US Offshore Oil Drilling - McCain v. Obama

I saw two anchors on BigMedia today commenting on how americans are pushing harder and harder and HARDER for alternative energy.

IMMEDIATELY following their chant they both declared, almost in unison, "I am for nuclear! Me too!!" And they were to follow their spout with a bit on the safety of a nuclear plant.

They know how many people are opposed to terrifying outfalls of nuclear reactors melting down and also the radioactive waste from these abominations of mankind. Their sole reason for promoting nuclear in response to our pushing for alternatives is to scare us right back to Oil...BigOil...their main sugardaddies...

They know any attempt to build a nuclear facility in someone's back yard would be met with epic protest numbers, and for good reason. BigMedia's "anything but sensible alternatives" mantra is orchestrated, as it has always been by this mouthpiece for BigOil, as silly and not supported by reasonable people.

And when it starts really looking like people are going to riot over alternatives, all they have to do is loudly announce the "sensible alternative to oil...nuclear" and a quiet pall overcomes the restless crowd.

Is there no shame they won't stoop to? I doubt it.

Fearmongering is expected by the anti-nuclear crowed. I support nuclear power. It's the best, safe, alternative energy source to coal.

You still have not figured out that Oil and electricity production are in completely different markets. What boob thinks that Oil supports nuclear power to scare us back to oil? First if we were scared of nuclear power, why would we use oil? Coal is used for electrical power, not oil. The "alternative" to nuclear, is not oil. It never was, it never will be. Only a fool who knows nothing would equate the two.
 
Werbung:
BigOil has a monopoly on our nation period. It has us by the shortest of shorthairs: our energy usage. They have strategically knocked back talk, discussion, research and development of energy alternatives since the 1960s. My own father got anonymous threatening phone calls in the 1970s for trying to patent a cogeneration system that would've saved billions of barrels of oil usage by now.

You are a liar.

The reason BigOil doesn't want to do the sane thing, to switch its powerholdings over to more sane, reliable, sustainable, safe and clean energy sources is that they are just that, reliable. Do you know how hard it is to price-fix and maintain a monopoly of world-record profiteering when the technology commodity your dealing with is reachable for backyard energy producers?

Especially since they'd have to control every single person on the entire planet. They can't. They haven't. So they are not a monopoly.

Let's face it, drilling for, shipping, refining and distributing gasoline from crude is a highly techical way of energy production. They cannot have Billy Bob putting a hydro-generator in his creek out back and then approaching the City Council of Anywhere USA to show them how easy it could be done in Big Water Creek on the outskirts of town!

Billy Bob can put a hydro-generator in his creek. The reason he doesn't is because it's not worth it. What fantasy world do you live in? Does it require illegal substances to get to?

We've been held hostage by BigOil for decades now. Face it. It is preposterous to think anything else.

Really? Funny, I walked to work for awhile. I did not use so much as a drop of oil of any kind the entire time. I don't remember BigOil agents showing up and threatening me. Nor did I receive any notes in the mail suggesting I would get in trouble for not using oil.

No one is held hostage. We all freely choose to use oil, or not to. Perhaps you CHOOSE to get a job that is far away, and CHOOSE to buy a massive gas using car, and by virtue of your CHOICES, you end up CHOOSING to be in a position where you must buy oil. But that position was through the choices you made, none of which you were forced to do.

It's time for whiny american babies to grow up and own up to their own choices.

And forget the nukes scare-tactics. We're not buying that either. Iceland and other progressive countries have some lessons to teach us; and it's time to pay attention.

We are not Iceland. Time to go back to school and learn some geography.
 
What happens when one industry has a monopoly on a product, on most major media outlets and "owns" many of the politicians in a governing body?

You have the USA!

That industry? BigOil. If you're bothered by being owned by BigOil policies that include.

I hope everyone can see this glaring example of stupidity here....
"when one industry has a monopoly on a product"... What?

EVERY INDUSTRY HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE PRODUCT THAT INDUSTRY PRODUCES.
You mean the fast food industry has a monopoly on fast food? Well duh.
The grocery store industry has a monopoly on grocery stores? Yeah Einstein.

Show me one fr**kin industry that doesn't have a monopoly on the product they produce! I know... I'll produce my own oil so that the oil industry doesn't have a monopoly on oil.... oh wait, the very second I produce a single drop of oil... I AM IN THE OIL INDUSTRY! GAH! IT STILL HAS A MONOPOLY! GAH! There's no way to break the oil industries monopoly on the oil industry!!!

What the (insert strong word) is wrong with you?!?! Are you still in elementary school, or is there some college that needs closed down?

1. Suppression of even discussions being aired about viable implementation of safe alternative energy resources (that don't include nuclear)

Solar Decathlon
Ethanol
Hydrogen
Alternative Energy
Gasification
Biodiesel

Some of the millions of examples of BigOil successfully suppressing alternative energy discussions.

2. Packing Congress with lobbying money and influences.

ANWR
1991, Democraps filibuster ANWR
1996, Clinton vetos ANWR
2001, Democraps block ANWR

A list of events in Congress, showing BigOil's control.

A small list of BigOil members showing BigOil Influences

3. Hostile corporate takeovers of other countries, using public funds and military equipment and lives in order to hold onto their monopoly until the last drop runs out before impelementing sane alternatives.

List for me all the countries that we have invaded where our oil companies have control of even one singular well in said country. Kuwait? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Japan? No. Venezuela? No. Name one.

Let me list all the points you've been correct about in this post....

... Done.

Then you should be writing your representatives and urging them to forget the pocket-padding offers coming daily to them in Congress, to consider and vote on this matter sanely so that they can get re-elected next time.

I am. They better allow drilling for oil, or I'm voting them out.

Time to restore the country to who it belongs. Us.

No joke. My country is going to drill for the oil that is here.
 
Weird...in spite of knowledge that radiation is harmful or even lethal to the human body, all I can find on nuclear energy on the net seems to be pro-nuclear propaganda and how radiation that might leak from an accident is something none of us should be concerned about..

So is salt, sunlight, smoke detectors, EMF from windmills and solar panels, Sulfur from geothermal vents, NOx from Biodiesel, and about a billion other things. Hint: Your fearmongering routine will not scare me. Go away.
 
No, we need to make rapid progress towards alternatives. We need to make up for lost time that BigOil has suppressed for four decades. In the last two years I've seen the low tide water line on my local beach go from about 200 feet away from the bluffs to 50 feet away from the bluffs.

Beach erosion is a normal natural process. Nothing you have proposed would even begin to help your beach.

Global warming is happening. To take a slow approach to reverse this will have consequences beyond any of our imaginations. That is to say that even our best scientists cannot predict how dire the circumstances will be. No, this isn't going to be a party where people in the Yukon can enjoy Carribean-like temperatures...it will be floods, fires, famine and total chaos.

When you first got on here, you whined and cried about fearmongering. You are the biggest fearmonger here. Yeah, global warming has been happening since the last ice age, and has nothing to do with us.

I am not the first person leaning in this direction. Scores of scientists have been PLEADING with pocket-padded elected officials for decades to switch over to alternatives that European countries have had in place since the 1960s.

Europe is just as dependent on oil as we are. I already proved that with the European Unions Energy supply chart. You repeat the same stupid, unsupportable positions as before.

1. Public regulation of BigOil. Don't whine to me about socialism. We drive around on socialist roads, are protected by a socialist military and raise our kids in socialist schools. Some socialism in a capitalistic society is like checks and balances. And our little friend BigOil has gotten WAAAAAAYYYY too big for it's britches..

Roads are built by capitalists. There's no socialism. The government purchases road construction, just like we'd purchase house construction. If you knew ANYTHING, you'd know that.

Military is not a means of production. It's protection of the country. The armor, and military units are produced by private firms, just like you buy a TV set from a private firm.

Schools are generally paid for by government, and our a government institution which is why they SUCK. The home school and private school movement is massive, and generally turn out better, and safer, students than the drug infested, perverted teacher filled, public re-education system.

2. We need to tap BigOil profits in exchange for limited shares in new alternative site-appropriate alternate-energy producers. This is the money that will quickly develop site-appropriate alternatives to the sea level eating away at my bluffs..

Which will cause the price of gas to spike more, and have an economic crash that would force you to sell your house. Figure it out.

3. We need to enact legislation that never allows any one source of energy to ever again place our country in such a state of economic and strategic vulnerability....to coerce and lie to us to rob our public funds to finance their corporate takeover of other sovereign nations..

We already have multiple sources of energy as is. But lets say we didn't, how would them passing a law cause a source of energy to suddenly pop into existence? It can't. This is stupid.

4. Some have pushed for punative measures against BigOil, but they are vastily too powerful.

Right, with all those laws preventing them from doing their job, which caused the price spikes they had no control over, clearly they are too powerful. Moronic.

5. We need to ignore their propaganda ads of the sultry blond and family-oriented calming messages telling us that more oil drilling is the answer..

You don't need a propaganda ad. You just need to THINK to know that drilling is the answer. If you have any brains at all, it's very obvious.

No. We need to send them a message that "business as usual" is no longer tolerated by the United States governement...remember us? The People??

If everyone is this stupid about free market, then it is no wonder they ignore us.
 
The free market works as long as we do not allow monopolies. BigOil is actively suppressing the free-market development of alternative energy production. Oh yes they are and have been for decades...

This is the danger of monopolies to the free market and we must take measures to regulate them. Yes, we must. BigOil has, in fact, placed our country squarely in a vulnerable and weak position worldwide.

Like I said, it won't be a terrorist with a bomb that will bring America to its knees. It will be BigOil's monopoly and sacking of our public and private funds via their little corporate takeover of sovereign Iraq at our expense and soaking us with price-fixing at the pumps.

I say treat them exactly like anyone else who is hellbent on destroying America. No more, no less.
 
The free market works as long as we do not allow monopolies. BigOil is actively suppressing the free-market development of alternative energy production. Oh yes they are and have been for decades...

Which explains all the alternative energy sources currently being used, like bio-diesel, solar, wind, geothermal, ethanol, and all the rest of the looney overly expensive wastes of money the government keeps funding... which of course they can't be since they are bought and paid for by big oil, and of course all those universities that are developing alternative energy, which proves the suppression of discussion by big oil. You are fruity.

This is the danger of monopolies to the free market and we must take measures to regulate them. Yes, we must. BigOil has, in fact, placed our country squarely in a vulnerable and weak position worldwide.

Right, it was big oil that forced the government to place the regulations on them, to prevent them from drilling and building refineries, and so they forced themselves to not be productive, which forces them to pay the high cost of imported oil, which they planned out to begin with, so that they can then move the entire country into a vulnerable and weak position. It was all a huge plan by big oil. That is INSANE... just like everything else you post.

Like I said, it won't be a terrorist with a bomb that will bring America to its knees. It will be BigOil's monopoly and sacking of our public and private funds via their little corporate takeover of sovereign Iraq at our expense and soaking us with price-fixing at the pumps.

Right the complete monopoly where private US citizens can drill their own well and sell oil, because it's all controlled by a monopoly... what?! Dumb, as in plain stupid.

Oh and I'm in great fear over Big Oil selling me a gallon of gas, rather than a terrorist in a plane flying into a building. Yeah, that's just BRILLIANT.

I say treat them exactly like anyone else who is hellbent on destroying America. No more, no less.

YOU are destroying America with you ignorant fearmongering demagoguery. We need fewer people like you with tin foil hats and grand conspiracies that have no basis in logic or reason.
 
We are talking about large-scale migration away from fossil fuels...that is what has been suppressed. Of course once Europe and other countries started implementing alternatives BigOil couldn't suppress that information. So they Poo-pooed it instead and kept funding for large scale implementation happening. Of course you had stubborn people going around and trying to implement it. Hydro is one that was allowed to get a foothold. Then solar slowly snail-paced behind that. Wind and geothermal are still being held down in the "silly" "laughable" category.

Instead of using the same demagoguery to say other people are using demagoguery to create "fear" in people, why not just say the truth: that BigOil has been suppressing largescale D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T of alternatives in favor of keeping the hard-to-refine and price-fixable fossil fuels.

People shouldn't be afraid at all. They should be pissed off. And the thing they should be the most pissed off about is how BigOil suppressing these alternates has placed us squarely in a position of vulnerablity and an economic depression. I'm not the only one saying it. Bill O'Smiley of Faux news :D had less kind words that I have for BigOil. And he is spot on.
 
We are talking about large-scale migration away from fossil fuels...that is what has been suppressed. Of course once Europe and other countries started implementing alternatives BigOil couldn't suppress that information.

Uh... remember that alternate reality you were talking about in the other thread? Europe doesn't have huge alternative fuels. Oil is just as big there. As I pointed out, and I'll repost it here if your memory is so short, that they have less alternative energy sources than we do here. Get a clue.

Then solar slowly snail-paced behind that. Wind and geothermal are still being held down in the "silly" "laughable" category.

Geothermal is huge. They have geothermal power under New York city buildings. Solar is laughable because it sucks. You don't even know which of your bad options is doing worse.

Instead of using the same demagoguery to say other people are using demagoguery to create "fear" in people, why not just say the truth: that BigOil has been suppressing largescale D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T of alternatives in favor of keeping the hard-to-refine and price-fixable fossil fuels.

Again, none of the alternative energy sources you claim are being suppressed, even competes in the same market as oil. You still have no point. You were wrong before, you are wrong in other thread, you are wrong now!

It's not even logical if your high on drugs. Why would oil stop an alternative source of electricity, when Oil isn't used to produce electricity? That's plain stupid. Get a clue.

People shouldn't be afraid at all. They should be pissed off. And the thing they should be the most pissed off about is how BigOil suppressing these alternates has placed us squarely in a position of vulnerablity and an economic depression. I'm not the only one saying it. Bill O'Smiley of Faux news :D had less kind words that I have for BigOil. And he is spot on.

We already proved there is no suppressing going on. This post is full of hot air. What you are blabbing about simply is not true. You keep repeating the same stupidity over and over.

Big Oil didn't pay off a bunch of congressmen, to force the government to pass laws hindering themselves, to force themselves to not drill and produce more oil, to force the US to import oil, for no logical reason. It is dumb. Just like all your other lame theories.

The only thing scary here is that you might be out of high school, which would show the absolute pathetic state our school are in.
 
BigOil suppressing these alternates has placed us squarely in a position of vulnerablity and an economic depression.

Big Oil produces.... OIL.

Alternatives produce.... ELECTRICITY

Had you thought this conspiracy through a little better.....

BIG COAL produces..... ELECTRICITY

But then you would have to deal with the fact that Big Coal makes up a very small percentage of the nations energy.... Kinda like Alternatives.

So back to why your conspiracy is bunk...

Your precious Geothermal thats being "Suppressed" by Big Oil, will be at 66% of its total American continental capacity in 10 years.... Subsidized by the American Taxpayer of course.

Wind and Hydro are suppressed by "Environmentalists" who don't want to disturb local ant and fish populations... of course, Ted Kennedy - Liberal Democrat - voted down a wind turbine project because he thought it might ruin his view of the ocean from his summer home... 22 miles in the distance.

Finally, there is no replacement for oil. As others have pointed out, the highly enlightened and advanced nations of Europe, with all their Nuclear plants and Alternative sources of ELECTRICITY production, are all still dependent on OIL.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. Urban75
 
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Most excellent. My guess is, he will not be able to see how clearly he fits this model.
 
Finally, there is no replacement for oil.

Indeed. Which brings me to my next point..

Since we will run out of oil in the next 50 years it stands to reason that we absolutely must have a totally new system in place by then to compensate for our energy consumption.

Now 50 years seems like way way off in the distance. But it will be here in the blink of an eye. You or I won't be around to see it, but all the young people in school right now will. What will they do? How will they compensate? What will the world be like in this very-near future? Do we care? Why not?

If we will have a totally new way of producing mass amounts of energy then, why not now? Why not move quickly to be totally off dependance now? We will have to in a couple of decades anyways wheter we like it or not. Wouldn't it be nice to have a surplus then to say, run farm equipment to make food? To ship food? Personally, when the cookies are running out of the box in the cupboard, I like to slow way way down on eating as many as I want each day and only take say one a day...saving up for some day I might need a little extra blood sugar.

There is one thing "conspiracy theorists [oil critics]" and "reasonable [oil addicts]" agree on: that the supply is finite and will run dry within our children's lifespan...especially with China and India approaching consumption rates we once held highest in the world..

Gone. Finito. Vanished. Kaput. Dry. No exceptions.

So are we just being babies today? Old fashioned? Dinosaurs? Are we saying we're not smart enough today to come up with what we absolutely will have to come up with in 50+/- years? Surely we can concoct today what we will absolutely have to in 50 years.

Personally, I'd like to know then that there are still some cookies left in the cupboard thanks to good, quick and decisive planning in my past..
 
Since we will run out of oil in the next 50 years it stands to reason that we absolutely must have a totally new system in place by then to compensate for our energy consumption.

There is no credible evidence we will run out. None whatsoever. In fact, there is more than enough evidence we will not. The world oil reserves have grown, not dwindled. And there is plenty of evidence that if exploration was allowed, we would find billions, if not trillions of barrels of oil on our own land.

If we will have a totally new way of producing mass amounts of energy then, why not now? Why not move quickly to be totally off dependance now?

Because if we switch to any expensive alternative energy source, when the rest of the world does not, we will be at an economic disadvantage.

Example, a chair made out of plant resin, will cost 40% more than a chair made from oil. So if you see two chairs at the store, exactly alike, but one costs $60-$100 more, which are you going to buy? The cheaper chair of course... they are exactly the same. So the American plant chair company will close, and the imported oil chair company will expand. The sucking sound will be American jobs going over seas.

So better to wait until either A: an alternative fuel becomes available that is CHEAPER than oil, or B: *IF* the oil supply does start to dry up, wait until the oil prices rise to make alternative fuels competitive.

Of course, I believe neither, and we should just drill for oil and let the free market reign.

There is one thing "conspiracy theorists [oil critics]" and "reasonable [oil addicts]" agree on: that the supply is finite and will run dry within our children's lifespan...especially with China and India approaching consumption rates we once held highest in the world..

Gone. Finito. Vanished. Kaput. Dry. No exceptions.

Not true. There is a growing number of scientists and researchers who do not believe that oil is finite. There is ample evidence contradicting that theory.
 
Werbung:
Since we will run out of oil in the next 50 years it stands to reason that we absolutely must have a totally new system in place by then to compensate for our energy consumption.

Now 50 years seems like way way off in the distance. But it will be here in the blink of an eye. You or I won't be around to see it, but all the young people in school right now will. What will they do? How will they compensate? What will the world be like in this very-near future? Do we care? Why not?

Lets, for the sake of argument, assume you are correct with 50 years...

The world oil supply is gone in 2058. (50 years)

Well, we also know:

Social Security is bankrupt in 2041. (33 years)

Medicare is bankrupt in 2019. (11 years)

SS and Medicare are both dependent on TAXES to remain solvent...

This week, the Senate will hold hearings on rising oil and fuel prices and the subsequent record earnings recently posted by U.S. oil companies. Some lawmakers have suggested that these profits are unseemly and, thus, should be subject to a new “windfall profits” tax.

Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:

(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?
(2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

The past year has clearly been a good year for oil companies. However, these large profits should be viewed in proper perspective, given the staggering amount of tax the industry currently pays and remits to governments at the federal, state, and local levels. As the experience of the past quarter-century has shown, governments have actually “profited” more from the oil industry than the industry has earned for its shareholders. Tax Foundation

So... you want to kill Big Oil? Have you the slightest comprehension of what that would do to federal revenue??? If your goal is to speed up the collapse of SS and Medicare, then by all means kill big oil.
 
Back
Top