Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[ReefHound]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

So when we had fuel prices around 1.25/ gallon... we didn't exactly push for alternative fuel as much as we do now with 4.50/gallon. Its a safe assumption that higher fuel prices pushes the population to want an alternative fuel.

Not necessarily, ask aggie99 why high fuel prices didn't drive alternative energy development in Europe 20 years ago.

I agree that higher energy costs will drive people to reduce consumption. My point is that you cannot do it abruptly. Energy costs are built into everything. It's not just at the gas pump it is felt but in utility bills, food costs, everything. Doubling energy costs in a few years is too painful on the economy. It will trigger recession and in fact stifle research and development. The cure is going to kill the patient.

We are not going to be able to reduce consumption in the near term but a small percentage. Even with gas doubling in cost the total miles driven is only down 2%. Most driving is not discretionary. People have to get to work. Developing alternative energy is going to take many years, perhaps decades before it is ready to carry the heavy part of the load. Drilling will reduce prices immediately and produce oil within a few years.

reservecops is right, it's not an either/or situation. We need to reduce consumption, develop alternative energy, and increase oil supply. I have no problem with linkage of those things. The problem is the Dems will obstinately refuse to drill until the pain grows severe enough that the people run over the top of them. If the Dems were smart they would signal a willingness to drill if it includes commitments like increasing fuel efficiency standards, funding alternative energy programs with concrete goals, and other assorted measures to reduce consumption.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by ReefHound

My point is that you cannot do it abruptly.

Bingo!

[aggie99]

Originally Posted by reservecops

Thanks for making my job easier, aggie.

The reason that most of the countries ratified (signed on) to the Kyoto Protocol is because they have no obligation to reduce emissions!

137 of the pretty colored countries in your picture ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS under Kyoto.

China and India have NO obligation to reduce emissions under Kyoto, aggie. None. Zero. Zilch. Did you know that, right now, China puts one coal-fired power plant into operation EVERY WEEK ??

The Kyoto Protocol is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme, designed to do nothing more than redistribute wealth. Carbon trading is nothing more than a pipe dream attempt to steal wealth from successful countries and give it to failing countries. Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Kyoto is an absolute joke, and has little to nothing to do with environmental issues. It's all about dragging prosperous nations DOWN because the failing nations can't figure out how to pick themselves UP.

It is about assessing the impact by each nation and dividing it proportionally amoungst those nations based on impact. So if we take on the biggest burden it's because we created the most impact. It's funny that most American's are unaware of how low the world's opinion of us has dropped over the last decade. My cousin in the UK told me next time I come over tell people I am Canadian.

The only nation that thinks Kyoto is a joke is us. How can you say that Europe, Japan and Australia (to name a few) aren't prosperous nations? I think you are mixing prosperous with incredibly wasteful.

[SlvrDragon50]

Originally Posted by reservecops

There is absolutey zero scientific proof of this, only unsubstantiated claims.

Again, if you want to talk GW, lets start a different thread and keep this one on the oil issue.

actually, hurricanes are affected by the dust storms in Africa. Since there are more dust storms (or fewer can't remember) fewer hurricanes can form. Il find the article.

[aggie99]

Originally Posted by ReefHound

Not necessarily, ask aggie99 why high fuel prices didn't drive alternative energy development in Europe 20 years ago.

It didn't drive alternate fuel development because the reason for the fuel tax in England was to reduce personal vehicles on the road. Any alternative fuel doesn't solve that issue. Also, public trains were owned (until recently) by the English Government so they weren't taxed and thus public transit increased. This is the affect we are seeing here in the US now, not because of high taxes but cost of Oil. This country developed around the car whereas Europe didn't so I don't see us totally moving to public transit. Because of this $4 gas does drive the developement of alternate fuels.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by aggie99

It is about assessing the impact by each nation and dividing it proportionally amoungst those nations based on impact. So if we take on the biggest burden it's because we created the most impact.

It's about turning something utterly worthless (a "carbon credit") into something of monetary value, then forcing one group of people (successful, entrepreneurial, wealthy) to PAY other people (failing nations) because they are successful, entrepreneurial, and wealthy!

The entire premise of carbon trading is based on the belief that carbon is bad, and that it is some HUGE cause for something that will kill us (global warming). Sorry, but carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD!

Global warming is a unproven claim based on computer models.

And do you know what the most hilarious part about it is?

There is not one single global warming computer model that you can plug in data from the past that successfully predicts what is happening TODAY.

NOT ONE.

So if the models they are using can't even predict what is happening NOW, why in the world would we put any faith in the same computer models' ability to predict the future?

It's funny that most American's are unaware of how low the world's opinion of us has dropped over the last decade. My cousin in the UK told me next time I come over tell people I am Canadian.

Why is it that every liberal has a "friend" or "relative" that has "just got back from [insert European country name here], and according to this "friend" or "relative", everybody hates Americans?

The pool boy @ our marina just spent 10 months in France. If it wasn't for the United States, they'd be speaking GERMAN over in FRANCE right about now ...

Everybody hates Americans because they're jealous. They are jealous that we have only been in existence as a country for the better part of 332 years, and we are kicking their arses when it comes to productivity, success, and wealth.

Quite frankly, I don't CARE what some German or Brit or Finn thinks of me. I'm an American. My forefathers have bled and died for the right to make our own rules, and I'll be damned if some European wants me to live in the same misery he's suffering.

The only nation that thinks Kyoto is a joke is us.

That's because WE are the target of Kyoto. WE are the ones who have the wealth that others want to STEAL, and the United Nations (the biggest criminal organization in the world) is doing its best to accomplish it. They want OUR wealth. Sorry, but I don't subscribe to your dreams of "New World Order".

How can you say that Europe, Japan and Australia (to name a few) aren't prosperous nations? I think you are mixing prosperous with incredibly wasteful.

There's not a country on the face of the earth that is properous as the United States. Why is it that everybody is trying to get HERE to live HERE to enjoy OUR fruits of our labors?

Again, Kyoto is nothing but a giant ponzi scheme. Create a system where successful and wealthy nations PAY unsuccesful and failing nations, all in the name of "equality" and "fairness" and being "progressive".

[SlvrDragon50]

Originally Posted by aggie99

It didn't drive alternate fuel development because the reason for the fuel tax in England was to reduce personal vehicles on the road. Any alternative fuel doesn't solve that issue. Also, public trains were owned (until recently) by the English Government so they weren't taxed and thus public transit increased. This is the affect we are seeing here in the US now, not because of high taxes but cost of Oil. This country developed around the car whereas Europe didn't so I don't see us totally moving to public transit. Because of this $4 gas does drive the developement of alternate fuels.

Wouldn't this agree with my argument?

Also

We have more oil in the oil shale in UT/CO right now than has been consumed by ALL of man since the dawn of the oil age. There is an estimated 1.2 to 1.8 TRILLION barrels of oil there. Since the oil age started, humans have used just over 1 trilllion barrels.

This doesn't mean were going to last another 150 years. ( I dont know what year you think the oil age starting, I think I'm being fairly conservativ with 1850s)

Human growth is exponential. With a exponential increase of population, the fuel consumption will also grow at an exponential rate. Say each person takes just 1.5 gallons of fuel per day in a theoretical world of 100 people (and they are all around ages 20-40). Lets say its been 20 years, the population most likely will add another 50-150 people due to children and they will all be in college thus allowing them to drive. This adds another 1.5 gallons per person in addition to the original 100. Put this in a large scale environment (Earth) and you have a MASSIVE increase of consumption in 20 years.

Data backing my Hurricane argument
African dust forecast may help hurricane season predictions (May 20, 2008)

Study predicts more intense, but fewer, hurricanes » Radio Podcasts | Earth & Sky

edit:
And dont argue against this hurricane stuff.. were not here to talk about global warming

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

Wouldn't this agree with my argument?

Not sure who you were directing that it ... that wasn't my post.

Human growth is exponential. With a exponential increase of population, the fuel consumption will also grow at an exponential rate. Say each person takes just 1.5 gallons of fuel per day in a theoretical world of 100 people (and they are all around ages 20-40). Lets say its been 20 years, the population most likely will add another 50-150 people due to children and they will all be in college thus allowing them to drive. This adds another 1.5 gallons per person in addition to the original 100. Put this in a large scale environment (Earth) and you have a MASSIVE increase of consumption in 20 years.

You're missing the point. I was simply pointing out that one single source of oil on US soil containers more than what the WORLD has used since man began his (general) consumption of oil. This one sources is a mere fraction of what the US has, and is but a single hair on the head of the world's supply.

Beyond that, I never said that oil should be the ONLY source of energy, nor that this single deposit would last us 150 years (or any particular time period).

You seem to enjoy putting many words into my mouth and going off on a tangent from what's being discussed.

The bottom line is: There are TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of barrels of oil and, combined with a comprehensive solution of oil, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, and other forms of energy, we don't have to "abandon oil or die" in a few decades. That's pure nonsense, and nothing but scare tactics.

Data backing my Hurricane argument
African dust forecast may help hurricane season predictions (May 20, 2008)

edit:
And dont argue against this hurricane stuff.. were not here to talk about global warming

Oh, you just want me to shut up and not point out your inaccuracies and false claims? Sorry, can't do that ...

What you've cited is not empirical data. It's a prediction based on a model:

"... We have a computer model that takes the dust forecast and tries to estimate how much that dust storm activity will cool the ocean ...".

"For this year, Evan's models predict that ..."

"In the future, Evan hopes to be able to use dust forecasts to predict large peaks or drops in Atlantic Ocean temperatures that may influence tropical storm activity."

There is no empirical data here. Do you even know what empirical data is?

This is nothing more than estimates, guesses, computer models and predictions.

Also from your cited article:

"In contrast, low dust years correlate with higher ocean temperatures and conditions more conducive to hurricane formation"

Do you know the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSATION? Correlation proves NOTHING. It just means that a pattern exists, but does not prove that one CAUSES the other.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

And dont argue against this hurricane stuff.. were not here to talk about global warming

Better yet, who about if you don't post your global warming alarmist claims in the 'oil' thread, and nobody will need to respond to point out what's wrong with your claims?

[SlvrDragon50]

Its not empirical because these findings are new...

Also, its pretty clear to see that there have been fewer hurricanes seeing as the past 3-4 years, I havn't had to miss school due to a hurricane nor having to watch the news for hours hoping the eye wont pass over my house.

Number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled over 35 years
Number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled over 35 years
"Category 4 and 5 storms are also making up a larger share of the total number of hurricanes," said Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and coauthor of the study. "Category 4 and 5 hurricanes made up about 20% of all hurricanes in the 1970s, but over the last decade they accounted for about 35% of these storms."