US prices by 5%. Spread that over 20 years, and it’s 1/4% per year. I don’t like inflation or taxes, but given that higher taxes are coming anyway, I think this one makes more sense than most alternatives.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:09 AM
meadandale wrote:
Are you
[quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil. No more not requiring oil companies to install $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers which would have prevented the multi-trillion dollar ecological disaster we are about to experience.
Are you aware that this oil well is expected to gush for 3 more months and spew between 100 million and 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf? The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:42 AM
IForget wrote:meadandale
[quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil.[/quote]
Then clearly you want the government to stop subsidizing agriculture, especially corn? After all, these are not small family farmers, by and large, anymore but huge multi-national conglomerates.
May 2, 2010 @ 11:12 AM
What’s really needed is a
What’s really needed is a reduction in consumption all together. We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck. I don’t understand a previous post saying it is not efficient. Also, if you really wanted to help out the environment, you would drive your current gas guzzling, pollution belching car until the day you die. The energy, and materials used in making a new one outweigh the slight savings in gas used.
As far as the gulf spill, I am upset that there wasn’t an immediate response to contain the spill. It seems as if they are just watching it all float away. There should be a containment team ready to go at the first sign of trouble.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:05 PM
mike92104 wrote:….We’re
[quote=mike92104]….We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck….[/quote]
If we double the price (in the slow and predictable way I describe above) then we will find more and more other things that give a greater bang for the buck.
May 3, 2010 @ 6:38 PM
patientrenter wrote:mike92104
[quote=patientrenter][quote=mike92104]….We’re going to continue to use oil because it is still the best bang for the buck….[/quote]
If we double the price (in the slow and predictable way I describe above) then we will find more and more other things that give a greater bang for the buck.[/quote]
You missed the point. The energy released from oil vs what is put into it is the best “bang for the buck” I meant. No other energy source comes close. Petroleum products have created one of the biggest leaps in technology ever. Having cheap abundant energy is what has brought us to a technological level sophisticated enough to even begin to think about replacing it.
May 2, 2010 @ 12:13 PM
meadandale wrote:
Then
[quote=meadandale]
Then clearly you want the government to stop subsidizing agriculture, especially corn? After all, these are not small family farmers, by and large, anymore but huge multi-national conglomerates.[/quote]
Most definitely. I try to eat as little of that GMO crap as I can (yes, I realize corn is in most processed food, but I try to minimize my family’s consumption of that crap).
I don’t want any evil corporations to be subsidized — including Haliburton, Monsanto, Exxon, BP, Government Sachs, AIG, JP Morgan, etc.
I make enough money that I’m definitely willing to pay a few bucks more for food. I don’t want to put myself or my family at risk just so that Monsanto/BP/GS can make a few more bucks in profit.
Why the hell would you think anyone other than BigAG/BigOIL/BigFinance would be in favor of government subsidization of BigAG/BigOIL/BigFinance?
May 2, 2010 @ 1:20 PM
IForget wrote:
I make enough
[quote=IForget]
I make enough money that I’m definitely willing to pay a few bucks more for food. I don’t want to put myself or my family at risk just so that Monsanto/BP/GS can make a few more bucks in profit.
[/quote]
…and what about all those people who live on minimum wage? You plan to subsidize them by Obama-wealth-redistribution plan and pay more to feed others…Or do you expect the more “wealthy” to pick up the tab for that too? Sure, no one *minds* if everyone else has to *pay more*…as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:48 PM
flu wrote:
as long as it’s
[quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but that’s exactly what the big corporations have been doing.
Examples:
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
-The financial industry lobbies against regulation of derivatives. The derivatives blow up costing American taxpayers trillions, meanwhile the finance fuckers take the government bailout money and use it to pay themselves massive bonuses.
-Monsanto creates GMO corn whose pollen subsequently contaminates all varities of corn around the world. Monsanto doesn’t give a rat’s ass because they got theirs.
All I want is for things to reflect their true costs — including externalities. I’m not asking for any special treatment and am happy to pay my fair share.
May 2, 2010 @ 2:14 PM
flu wrote:
as long as it’s
[quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Perfect example of tragedy of the commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). Individually, we’re all better off not paying a few more bucks to ensure we’re not destroying the environment. Without a third party enforcer (government) it has been proven over and over again that a large population will never do what is best overall for the group since the individual incentive to cheat is too high. Libertarianism is a wonderful concept, but without checks, our selfishness leads to disaster. Hey, I hate taxes and subsidizing poor people who don’t make enough to pay their own share of taxes, but if making oil/food more expensive so that we don’t screw ourselves down the road, that’s what needs to be done.
May 2, 2010 @ 2:33 PM
IForget wrote:
-The oil
[quote=IForget]
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
[/quote]
Anecdotal examples just don’t fly as it misses the complete picture. Maybe the, “$500k acoustic blowout” device just may not be the best equipment for the location of a particular well. Different technologies for different applications.
Don’t see the logic with stating the oil industry doesn’t care about ‘environmental destruction’. The last thing they want or need is to be shut down preventing them from making the untold billions by some environmental disaster.
By the way, there was not a drop of oil lost during both the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And rigs were severely damaged.
I suggest to hold you fire until they determine the exact cause of this rig failure.
May 2, 2010 @ 3:18 PM
Hobie wrote:
Don’t see the
[quote=Hobie]
Don’t see the logic with stating the oil industry doesn’t care about ‘environmental destruction’. The last thing they want or need is to be shut down preventing them from making the untold billions by some environmental disaster.
[/quote]
Oil companies are only worried about next quarter’s P&L statement.
[quote=Hobie]
By the way, there was not a drop of oil lost during both the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And rigs were severely damaged.
[/quote]
Where’d you get that info? From Dick Cheney?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7114487.ece
Damn that liberal media and their facts!
[quote=Hobie]
I suggest to hold you fire until they determine the exact cause of this rig failure.[/quote]
See above. Or continue to post away mindlessly like you’ve been doing.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:13 PM
By the way, the reason for
By the way, the reason for using an acoustic Blowout-Preventer instead of the one that BP was using is because an acoustic BOP can be operated remotely (using acoustics). The cheaper BOP that BP was using has to be operated via wire, and the wires are now at the bottom of the ocean.
So for a mere $500,000 (the cost of an acoustic BOP), this multi-billion (maybe multi-trillion) dollar ecological disaster could have been prevented.
Hobie,
What was that BS you were spewing about oil companies and the environment again?
May 2, 2010 @ 4:18 PM
IForget: Your smug reaction
IForget: Your smug reaction hinders your learning therefore your sound judgment. First your news source colludes all petroleum releases as a result of hurricane Katrina/Rita. I am focusing on the offshore element only. You can’t mix a natural caused event and its associated damage into the current situation.
The Department of the Interior notes only 500BBS of oil were released off shore due to the hurricanes. To put that in perspective, there is about 70 BBS of natural oil seepage in Santa Barbara Channel daily. (And more prior to our drilling that relieved pressure) So when I say not a drop was spilled during two massive hurricanes you can now see my frame of reference.
I don’t like an oil spill any more than you do. Frankly, I am pissed that there wasn’t a larger spill response while it was still on fire. I don’t know if the rig was leaking then or after it sank before it started. And, since the leak was over a mile underwater it would take a while for it to float to the surface and even then may have been attributed to the rig fire only.
Take a look at this attached article before you launch into any rhetoric from the other spills associated from Katrina.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/19_2/19.2_cs_pine.pdf
See you at the voting booth.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
Whether the switch could have
Whether the switch could have prevented the accident is beyond knowing. Though, profit over safety is the rule, not the exception with these types of things. Just like the mining accident the other week. The mining company was in constant violation of a myriad safety codes for years. Things like that are done strictly on cost benefit analysis. This was a black swan event surely predicted as an extremely low possibility not to effect the cost benefit analysis. Unexpectedly is the word of the decade.
Deep sea drilling like this is at the edge of human technological ability. If anything should remind you that oil is getting harder and harder to get, this should. We are talking 5000 ft below sea level and 30,000 ft below that. Talk about junky mentality — all to keep shipping plastic junk back and forth to increase McGDP
Civilization is tremendously out of balance with the flow of planetary energy. The consensus assumption of civilization is that an exponentially expanding consumption of material resources can continue, based on dwindling resources and a dying ecosystem. This is simply absurd and balance will “unexpectedly” be restored.
Whether anybody likes it or not we will be consuming less oil collectively. We really don’t have a choice in the matter. The totalitarian bitch that is “earth” will see to it.
May 2, 2010 @ 4:46 PM
Remind me again how much a
Remind me again how much a gallon of gas costs in Europe?
May 2, 2010 @ 4:17 PM
IForget wrote:flu wrote:
as
[quote=IForget][quote=flu]
as long as it’s not your own money and as long as it doesn’t drastically affect yourself. Forget about everyone else around you.[/quote]
Not sure if you’ve been paying attention, but that’s exactly what the big corporations have been doing.
Examples:
-The oil industry lobbies against $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers that can prevent multi-trillion dollar catastrophe’s like the one that’s about to happen in the Gulf and on the East coast. The oil industry doesn’t give a fuck about the environmental destruction as they only care about the $500,000 they can add to their bottom line for each rig..
-The financial industry lobbies against regulation of derivatives. The derivatives blow up costing American taxpayers trillions, meanwhile the finance fuckers take the government bailout money and use it to pay themselves massive bonuses.
-Monsanto creates GMO corn whose pollen subsequently contaminates all varities of corn around the world. Monsanto doesn’t give a rat’s ass because they got theirs.
All I want is for things to reflect their true costs — including externalities. I’m not asking for any special treatment and am happy to pay my fair share.[/quote]
Well, that’s the problem with your statement. Unless you’re willing to pay for your share AND everyone else’s share that isn’t as fortunate as you are to be able to afford to pay more if costs go up significantly, who else do you expect people to pay for these people? In addition to paying more for just your expenses, are you willing to pay say an additional 25% in taxes just to support those who aren’t as fortunate as you? …Or do you just expect to pay for “your fair share”, and expect everyone else richer than you to pay for their fair share + everyone else that isn’t as lucky as you are…..Because if you are really as concerned about this, you could start donating 20%-25% of your income right now to those less fortunate on a voluntary bases already.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:44 AM
IForget wrote:The entire
[quote=IForget]The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.[/quote]
Typical elitist liberal…
I’d suggest that you analyze your contribution to the demand for oil before you start throwing stones there pal. Unless you are living in a grass hut in the mountains you are contributing to the demand for oil every day.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:31 PM
IForget wrote:meadandale
[quote=IForget][quote=meadandale]
Are you prepared to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? $10 for an apple? $20 for a pint of beer?
These prices (if not higher) is what you could expect if oil costs go through the roof.[/quote]
I merely want to pay the true cost. Whatever that is. No more government subsidization of oil. No more not requiring oil companies to install $500,000 acoustic blowout-preventers which would have prevented the multi-trillion dollar ecological disaster we are about to experience.
Are you aware that this oil well is expected to gush for 3 more months and spew between 100 million and 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf? The entire Eastern seaboard of the U.S. could be wiped out because people like you don’t want to pay a bit more for gas. Short-term thinking idiot, you are.[/quote]
Shit happens. Don’t blame the entire technology, blame the co. that was negligent. By your logic, if a pilot error that crashes a plane, is that enough for you to say, no more air travel because it’s environmentally unfriendly? Also, no one’s stopping each of us to live green. If you want, you really should consider not using a lot of what you use around the house. TV, computers,etc. A lot of that is unneccesary energy usage. Furthermore, blog entries here are contributing 0 to our productive society and wasting resources too. At that energy being used to cool down datacenters, all the toxicity from the PCB boards of computers that are tossed out, etc. If you want to put a true tax on things environmentally unfriendly, I wouldn’t mind if folks started paying $3k+ again for a PC or $1k for a cell phone.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
Of course, the solution is
Of course, the solution is right in front of our eyes.
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm
May 2, 2010 @ 11:01 AM
“Of course, the solution is
“Of course, the solution is right in front of our eyes.
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-aut…”
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.
May 2, 2010 @ 11:06 AM
garysears wrote:”Of course,
[quote=garysears]”Of course, the solution is right in front of our eyes.
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-aut…”
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.[/quote]
I love these claims of ‘zero polution’ cars. They still pollute…they just shift the pollution to the electricity generating location (yes Virginia, we still get most of our electricity from burning ‘stuff’).
May 2, 2010 @ 11:13 AM
meadandale wrote:They still
[quote=meadandale]They still pollute…they just shift the pollution to the electricity generating location (yes Virginia, we still get most of our electricity from burning ‘stuff’).[/quote]
This is still desirable because the pollution generation is shifted to a central location. It’s much easier to make a single centralized location (plant) more efficient than it is to make millions of individual distributed machines (cars) more efficient. For example, you can install emission capturing and storage technology on the plant, but try doing that to millions of individually owned vehicles.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:41 PM
garysears wrote:”Of course,
[quote=garysears]”Of course, the solution is right in front of our eyes.
http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-aut…”
I hope that is snark. The concept of the compressed air car as an improvement over internal combustion cars is a scam. The claims are fraudulent. Google is your friend.[/quote]
Just being funny here 😉
May 2, 2010 @ 9:56 AM
I know most are against this
I know most are against this kind of thinking because it reaks of Socialism, but if the Federal Government “printed” another couple of Trillion Dollars – Whats that along side the 10 Trillion on the line for banksters which has got us nowhere? and set a project to put solar panels on the roof of every outhouse, apartment, house and building in America, within 10 years we could be 100% energy independent, and in the short term would create tens of millions of much needed jobs. Once Energy Independent, we would not need oil, and our economy would be positioned for real gains.
Too bad this will NOT happen. Big oil will not have it, big power will not have it, the military industrial complex will not have it, and frankly, everyone with a vested interest in the collapse of our fragile economy will not have it, and trust me there are plenty of folks waiting in the wings to swoop in like vultures and carve up the loot once things really go south…
In the mean time, we will continue to wage war in the middle east, while at the same time sending a vast percentage of our GNP there to help fund Islamic extremists like Bin Laden…
May 2, 2010 @ 12:55 PM
No. Where’s my Hummer?
No. Where’s my Hummer?
May 2, 2010 @ 1:19 PM
Yes, we do get most of
Yes, we do get most of electricity from burning fossil fuel, but that’s gradually changing. Though I have no source to cite, I think it’s less polluting to burn fossil fuel to produce energy to power electric cars, then for the cars themselves to burn fossil fuel for power. Think about efficiencies gained by scaling up, and ease of pollutant control with one big source as opposed to millions of individual polluting sources.
Anyone else thinking about getting a Nissan Leaf when it comes out? I don’t consider myself much of an environmentalist or early adopter, and I’m generally unwilling to voluntarily pay more for what’s better for the environment, but I think Nissan Leaf electric vehicles are cool. With the federal/california tax break, it’s ~$21k. That’s not bad for a new car that’s cheaper to operate than any other car out there. I know I cannot single-handedly wean off US’s addiction on foreign oil, but I’m glad to do what I little I can to help.
May 2, 2010 @ 1:23 PM
ybitz wrote:Yes, we do get
[quote=ybitz]Yes, we do get most of electricity from burning fossil fuel, but that’s gradually changing. Though I have no source to cite, I think it’s less polluting to burn fossil fuel to produce energy to power electric cars, then for the cars themselves to burn fossil fuel for power. Think about efficiencies gained by scaling up, and ease of pollutant control with one big source as opposed to millions of individual polluting sources.
Anyone else thinking about getting a Nissan Leaf when it comes out? I don’t consider myself much of an environmentalist or early adopter, and I’m generally unwilling to voluntarily pay more for what’s better for the environment, but I think Nissan Leaf electric vehicles are cool. With the federal/california tax break, it’s ~$21k. That’s not bad for a new car that’s cheaper to operate than any other car out there. I know I cannot single-handedly wean off US’s addiction on foreign oil, but I’m glad to do what I little I can to help.[/quote]
And how to they generate electricity out here in CA? Hint, not majority from wind power/nuclear or hydro electric…If you’re just talking about getting more MPG, you’re better off going diesel and running part on bio-diesel.
Here’s your fill-up locations, if you don’t make it yourself in your own garage.
http://www.nearbio.com/
May 2, 2010 @ 1:45 PM
flu wrote:
And how to they
[quote=flu]
And how to they generate electricity out here in CA? Hint, not majority from wind power/nuclear or hydro electric…If you’re just talking about getting more MPG, you’re better off going diesel and running part on bio-diesel.
Here’s your fill-up locations, if you don’t make it yourself in your own garage.
http://www.nearbio.com/%5B/quote%5D
Flu…I looked into bio-diesel. NPR did a segment on this not too long ago, and the problem comes down to the amount of energy required to produce bio-diesel from corn (the main source available right now) is extremely high, and the overall energy balance is about neutral. In other words, you have to burn the equivalent of 1 gallon of bio-diesel to produce 1 gallon of bio-diesel, so it’s not a viable option. I think electric cars get much better mpg than bio-diesel cars, according to EPA’s wacky conversion for “equivalent” mpg for purely electric vehicles. I assume the calculation takes into account how much oil must be burned to create enough electricity to charge the car.
Where can I find out the source of electricity in San Diego? I couldn’t find anything on the SDG&E website other than saying current CA law requires 20% to come from renewable sources, and by 2020 33% must come from renewable sources.
May 2, 2010 @ 5:56 PM
Yes, I’ll be more
Yes, I’ll be more environmentally aware. I’m going to establish new policies at my company this week in view of the environmental impacts of our massive oil consumption.
Henceforth, all supplementary and non-core competency positions will be eliminated as the obvious external costs of the employees commuting to the office outweigh their value added efforts.
In addition, my company can realize significant cost savings in labor be telesourcing the administrative and HR assistance from calls centers in India. The India labor pool is preferable since domestic sourcing will just encourage the excessive US consumption model. I’ll be able to use the cost savings to cover the cost savings by switching myself too green power from the DWP.
I still have to source janitorial and professional cleaning services, but I’ll be requiring the providers to insist that their workers commute by human power means or pay to be picked up in a company approved zero emission vehicles. To minimize unnecessary consumption, we will require the workers to stay in company mandated housing that is pedestrian distance away which will be provided a wholly own but legally separate LLC for a nominal fee generating a fair profit.
To eliminate the subsidizing of farmers that leverage excessive oil consumption, all employees will be required to shop at the company sponsored farmers market that is allowed on the former parking lot once a week. Employees will also be required to sign affidavits certifying that they only eat three meals a week with land based animal protein as it is a massive over consumer of petroleum based fertilizers. All protein must be purchased from the company certified organic and sustainable ranchers and fishery.
I feel good knowing I am doing my part.
May 2, 2010 @ 6:49 PM
My thoughts on energy and why
My thoughts on energy and why I voted “no”:
Oil and cheap energy in general is what allows our current standard of living and the current population of the earth and productivity of farmland.
We humans as a rule will not voluntarily lower our standard of living. If the United States lowers its standard of living by voluntarily reducing energy consumption (via regulation), other developing nations will not. No country wants to sacrifice growth for the sake of “the planet.” Cheap energy fuels the modernization of nations.
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change.
As far as climate change concerns and carbon, this means as much carbon as man can feasibly get into the atmosphere is going back into the atmosphere at a rate only impacted by economics. Whether we like it or not those dinosaurs are going to get into the air. That WILL happen regardless of U.S. policy on the matter.
I voted “no” on the poll. For me energy use is a question of individual economics rather than a moral issue. I agree it seems certain that significantly higher energy prices are coming… but in an unclear amount of time in the future. Until that time, the return on energy reduction/efficiency increase for the investment is not compelling. I cannot even be sure I’ll live where I live now or be in the house I live today when energy gets expensive enough to make economic sense to change my ways. I will not voluntarily make sacrificial changes today if I’m not certain to see the benefit. Legislation can change this. But that is why I personally wait, like most others.
Some people have the means to throw away money at non cost-effective energy efficiency and “green” technology. I believe this does more for the ego than the planet. I will drive my 10 and 17 year old vehicles until they are no longer cost effective to repair. I believe my approach does more for the health of the planet than scrapping them for newer more fuel efficient models.
May 2, 2010 @ 7:03 PM
garysears wrote:
This is a
[quote=garysears]
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change. [/quote]
[img_assist|nid=13220|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=300|height=223].
Well, we are there, no need to conserve.
Consider it a natural emergency brake on economic activity. Just sit back and watch the economy shrink.
I wouldn’t expect high prices necessarily. Volatile is more like it. Spikes followed by a shedding of economic activity. >$120 puts the economy in a tail spin.
May 2, 2010 @ 8:11 PM
garysears wrote:My thoughts
[quote=garysears]My thoughts on energy and why I voted “no”:
Oil and cheap energy in general is what allows our current standard of living and the current population of the earth and productivity of farmland.
We humans as a rule will not voluntarily lower our standard of living. If the United States lowers its standard of living by voluntarily reducing energy consumption (via regulation), other developing nations will not. No country wants to sacrifice growth for the sake of “the planet.” Cheap energy fuels the modernization of nations.
This is a grab all you can get while you can get it scenario. We are going to hit the end of cheap energy wall. That seems certain. Until that happens nothing will change.
As far as climate change concerns and carbon, this means as much carbon as man can feasibly get into the atmosphere is going back into the atmosphere at a rate only impacted by economics. Whether we like it or not those dinosaurs are going to get into the air. That WILL happen regardless of U.S. policy on the matter.
I voted “no” on the poll. For me energy use is a question of individual economics rather than a moral issue. I agree it seems certain that significantly higher energy prices are coming… but in an unclear amount of time in the future. Until that time, the return on energy reduction/efficiency increase for the investment is not compelling. I cannot even be sure I’ll live where I live now or be in the house I live today when energy gets expensive enough to make economic sense to change my ways. I will not voluntarily make sacrificial changes today if I’m not certain to see the benefit. Legislation can change this. But that is why I personally wait, like most others.
Some people have the means to throw away money at non cost-effective energy efficiency and “green” technology. I believe this does more for the ego than the planet. I will drive my 10 and 17 year old vehicles until they are no longer cost effective to repair. I believe my approach does more for the health of the planet than scrapping them for newer more fuel efficient models.[/quote]
Aye, I agree. It just simply doesn’t make individual economic sense to do what’s right for the environment but bad for the wallet. Only legislation/taxes/credits will be able to able to alter people’s consumption habits. But of course, any deviations from the status quo on taxes will face stiff political pressure, but I think taxing fossil fuel usage and using the extra revenue to do alternative R&D and build up the necessary infrastructure is the necessary thing to do. This way, when the cost of fossil fuel goes up (all but certain), US economy will be hit less hard.
May 2, 2010 @ 7:20 PM
So, they’re gonna try and cap
So, they’re gonna try and cap it with cement domes.
http://bit.ly/cnEeJY
If that does not work the will drill relief wells which could take three months.
And it could start spewing 100,000 bbl per day. Which is about 35 Exxon Valdezs over 3 months. Which should knock out all gulf fishing industries and tourism. Which will decrease consumption — see it’s naturally regulating. No need to do anything.
The last GOM leak of this magnitude was back in 1979 which took 10 months to contain and it was in shallow water <200ft
May 2, 2010 @ 7:41 PM
I’ve already done my part.
I’ve already done my part.
I live in an apartment, downtown, not in a McMansion.
I drive a small car when I’m not pulling cargo.
I’m not procreating. Procreation is the most environmentally destructive, high-carbon impact behavior.
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.
May 2, 2010 @ 8:26 PM
briansd1 wrote:
People who
[quote=briansd1]
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.[/quote]
Memo to Pope….
May 5, 2010 @ 9:52 AM
briansd1 wrote:I’ve already
[quote=briansd1]I’ve already done my part.
I live in an apartment, downtown, not in a McMansion.
I drive a small car when I’m not pulling cargo.
I’m not procreating. Procreation is the most environmentally destructive, high-carbon impact behavior.
People who are procreating should be the ones making the most sacrifices for their progeny.[/quote]
Do you mind tell me how much you spend in energy each month? Just because you live in a apartment doesn’t mean you’re a conservationist and just because you live in a McMansion doesn’t mean you’re a polluter. Do you also work in downtown as well? I know someone who live in a McMansion (3800 sq-ft) and spend about $40/month in gas/electric.
Lucky a lot of people don’t agree with your view on procreation. Else the human race would have been wiped out a long time ago. I’m pretty sure those family of 10 living in a 3rd world country, who don’t have cars, little to no electricity, grow their own food, etc. have a much smaller carbon foot print than you. So, procreation has nothing to do with conservation. If you really want to walk to walk, you’d buy an acre or two in middle of no where, raise your own pigs and chickens, veggies, and just live off the land. Many family with 10 kids in the 3rd world countries are doing just that.
May 5, 2010 @ 11:43 AM
AN wrote: So, procreation has
[quote=AN] So, procreation has nothing to do with conservation. [/quote]
If you claim that with a straight face, then there’s no point discussing this subject further.
[quote=AN]If you really want to walk to walk, you’d buy an acre or two in middle of no where, raise your own pigs and chickens, veggies, and just live off the land. Many family with 10 kids in the 3rd world countries are doing just that.[/quote]
I spend about $50 per month on energy, less in the winter.
I like to run the A/C when it’s even a little hot. I’m not going to sacrifice my comfort for the environment. But I’ve done more than my share already.
Living on the land is very carbon intensive, AN. Burning oil, trash, plants is very polluting. Farm animals are very polluting. Do your research.
New Yorkers are the lowest per capita carbon emitters in the whole of USA. Farmers emit a lot of pollution.
May 5, 2010 @ 12:19 PM
San Antonio oil refinery
[img_assist|nid=13245|title=San Antonio oil refinery explosion|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=733|height=500]
“All of a sudden I started hearing the explosions: one after another,” Holzwart said. “Then, after an explosion, you could see the flames coming above the top of the trees, over the top of the trees from my house.”
Holzwort said the explosions continued for about 45 minutes, but they gradually got farther and farther apart. So far, he had not been asked to evacuate from his neighborhood, which is west of the explosion.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/92876924.html?showFullArticle=y
May 5, 2010 @ 1:13 PM
briansd1 wrote:
I spend about
[quote=briansd1]
I spend about $50 per month on energy, less in the winter.
I like to run the A/C when it’s even a little hot. I’m not going to sacrifice my comfort for the environment. But I’ve done more than my share already.
Living on the land is very carbon intensive, AN. Burning oil, trash, plants is very polluting. Farm animals are very polluting. Do your research.
New Yorkers are the lowest per capita carbon emitters in the whole of USA. Farmers emit a lot of pollution.[/quote]
Sorry to burst your bubble but even, I, who don’t conserve all that much spend about that much per person on energy. I know people who run AC/heater and spend about $20/person on energy. So you’re not even close to doing your fair share.
Who said anything about burning oil? If you live on the land, you have no oil to use. Burning trash, that’s reuse and recycle buddy. Farm animals are very polluting? Are you a vegan too? Those delivery trucks that deliver your food are pretty pollutant too. Same goes for the factory that package your food. Or the coal plan that produce the energy you need to heat/cool your apartment. Same with the oil rig that extract the oil for your car. Same with the refineries that break the oil into gasoline that you use. Same for the steel plan that produce the steel to built the high rise that you live in. I can go on. You have proof on the New Yorker statement?
Your inability to sacrifice your comfort is more taxing on the environment than those who don’t have those comfort but have 10 kids.
May 5, 2010 @ 1:19 PM
AN, pollution comes from
AN, pollution comes from particles emitted and C02 (which is not a pollutant but cause climate change).
Yes, it’s extremely polluting to burn wood, coal or charcoals for cooking.
Farm animals emit a lot of C02 and other pollutants.
As far a NYC is concerned, despite its cold in the winter and hot in the summer uses less energy per capita than other cities, thanks to the density.
May 5, 2010 @ 1:38 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, pollution
[quote=briansd1]AN, pollution comes from particles emitted and C02 (which is not a pollutant but cause climate change).
Yes, it’s extremely polluting to burn wood, coal or charcoals for cooking.
Farm animals emit a lot of C02 and other pollutants.
As far a NYC is concerned, despite its cold in the winter and hot in the summer uses less energy per capita than other cities, thanks to the density.[/quote]
Once again, do you have proof to your NYC claim?
You got proof on your claim of extremely polluting? Last I checked, don’t we get most of energy from burning coal? Last I checked, we eat a lot of meat. Hence the obesity epidemic.
BTW, don’t you remember the slogan “Reduce, reuse,recycle”? People in the 3rd world who live off the land do A LOT of that. The pig will eat their left over, the poop from the animals they raise goes to fertilize their vegetables. They only burn wood enough to cook a meal for the family. Their meal is much more simplistic than yours as well, so the amount of wood they burn per person probably pollute as much as you starting your car each morning.
I blame industrialization/modernization as the main cause of pollution, not the procreation of the human species.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:15 PM
AN wrote:
Once again, do you
[quote=AN]
Once again, do you have proof to your NYC claim?
[/quote]
There you go. People who are interested in environmental mitigation generally know that density equals less pollution.
http://www.observer.com/2008/average-new-yorkers-carbon-footprint-roughly-size-6
[quote=AN]
I blame industrialization/modernization as the main cause of pollution, not the procreation of the human species.[/quote]
It used to be the human populations were kept in check by disease and malnutrition.
More humans means more environmental degradation. Think of the extinction of the Mayans because of over exploitation.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:42 PM
briansd1 wrote:
There you go.
[quote=briansd1]
There you go. People who are interested in environmental mitigation generally know that density equals less pollution.
http://www.observer.com/2008/average-new-yorkers-carbon-footprint-roughly-size-6%5B/quote%5D
NY:
Highway transport: 1st
Residential energy: 18th
Honolulu:
Highway transport: 1st
Residential energy: 15th
SD:
Highway transport: 29th
Residential energy: 3rd
Bakersfield:
Highway: 100th
Residential: 1st
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?
[quote=briansd1]It used to be the human populations were kept in check by disease and malnutrition.
More humans means more environmental degradation. Think of the extinction of the Mayans because of over exploitation.[/quote]
This doesn’t prove anything. I can say, it used to be that when we were living off the land, there were no environmental issue. But now that we became industrialized/modernized, things got much worse with regards to pollution.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:48 PM
AN wrote:
So, even when SD is
[quote=AN]
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?[/quote]
You need to consider the extreme cold/hot weather conditions in NYC, as compared to So Cal and Hawaii.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:50 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN wrote:
So,
[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
So, even when SD is not has dense as NY (by a huge margin), we emit less pollution than NY. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around? Same goes for Honolulu. It’s DEFINITELY NOT dense there. Yet it beat out NY. Why? BTW, your source only cover METRO areas. What about rural cities?[/quote]
You need to consider the extreme cold/hot weather conditions in NYC, as compared to So Cal and Hawaii.[/quote]
It gets quite cold in Bakersfield in the middle of winter too. Cold enough that people will run heater all the time and same with summer. It gets over 100 there easily, so you’ll be running AC all the time in the summer.
May 5, 2010 @ 3:00 PM
AN, if you’re claiming that
AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.
May 5, 2010 @ 3:15 PM
briansd1 wrote:AN, if you’re
[quote=briansd1]AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.[/quote]
I claim that Bakersfield weather is much worse than SD. We are also more dense too. How do you explain that?
Btw, shouldn’t all the people who care about polution live in downtown SD then?
May 5, 2010 @ 3:58 PM
A little Transcranial
A little Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation would help this discussion now 🙂
May 5, 2010 @ 4:03 PM
AN wrote:briansd1 wrote:AN,
[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]AN, if you’re claiming that there’s no weather advantage in California, then that’s your prerogative.[/quote]
I claim that Bakersfield weather is much worse than SD. We are also more dense too. How do you explain that?
Btw, shouldn’t all the people who care about polution live in downtown SD then?[/quote]
Here are some more # for you:
Seattle:
Residential: #2
SF:
Residential: #7
LA:
Residential: #8
Why is SF and Seattle rank higher than LA, yet both places are colder than LA. If you go back to density as the reason, then why is Bakersfield ranked #1, beating out SF, LA, and SD. All 3 of those places have better than Bakersfield and is more dense than Bakersfield.
May 2, 2010 @ 8:23 PM
I just voted no, is it to
I just voted no, is it to late for me to be called an idiot? btw, b ri, that is not much of a list.
May 3, 2010 @ 12:39 PM
desmond wrote: btw, b ri,
[quote=desmond] btw, b ri, that is not much of a list.[/quote]
I actually voted NO because I did everything already. I don’t think that I can save anymore energy.
Families who live in McMansions and drive SUVs can do a lot more.
BTW, I have and SUV myself but only use it for its cargo and towing purposes.
May 3, 2010 @ 12:54 PM
I voted no because I’m
I voted no because I’m already aggressively conserving. I didn’t realize that put me in the same camp as Brian. LOL.
I drive a hybrid. I have a short commute. I walk my errands whenever possible – and walk the kids to school (much to their dismay). Even with my short commute – I carpool (I drive) with a neighbor twice a week. (He rides his bike on the other days.)
I try to shop for locally produced stuff – like produce, manufactured items like our solar tubes, etc.
We’ve taken steps to conserve water and power in our house – we’re already very close to being all in tier 1 electrical usage.
We’ve got plans for solar power, new windows, better insulation. In the meantime we have no AC and use a timed thermostat. We turn off our high efficiency lights when we leave a room.
We even do stuff like line drying a lot of our laundry to save power.
The granny flat we built was built to standards higher than title 20 codes for efficiency. Because of that the electric bill is averaging less than $30/month – for 2 people, all the lights/tv/electric bed, washer/dryer/ HVAC is electric heat pump. (Only gas is cooking and hot water.) These are 2 people who are home all day (retired).
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.
May 3, 2010 @ 1:39 PM
UCGal wrote:I voted no
[quote=UCGal]I voted no because I’m already aggressively conserving. I didn’t realize that put me in the same camp as Brian. LOL.
I drive a hybrid. I have a short commute. I walk my errands whenever possible – and walk the kids to school (much to their dismay). Even with my short commute – I carpool (I drive) with a neighbor twice a week. (He rides his bike on the other days.)
I try to shop for locally produced stuff – like produce, manufactured items like our solar tubes, etc.
We’ve taken steps to conserve water and power in our house – we’re already very close to being all in tier 1 electrical usage.
We’ve got plans for solar power, new windows, better insulation. In the meantime we have no AC and use a timed thermostat. We turn off our high efficiency lights when we leave a room.
We even do stuff like line drying a lot of our laundry to save power.
The granny flat we built was built to standards higher than title 20 codes for efficiency. Because of that the electric bill is averaging less than $30/month – for 2 people, all the lights/tv/electric bed, washer/dryer/ HVAC is electric heat pump. (Only gas is cooking and hot water.) These are 2 people who are home all day (retired).
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.[/quote]
This is all relative, of course. If every family in the world – including all of the poor ones in third world countries – used as much energy as your family does, we’d be in a massive energy jam. It’s like Al Gore trying to convince me he leads an “environmentally-friendly” life because he buys carbon credits as he flies around the world in private planes, provides electricity for his ginormous house, and has four children who will all likely procreate, with all that entails… but on a different scale than your own situation. I’m no environmentalist and I don’t really care what others do, but… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.
May 3, 2010 @ 2:06 PM
davelj wrote:… your idea of
[quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.
May 3, 2010 @ 3:16 PM
ybitz wrote:davelj wrote:…
[quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.
May 3, 2010 @ 5:07 PM
davelj wrote:I think that
[quote=davelj]I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.[/quote]
Taking your logic to its conclusion, even the people in third world countries you mentioned should be ashamed because they burn their trash and aren’t living in caves as hunter-gatherers.
No one is saying we should all go back to living at absolute minimum survivability in order to maximize conservation. Saying so is a conveniently lazy straw man.
No doubt we as first worlders contribute the majority of environmental damage in this world. How is minimizing that impact in any way a bad thing? We’re not trying to throw a long-bomb hail mary touchdown here, we’re going for the first down.
May 3, 2010 @ 6:40 PM
afx114 wrote:davelj wrote:I
[quote=afx114][quote=davelj]I think that convincing yourself that what you’re doing is somehow meaningful, when it’s not, is not particularly productive. Saying, on the other hand, that, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to my tolerance threshold, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger scheme of things,” well at least that’s being honest.[/quote]
Taking your logic to its conclusion, even the people in third world countries you mentioned should be ashamed because they burn their trash and aren’t living in caves as hunter-gatherers.
No one is saying we should all go back to living at absolute minimum survivability in order to maximize conservation. Saying so is a conveniently lazy straw man.
No doubt we as first worlders contribute the majority of environmental damage in this world. How is minimizing that impact in any way a bad thing? We’re not trying to throw a long-bomb hail mary touchdown here, we’re going for the first down.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t think anyone should be ashamed about anything. You missed my point completely and assumed a straw man that I never set up in the first place. I’m not saying that folks shouldn’t conserve if they so choose. I’m just saying that one (1) shouldn’t kid one’s self about how much of an impact it’s going to have, and (2) should acknowledge that every family in the industrialized world is an energy hog relative to families in the third world regardless of what kind of conservation measures they put into place.
Again, I don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone does on the environmental front. Want to bicycle to work? Great! Want to drive a Hummer? Super! I. Don’t. Care.
Rather my point is that folks in the industrialized world who are trying to conserve (and holding themselves up as a model for others to follow in many instances) shouldn’t spend a whole lot of time patting themselves on the back… because they’re still massive energy hogs from a global standpoint.
I, personally, am an energy hog. I drive an SUV. (Well, I live in a condo, so that’s not so hoggish – but that’s by accident!) And I don’t care. My accidental contribution to the environment is that I don’t have children and am not going to have children. So, where actions – as opposed to intentions – are concerned, I’m one of the great environmentalists on the planet. Again, completely unintentionally.
May 4, 2010 @ 12:51 AM
ybitz wrote:davelj wrote:…
[quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
Exactly, ybitz.
UCGal’s family is using a fraction of what other similar families are probably using. She and her family should be commended for that. We’re not trying to compete with undeveloped nations. That’s not the point, and you know it, davelj.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:02 AM
What I do may be a drop in
What I do may be a drop in the bucket – but it’s better than doing nothing. At least in my self-deluded world. If for no other reason than it gives me a (false in Dave’s view) feeling that I’m minimizing my impact.
Dave is correct in the assertion that my actions have little impact in the grand scheme of things. We’re one household. There is no way one household – either in a third world or a developed country – can have a big impact. But if everyone does baby steps – then, through sheer numbers, incremental improvements will happen.
If Dave wants to belittle my choices – that’s his choice. It won’t change my choices. I can’t solve energy consumption on my own, but I can take steps to minimize my own consumption. I can only change what is in my control.
Going back to the OP – at some point we will discover/develop an efficient source of energy and reduce our dependence on oil. We’ll have to within 100 years based on existing oil reserves and the increasing costs (environmental and financial) to produce oil. It will be better from a US Security position if we can break our dependency on foreign oil sooner.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:06 AM
CA renter wrote:ybitz
[quote=CA renter][quote=ybitz][quote=davelj]… your idea of “conserving” is laughable when viewed from a global context.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s laughable at all. Let’s not let “better” be the enemy of “best”. While these small things that we do are not ideal and ultimately by themselves will not solve the environmental predicament we are in, they are progress in the right direction. If everyone does what UCGal has done it would make significant progress.
I think doing nothing and laughing at those that at least are making an effort at mitigating their environmental impact is worse.[/quote]
Exactly, ybitz.
UCGal’s family is using a fraction of what other similar families are probably using. She and her family should be commended for that. We’re not trying to compete with undeveloped nations. That’s not the point, and you know it, davelj.[/quote]
I’ll repeat myself… again… so long as UCGal is willing to say, “I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,” then I’m fine with that. And if folks find that commendable, I think that’s just super duper. What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road. I believe that’s what Al Gore would refer to as an Inconvenient Truth.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:15 AM
“I’m putting into place some
“I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,”
There I said it. But actually – some of the things I’ve done are inconvenient – but I’m sure you would discount that as well.
I agree I could do more. It would be nice to get our solar panels and live off grid. It would be nice to fully break my dependence on goods shipped from far away. For now I’m trying to reduce that. Since I haven’t I’m still a bloated energy hog. But baby steps – growing more of our veggies, etc… shopping at farmers markets that grow locally… I’m not there yet. If that makes me a bloated energy hog – so be it.
I’m not going to apologize for having 2 kids. Some of the impact was minimized by having them much later in life (effectively skipped a generation by having my first kid at age 39). And they’re a source of green labor (pulling weeds in the veggie garden, etc.) Much to their dismay.
Dave – feel free to criticize. Like I said, it won’t change my choices and it seems to make you feel good.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:31 AM
UCGal wrote:”I’m putting into
[quote=UCGal]”I’m putting into place some conservation efforts that are right up to the level of not actually inconveniencing me too much, but I realize that I’m still a massive bloated energy hog in the larger (global) scheme of things,”
There I said it. But actually – some of the things I’ve done are inconvenient – but I’m sure you would discount that as well.
I agree I could do more. It would be nice to get our solar panels and live off grid. It would be nice to fully break my dependence on goods shipped from far away. For now I’m trying to reduce that. Since I haven’t I’m still a bloated energy hog. But baby steps – growing more of our veggies, etc… shopping at farmers markets that grow locally… I’m not there yet. If that makes me a bloated energy hog – so be it.
I’m not going to apologize for having 2 kids. Some of the impact was minimized by having them much later in life (effectively skipped a generation by having my first kid at age 39). And they’re a source of green labor (pulling weeds in the veggie garden, etc.) Much to their dismay.
Dave – feel free to criticize. Like I said, it won’t change my choices and it seems to make you feel good.[/quote]
Like so many others, you miss my point. I imagine this is because folks read into things what they want to read. I’m NOT criticizing you for your environmental efforts. (Why is this so hard to understand?) I don’t give a shit what you do about the environment. Have 10 kids for all I care. Live in Montana on a self-sustaining farm. I. Don’t. Care.
My point is merely this: Don’t try to hold yourself up as some model of environmentalism because if you’re living in an industrial nation with two kids, with all that implies… it’s too late. The damage is already done. (Again – just to make sure you understand – “damage” I don’t care about.)
All I ask of folks is that whatever it is they are doing – whether growing their own veggies or driving a Hummer – be characterized in the proper context. You’re a well-meaning energy hog – you’re trying! – with little carbon monsters (re: kids, and I mean “monsters” in the most adorable context) who will likely reproduce, and so on, causing untold future damage to the environment. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just a fact. Accept it.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:51 AM
dave,
I know you don’t care,
dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?
May 4, 2010 @ 10:34 AM
afx – If you like the
afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?
May 4, 2010 @ 1:28 PM
Arraya wrote:afx – If you
[quote=Arraya]afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?[/quote]
Not a bad idea! I’ve been a renter for a long time, but I finally bought! Check out my new digs:
May 4, 2010 @ 3:13 PM
afx114 wrote:Arraya wrote:afx
[quote=afx114][quote=Arraya]afx – If you like the environment so much, why don’t you go live there?[/quote]
Not a bad idea! I’ve been a renter for a long time, but I finally bought! Check out my new digs:
Great book. I thought the kid was completely nuts, but an interesting story.
May 4, 2010 @ 11:09 AM
afx114 wrote:dave,
I know you
[quote=afx114]dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. If you think about it, the damage that you as an individual will do to the environment during your lifetime – even if you’re a total energy pig – pales in comparison to the damage that your progeny, and their progeny, and so on and so on are going to do. Think about it in financial terms. Let’s say you buy a fully-amortizing 30-year note. That first payment (re: you) is a small fraction of the total present value of the note. The vast majority of the present value of the note is derived from payments in the future years (re: your descendants).
So, no matter what kind of conservation you do personally as an individual… your progeny will likely undo it many many times over.
May 5, 2010 @ 12:16 AM
davelj wrote:afx114
[quote=davelj][quote=afx114]dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.
May 5, 2010 @ 6:16 AM
Well, population is only half
Well, population is only half the issue. If you measured population in resource consumption, the US is a nation of 20 billion if measured against the consumption of the average Bangladeshi. Context is important. The world’s resource(mainly energy) budget can’t afford more american consumption patterns, which is mostly a, buy and throw away, cyclical pattern. Very simply, americans will be consuming less unless we can get emerging economies to reverse their trajectories. In the early stages of this squeeze the periphery will get kicked out first. Considering wealth distribution we can probably Bangladesh-ize the bottom 50%, in the US, without many statistical problems or any ill effects to the top 20%. They don’t consume much to begin with so losing them can be papered over easily.
Considering we are locked into oil “growth” for economic “growth”, world economic growth is over on global scale given the peak of world oil production. It has become a closed system for capital accumulation because of it’s interdependence with energy growth.
[quote]Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
Not under current economic dogma. Capitalist pricing mechanisms absolutely cannot consider anything external to the pricing mechanism, and will therefore destroy us, as everything that we depend upon as living creatures embedded within a web of life cannot be defined and controlled by something that cannot exceed its scope. Until that point is addressed, all of this is bankrupt from the start. Considering a barrel of oil is the equivalent to 1 year of human labor in energy terms, I don’t think it can “value” non-renewable resources either. All value it subjective. If it was appropriately valued it would seize the system up.
Most problems are fixable, but solutions are so far outside the status quo, threaten institutions and cherished beliefs that they will not be addressed in anything more than lip service or until we have a severe spiral of adversity. We currently have the technology and resources to bring energy stability but are locked into a global competition for remaining oil reserves. Also, it would take a massive infrastructure change, subsequent reorganization and probably global cooperation( some sort of oil depletion protocol that does not include obtaining it and burning it as fast as we can) to achieve, so good luck with that. Until energy stability is achieved civilization is not stable. Next up, is defaults as far as the eye can see.
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type
May 5, 2010 @ 8:19 AM
We should also remember that
We should also remember that birth rates in third world countries are much higher than they are here. According to the UN, the US ranks 139th with 14 births per 1000 of population compared to countries like Somalia, Chad, and Afghanistan who have over 40 births per 1000. So using dave’s criteria, these nations are worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis.
May 5, 2010 @ 12:34 PM
afx114 wrote:We should also
[quote=afx114]We should also remember that birth rates in third world countries are much higher than they are here. According to the UN, the US ranks 139th with 14 births per 1000 of population compared to countries like Somalia, Chad, and Afghanistan who have over 40 births per 1000. So using dave’s criteria, these nations are worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis.[/quote]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).
May 5, 2010 @ 1:43 PM
davelj wrote:
I think you’re
[quote=davelj]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).[/quote]
Dave, you’ve proved my point (notice my claim said “using dave’s criteria”). You mentioned above that having “zero children” fits your definition of the “model of environmentalism” and I was merely pointing out that there isn’t a very strong correlation between number of children and amount of negative influence on the environment. Birthrate stats show this.
Sure, number of children is a factor, but it is not the factor. Maybe you meant to say “zero children and living in the US?”
May 5, 2010 @ 2:24 PM
afx114 wrote:davelj wrote:
I
[quote=afx114][quote=davelj]
I think you’re forgetting a teeny tiny issue here… on a per capita basis people in the United States USE MANY MULTIPLES of the energy that folks in developing nations use. So you’re wrong – these nations are NOT worse polluters than the USA on a per capita basis. Only if these nations eventually use the same amount as the U.S. on a per capita basis will that be true (because, yes, their birthrate stats are higher).[/quote]
Dave, you’ve proved my point (notice my claim said “using dave’s criteria”). You mentioned above that having “zero children” fits your definition of the “model of environmentalism” and I was merely pointing out that there isn’t a very strong correlation between number of children and amount of negative influence on the environment. Birthrate stats show this.
Sure, number of children is a factor, but it is not the factor. Maybe you meant to say “zero children and living in the US?”[/quote]
How about “zero children living in industrialized nations.” The problem with having a lot of children in developing nations isn’t so much the environmental impact – although that’s still considerable (ever been down to east Tijuana?), just not as much as in industrialized nations – but rather the quality of life that these children lead. Environmental considerations aside, being one of ten children in Ghana is a pretty tough way to grow up – assuming you make it to adulthood.
Having no children wherever you are, however, is still the optimal policy for the time being because if you don’t have children, you stop your carbon footprint in its tracks, regardless of where you are. People in developing nations are STILL multiplying their carbon footprints many times over (from a lower base than in industrialize countries, admittedly) when they have kids.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:32 PM
I will add that the American
I will add that the American business model depends on economic growth which depends on population growth and/or productivity growth.
If we don’t make the babies here, will import the babies or the grown adults who will consume enormously as Americans.
If populations everywhere were simply self-replacing, or better yet declining, there would be little need for migration.
So to conservatives here in America who want to stop immigration (legal or otherwise), you need to promote birth control abroad. Pretty simple solution that is relatively low-cost.
May 5, 2010 @ 2:38 PM
This must be what lemmings
This must be what lemmings talk about before they jump.
May 5, 2010 @ 4:33 PM
Russell wrote:This must be
[quote=Russell]This must be what lemmings talk about before they jump.[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZG79gHOjJY
May 5, 2010 @ 5:20 PM
Very funny, flu!
Very funny, flu!
May 5, 2010 @ 9:05 AM
Arraya wrote:
fwiw -Greeks
[quote=Arraya]
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.
May 5, 2010 @ 9:33 AM
briansd1 wrote:Arraya
[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.[/quote]
Well, that is the spiral the whole world is in, or at least, the western world. When large segments of population have dramatic drops in living standard , in a short period of time, coupled with a concentration at the top, it usually pisses them off and breeds misguided revolutions. Especially when they have been conditioned and promised otherwise. The underlying logic is irrelevant. Politicians campaigning on “It’s gonna get worse for most of you” dose not get them elected.
you also have to question the logic of giving somebody a tenth credit card when nine are maxed out to pa the other nine. Which is essentially what greece did. I guess they think are going to “hit it big” in the near future.
May 5, 2010 @ 9:43 AM
Arraya wrote:briansd1
[quote=Arraya][quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]
fwiw -Greeks are trying to storm their parliament as I type[/quote]
And even if there is revolution in Greece, what good will that do them?
Regardless of the political outcome, the Greeks will still need to lower their standard of living to pay for their past profligacy. There’s no way around it.[/quote]
Well, that is the spiral the whole world is in, or at least, the western world. When large segments of population have dramatic drops in living standard , in a short period of time, coupled with a concentration at the top, it usually pisses them off and breeds misguided revolutions. Especially when they have been conditioned and promised otherwise. The underlying logic is irrelevant. Politicians campaigning on “It’s gonna get worse for most of you” dose not get them elected[/quote]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
O.K here is why I don’t care about the ecological damage kids do( very selfish on my part):
My 7 year old is starting to use the computer. He is doing a report for school on snakes.
This is what I saw in the search history this morning,in order from the start of his search to the last:
Two heded snacks
Two heed snakes
Pictures of two headed snakes
Three headed snakes
Shakira
BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks
May 5, 2010 @ 9:46 AM
Russell wrote:BTW what is the
[quote=Russell]BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
Jon Krakauer, Into The Wild: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0385486804?tag=betteraddons-20
It was also made into a movie.
May 5, 2010 @ 10:14 AM
afx114 wrote:Russell
[quote=afx114][quote=Russell]BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
Jon Krakauer, Into The Wild: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0385486804?tag=betteraddons-20
It was also made into a movie.[/quote]
Thanks, this is very interesting to me.
May 5, 2010 @ 12:23 PM
Russell wrote:afx114
[quote=Russell][quote=afx114][quote=Russell]BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
Jon Krakauer, Into The Wild
It was also made into a movie.[/quote]
Thanks, this is very interesting to me.[/quote]
The protagonist (and this book is based on a true story) learns the hard way that Mother Nature is a cruel mistress.
May 5, 2010 @ 10:43 AM
Russell wrote:
Misguided is
[quote=Russell]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
[/quote]
Regardless, people will be pissed as cultural promises are broken and global social entropy takes hold. It’s not a stable situation as the logic of the system impoverishes them and destroys itself. Forecast, is dark and gloomy with increased levels of propaganda, craziness, oppression and poverty on the horizon. Film at 11
May 5, 2010 @ 11:22 AM
Arraya wrote:Russell
[quote=Arraya][quote=Russell]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
[/quote]
Regardless, people will be pissed as cultural promises are broken and global social entropy takes hold. It’s not a stable situation as the logic of the system impoverishes them and destroys itself. Forecast, is dark and gloomy with increased levels of propaganda, craziness, oppression and poverty on the horizon. Film at 11[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, I was just stating my preferences.
May 6, 2010 @ 3:31 AM
Russell wrote:
Misguided is
[quote=Russell]
Misguided is right! While I often hate what they do, I am totally against going after the rich people’s money and projects through taxes, violent revolution or whatever. Those of us who have a problem with them should try to learn to live without them and make the world we want to the extent we want. I hope that is somewhat in context. I think it would be “greener” adjusted for the number of kids we have of course.
O.K here is why I don’t care about the ecological damage kids do( very selfish on my part):
My 7 year old is starting to use the computer. He is doing a report for school on snakes.
This is what I saw in the search history this morning,in order from the start of his search to the last:
Two heded snacks
Two heed snakes
Pictures of two headed snakes
Three headed snakes
Shakira
BTW what is the name of the book involving the young man on top of the bus? Thanks[/quote]
As a parent of kids in the same age group, that one honestly had me laughing out loud. Awesome, Russ! 🙂
May 6, 2010 @ 5:19 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/arti
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-cover-bps-crude-politics-and-looming-environmental-mega-disaster
The Cover-up: BP’s Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster
We have been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign — more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP’s liability for damage caused by what can be called a “mega-disaster.”
Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP’s chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR’s federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.
Plans by BP to sink a 4-story containment dome over the oil gushing from a gaping chasm one kilometer below the surface of the Gulf, where the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed 11 workers on April 20, and reports that one of the leaks has been contained is pure public relations disinformation designed to avoid panic and demands for greater action by the Obama administration, according to FEMA and Corps of Engineers sources. Sources within these agencies say the White House has been resisting releasing any “damaging information” about the oil disaster. They add that if the ocean oil geyser is not stopped within 90 days, there will be irreversible damage to the marine eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic Ocean, and beyond. At best, some Corps of Engineers experts say it could take two years to cement the chasm on the floor of the Gulf.
May 6, 2010 @ 6:08 PM
While I’m not an
While I’m not an environmentalist, I’m certainly not pro-oil spilling. Having said that…
These numbers could be wrong… I have no idea – they’re just one group’s estimates:
“When BP’s oil rig off the coast of Louisiana exploded on April 22, a ruptured pipe began emptying 138 tons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. At that rate, the spill will have unleashed almost 2,200 tons of crude oil into the sea by May 7. And while that that may sound like a lot, that leaves this spill only 1/17th the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. Assuming a sustained rate of leakage, it will take an additional 252 days for the spill to reach the size of the 1989 Alaskan catastrophe.”
But even if they’re off by a factor of 2-3x, this spill is pretty small in the context of the last 40 years of major oil spills:
http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/statistics/#major
So, I’m assuming the Biggest Problem with this spill isn’t its size (which is still large) but rather its proximity to the Gulf shore. Correct me if I’m wrong. I ain’t an expert.
May 6, 2010 @ 6:43 PM
Numbers have changed pretty
Numbers have changed pretty dramatically depending on who is reporting. “Official” number is about 5000 barrels a day, which is 200,000 gallons per day. The exxon valdez was about 11 million gallons to give context.
NOAA seems to think it could be 25,000-50,000 barrels a day, which is 1-2 million bbl per. BP told congress it could be as much as 60,000 bbl per day in a closed door meeting.
Other labs have stated that it is definitely north of 10,000 bbls (420,000)per day from measuring satellite images.
Leaked report: Government fears Deepwater Horizon well could become unchecked gusher
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/deepwater_horizon_secret_memo.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100502-702751.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
BP and the U.S. government have over the past week stuck to their raised estimate of 5,000 barrels a day spilling out of the deepwater well.
But Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said on ABC News that the current spill rate could currently be much higher.
“Right now that could be in the tens of thousands of gallons per day, of barrels per day,” she said.
————–
We probably have exceeded Valdezs spill already
May 6, 2010 @ 8:15 PM
This is (British Petroleum)
This is (British Petroleum) BP’s spill.
Imagine it were PetroChina that owned the offshore leases. Do you think that the Palin crowds would continue to chant drill-baby-drill?
May 7, 2010 @ 12:48 PM
For an interesting
For an interesting perspective on how much oil has been spilled, check out this site:
http://paulrademacher.com/oilspill/
It allows you to enter your city and overlays the oil-slick on top. Try it out for San Diego. Fun!
May 12, 2010 @ 5:15 PM
BP finally released videos of
BP finally released videos of the gusher. The first is of the 21″ diameter pipe spewing oil and natural gas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFYVNvgg-A
And here’s a video of them attempting to place the cofferdam over it. The thing is 4-stories high and it disappears into a cloud of oil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JTM2QyAfCI&feature=player_embedded
These videos represent 30-seconds of what has been happening on the floor of the Gulf for 20+ days. And this shows only one of the three gushers. The oil is like an iceberg revealing only 5% of itself on the surface. Worried yet?
May 12, 2010 @ 6:17 PM
Finally, a good
Finally, a good sign.
“Satellite Imagery Shows Shrinking Slick, as Gas Slows Flow of Oil”
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10619403
May 5, 2010 @ 9:10 AM
ybitz wrote:
Isn’t this kind
[quote=ybitz]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
Not everyone will follow the zero children model.
But if you really want to lower the cost of living, and improve the quality of life for the next generation, don’t procreate. Adopt a child.
May 5, 2010 @ 12:29 PM
ybitz wrote:davelj
[quote=ybitz][quote=davelj][quote=afx114]dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. Surely there is a better and more reasonable definition of environmentalism where man and nature coexist in harmony.[/quote]
I didn’t say zero children FOREVER. But zero children for the TIME BEING would helpful. I saw an estimate a while back that if every family had just one child for the rest of the century that the earth’s population would get down to around 1.5 billion by the end of this century, which would be a self-sustaining population based on current technologies. I can’t vouch for that number or its conclusion, but that’s one informed person’s view. Personally, I don’t care. I ain’t gonna be around at the end of this century.
May 6, 2010 @ 6:18 PM
ybitz wrote:davelj
[quote=ybitz][quote=davelj][quote=afx114]dave,
I know you don’t care, but I’m just curious. What would your “model of environmentalism” be?[/quote]
Zero children. [/quote]
Isn’t this kind of extreme? If everyone followed your “model” of environmentalism, human race would be extinct within a single generation. [/quote]
In the context of the Earth’s history, the extinction of the human race is not a big deal. Humans just happen to be at the top of the food chain right now and as one of them, it’s hard for you to imagine the planet without them. But in the larger scheme of things we are irrelevant.
May 4, 2010 @ 9:54 AM
davelj wrote:What also must
[quote=davelj]What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road.[/quote]
That’s only true if you have more than two kids. Think of each child taking the place of a deceased grandparent (of which there were 4 taking their toll on the environment), and eventually yourself and your spouse (2 taking their toll), and it works out to a net negative toll once you and your spouse pass (net 0 after 2 grandparents pass). If you only have 1 kid, the net is even lower. And yes, zero kids is the lowest, but by no means is one or two children going to make a difference in your grand scheme of things.
May 4, 2010 @ 11:02 AM
afx114 wrote:davelj
[quote=afx114][quote=davelj]What also must be acknowledged, however – since we’re talking about the environment here – is that the decision to have children has more than offset her conservation efforts by a factor of X that will only be calculable down the road.[/quote]
That’s only true if you have more than two kids. Think of each child taking the place of a deceased grandparent (of which there were 4 taking their toll on the environment), and eventually yourself and your spouse (2 taking their toll), and it works out to a net negative toll once you and your spouse pass (net 0 after 2 grandparents pass). If you only have 1 kid, the net is even lower. And yes, zero kids is the lowest, but by no means is one or two children going to make a difference in your grand scheme of things.[/quote]
It depends on how long you and your kids live as well. Right now, births outnumber deaths by 77 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) after netting out all of the relevant factors. Many folks – and I have no opinion on this – believe that the CURRENT population of the Earth is unsustainable long-term – FORGETTING about actual population growth. This is debatable, as a lot depends on technological breakthroughs, etc.
But of this I’m virtually certain: If the world’s population started declining, most of our environmental issues would start to decline as well. As long as the population is increasing – whether you’re having one kid or six kids – the environment will continue to “decline” (define that however you choose). And this is particularly true if you live in an industrialized nation, where your progeny will be especially hard on the environment.
Again, I’m indifferent. But having zero children is the only truly environmentally sound choice. Consequently, I’m the Unintentional Environmentalist.
May 3, 2010 @ 4:16 PM
UCGal wrote:
So… I voted No
[quote=UCGal]
So… I voted No because we’re already paying attention and conserving.[/quote]
I actually think that what UCGal is doing is commendable. If anything, her family is saving money every year that could go to other selfish or selfless purposes.
In the grand scheme of things, our existence on this universe is irrelevant. By that reasoning would could trash our planet all we want and that would make no difference.
But while we’re living here, it’s better to live in a clean environment than a dirty environment — in only for our own pleasure and comfort.
For example, the smog controls implemented since the 1970s have made our air cleaner to breathe in Southern California. But then are emitting more C02 than ever… so either way, we are causing climate change.
I truly believe that our human existence is irrelevant and several million years from now, what we do now won’t amount to much.
But I believe in selfish reasons to be environmentally concerned — comfort, cleanliness, beauty, etc..
A nice clean house is better to live in than a messy dirty house. But either way, you’ll die and that makes no difference.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:26 PM
This is America, personal
This is America, personal sacrifices are not part of what we are. Even after 9/11, when terrorists finances by Arab oil money attacked America, how many Americans decided to make a sacrifice and use a bit less gasoline? 1000, maybe?
What makes you think that will change after they see a couple of dead birds somewhere in Louisiana?
I personally am looking forward to jobs program, err cleanup, that Obama is going to implement using BP’s credit card and the improvement in tourism in California.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:45 PM
air_ogi wrote:I personally am
[quote=air_ogi]I personally am looking forward to jobs program, err cleanup, that Obama is going to implement using BP’s credit card and the improvement in tourism in California.[/quote]
I think we will be paying for this at the pump and possibly from lack of proper reimbursement where tax money is spent.
May 2, 2010 @ 9:57 PM
Russell wrote:
I think we
[quote=Russell]
I think we will be paying for this at the pump and possibly from lack of proper reimbursement where tax money is spent.[/quote]
I don’t know about paying much more at the pump. Oil companies have pretty high margins and at almost $90/barrel we are getting close to a point where elasticity kicks in.
Although I am looking forward to $140 oil as that cleaned up the rush hour traffic around golden triangle pretty nicely.
May 2, 2010 @ 10:58 PM
In the initial press
In the initial press conference they mentioned that this was a new well (Haliburton had just finished the final cementing of it 20 hours before the blowout), so any oil lost wouldn’t have an immediate effect on oil prices.
May 3, 2010 @ 6:48 AM
BP is @ $48.70/share today.
BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.
May 3, 2010 @ 6:54 AM
flu wrote:BP is @
[quote=flu]BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.[/quote]
Obama has said recently that BP will be held accountable for all costs associated with the cleanup. That could cause their stock to get pounded in the near term. I think I’d hold off buying any stock until we see the bill.
Does anyone else think that Obama is drooling at this opportunity to villify the oil industry–and that he intentionally stalled sending in any aid in order to exacerbate the problem to make his point? This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.
May 3, 2010 @ 7:26 AM
meadandale wrote:flu wrote:BP
[quote=meadandale][quote=flu]BP is @ $48.70/share today. I’m in if it goes down further, that is.[/quote]
Obama has said recently that BP will be held accountable for all costs associated with the cleanup. That could cause their stock to get pounded in the near term. I think I’d hold off buying any stock until we see the bill.
Does anyone else think that Obama is drooling at this opportunity to villify the oil industry–and that he intentionally stalled sending in any aid in order to exacerbate the problem to make his point? This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
Too late. I’m in @ $48.50. Obama is an interesting character, because isn’t he also the one approving for more drilling too? Anyway, I’m gonna roll the dice on this one. My last roll with another sin company worked out well when they were in hot water. Phillip Morris.
I wonder if BP is gonna cut that dividend (currently at 6.4%).
*Edit… Well, at $47.70 right now, it looks like this is gonna go in my long term capital gain/loss bucket….Lol.
May 3, 2010 @ 9:36 AM
meadandale wrote: This is his
[quote=meadandale] This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
I thought you wanted small government.
Everyone knows that self-regulation equals no regulation.
Government is the enemy until you need a friend.
May 3, 2010 @ 9:47 AM
meadandale wrote:This is his
[quote=meadandale]This is his Katrina…history won’t look back kindly on his inaction for over a week.[/quote]
This is BP/Haliburton’s Katrina.
Besides, Obama already had his Katrinas: H1N1, Fort Hood, Haiti, GM, Underwear Bomber.
One thing is for sure: dude has had a lot of Katrinas!
May 3, 2010 @ 11:55 AM
I think his Katrina is yet to
I think his Katrina is yet to come. He will be able to blame BP for this and his supporters and the media will continue to look the other way. I think his teflon coating will hold for now.
May 4, 2010 @ 11:14 AM
Anyone see those 4 story
Anyone see those 4 story containment things BP is building?
May 4, 2010 @ 1:05 PM
I also read that having pets
I also read that having pets is high-carbon impact and environmentally destructive.
Sorry, I have a dog and two horses. I’ll consider not replacing the pets when they go. Of course, when they’re old an sick, euthanasia is the way to go.
May 4, 2010 @ 1:07 PM
Chemicals Meant To Break Up
May 5, 2010 @ 8:58 AM
hxxp://finance.yahoo.com/bank
hxxp://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/109455/in-wake-of-oil-spill-bp-stock-looks-cheap
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
[quote]
BP (NYSE: BP – News) stock has plummeted in the wake of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obviously financial questions follow. Should investors bail while they still can? Should the rest of us take advantage of the plunge to buy in cheaply? What are the opportunities — and the risks?
(No one, incidentally, should feel remotely guilty about considering such hard-nosed matters “at a time like this.” Refusing to look at your stock portfolio is not going to make the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf any better or worse).
[/quote]
May 5, 2010 @ 9:07 AM
flu wrote:
So anyone want to
[quote=flu]
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
[/quote]
I remember reading $14 Billion.
May 5, 2010 @ 9:57 AM
flu
[quote=flu]hxxp://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/109455/in-wake-of-oil-spill-bp-stock-looks-cheap
So anyone want to guess how much this is gonna cost BP?
I’d say around $10B
[quote]
BP (NYSE: BP – News) stock has plummeted in the wake of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Obviously financial questions follow. Should investors bail while they still can? Should the rest of us take advantage of the plunge to buy in cheaply? What are the opportunities — and the risks?
(No one, incidentally, should feel remotely guilty about considering such hard-nosed matters “at a time like this.” Refusing to look at your stock portfolio is not going to make the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf any better or worse).
[/quote][/quote]
Plummeted?
It’s trading at $51.90 right now. flu already made a couple bucks per share on his investment.