Independence (Day) from fossil fuels

[daveman]

Its your corporations right to despoil the air, ground, and water, while simultaneously getting tax loop-holes from the gov't, as long as it turns a profit

KKKorporations! Booga booga!!

 

[toxicmedia]

The US has allready reached peak gas consumption. That was reached in 2006. Since that time US consumption has been in decline. The alarmists never bother to mention that either.

I don't believe I called you a liberal either! I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts. As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place. More plants, more animals, bigger, etc. Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.


"Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?

Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.

At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.

Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.

Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."


U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future

Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?

Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.

I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.

Paleo records show how nice things were back then. Also many, many critters evolved back then that are abundant today. The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages. Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher. Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment. Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.

Just a side note...When I google "ocean acidification", I get a bunch of global warming alarmist sites. When I google "ocean acidification fraud", all I get is anti environmentalist sites....this is a perfect example of an issue that has plenty of toxic media involved in the information about it out there.

At any rate...we were talking about C02 levels being 20 times higher...and that being a great environment for humans....

But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.

The Ordovician

I don't see corals, ocean acidification, or anything else we've talkied about that is convincing evidence that high C02 levels are absolutely harmless. When you google "C02 twenty times as high"...you get a bunch of anti environmentalist sites again...it looks like that side is trying to seize this C02 levels thing.

The controversy here is obviously how much C02 does it take to cause ocean levels to rise to Al Gore's model. Apparently not as little as he, and the scientists on his payroll, originally thought. But you'd have to be sure that doubling the C02 output of combustion engines in the US, hasn't the potential to contribute C02 levels rising that high, in order to go with the "C02 is harmless" angle.

I'm not finding enough objective credible information out there for me to derive how high that is, because the internet is clogged with partisan brackish goo on the matter.

So IMO....the statement that "C02 is harmless"....is unsound for lack of proof.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Ohhh c'mon Jiggs, not another Hubbert curve article. They have allready been proven wrong anyway so why bring up the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about.

What is God's name are you talking about, rinse repeater? Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.

Typically the authors emphasize that not all coal is anthracite and instead is bituminous (which burns jut fine thank you very much) as if that's some terrible thing. Bituminous coal has been burned for hundreds of years and there doesn't seem to be a problem. Lignite too has been burned for hundreds of years and peat (which they denigrate as barely capable of burning) has been used as a fuel for THOUSANDS of years.

"Used as fuel" and "powering modern society" are worlds apart. You understand how this works, don't you?

I'll put the same challenge to you that I did regarding the oil equation that you ran from: Link to a claim of proven, recoverable, high-grade coal in the amounts you bloviators insist actually exists.

Your groups incessant bleating about the end of the world is tiresome and inaccurate.

LOL. It's so bad for you, you're resorting to straw man argument. Who said anything about "the end of the world," liar? Try and stick to what I actually type, not what you hope I must mean.

The only "peak" anything is lithium which is used for your expensive car batteries...THAT is a truly limited resource. Interesting how you are all for using that up.

Could you BE more full of crap? Link to where I EVER once advocated lithium anywhere on this forum, or please STFU and GTFO.

Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it. If you have an alternate explanation for why the world economy stands at the brink (one that somehow doesn't include the 600% increase in energy prices the past decade), please share. Should be good for amusement.

 

[westwall]

Ohhh c'mon Jiggs, not another Hubbert curve article. They have allready been proven wrong anyway so why bring up the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about.

What is God's name are you talking about, rinse repeater? Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.

Typically the authors emphasize that not all coal is anthracite and instead is bituminous (which burns jut fine thank you very much) as if that's some terrible thing. Bituminous coal has been burned for hundreds of years and there doesn't seem to be a problem. Lignite too has been burned for hundreds of years and peat (which they denigrate as barely capable of burning) has been used as a fuel for THOUSANDS of years.

"Used as fuel" and "powering modern society" are worlds apart. You understand how this works, don't you?

I'll put the same challenge to you that I did regarding the oil equation that you ran from: Link to a claim of proven, recoverable, high-grade coal in the amounts you bloviators insist actually exists.

Your groups incessant bleating about the end of the world is tiresome and inaccurate.

LOL. It's so bad for you, you're resorting to straw man argument. Who said anything about "the end of the world," liar? Try and stick to what I actually type, not what you hope I must mean.

The only "peak" anything is lithium which is used for your expensive car batteries...THAT is a truly limited resource. Interesting how you are all for using that up.

Could you BE more full of crap? Link to where I EVER once advocated lithium anywhere on this forum, or please STFU and GTFO.

Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it. If you have an alternate explanation for why the world economy stands at the brink (one that somehow doesn't include the 600% increase in energy prices the past decade), please share. Should be good for amusement.

I don't need to jiggy baby. You people only focus on the rarest grade of a commodity which is a lie. You make a claim that the modern society can't power itself on low grade crude oil and yet we do. You make the claim that anthracite coal is the only type that is usable and that is simply ridiculous. Bituminous coal is the DOMINANT type of coal on the planet and it burns just fine. You peopla are the ones who are lying...not us. Even lignite is usable in a modern furnace which is capable of far more powerful and efficient usage.

Try again. Or GTFO AND STFU!

 

[RGR]

Hubbert's curve, ultimately, is accurate. If anything, his gradual decline model isn't steep enough, as we'll learn.

Please educate us on the number of peaks Hubbert's curve allows, because after global oil production peaked in about 1979...it did it again in 2000! And then 2005! And then 2006! And then 2008! And then 2010!

You would think one would be enough, eh Jiggsy?

Peak is here now, and the world is in great turmoil because of it.

We've been through peaks before, I imagine we'll get through the next ones as well. How does your religion account for all those past peaks anyway? Or aren't you high enough up in the order for them to tell you the real secrets yet?

 

[westwall]

Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?

Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.

I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.

Paleo records show how nice things were back then. Also many, many critters evolved back then that are abundant today. The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages. Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher. Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment. Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.

Just a side note...When I google "ocean acidification", I get a bunch of global warming alarmist sites. When I google "ocean acidification fraud", all I get is anti environmentalist sites....this is a perfect example of an issue that has plenty of toxic media involved in the information about it out there.

At any rate...we were talking about C02 levels being 20 times higher...and that being a great environment for humans....

But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.

The Ordovician

I don't see corals, ocean acidification, or anything else we've talkied about that is convincing evidence that high C02 levels are absolutely harmless. When you google "C02 twenty times as high"...you get a bunch of anti environmentalist sites again...it looks like that side is trying to seize this C02 levels thing.

The controversy here is obviously how much C02 does it take to cause ocean levels to rise to Al Gore's model. Apparently not as little as he, and the scientists on his payroll, originally thought. But you'd have to be sure that doubling the C02 output of combustion engines in the US, hasn't the potential to contribute C02 levels rising that high, in order to go with the "C02 is harmless" angle.

I'm not finding enough objective credible information out there for me to derive how high that is, because the internet is clogged with partisan brackish goo on the matter.

So IMO....the statement that "C02 is harmless"....is unsound for lack of proof.

Here is a paper presented to the US senate by a NOAA scientist who was also a IPCC contributor from 1988 to the year 2000. His name is Dr. John Everett...



"I. THE CONCERNS
There are several concerns about CO2 entering the oceans and causing its pH to become lower.
Their discussion in the press and among policy officials has led to the inclusion of acidification
in this hearing. These concerns are:
1. Animals with calcium carbonate shells will lose the ability to make shells
2. Existing shells will become weaker
3. Loss of shell-forming animals will reduce food for those higher in the food chain
4. Many species will be gone in 30 years
5. Oysters and clams are dying
6. Jellyfish are increasing
7. Seagrasses will be injured.
The concerns are based on the work of respected scientists who have shared the above beliefs or
authored papers that argue the above points. They believe increased atmospheric CO2 will
increase the acidification of the oceans. The basis is largely a set of emission scenarios
developed by IPCC in the early 1990s in an attempt to reign in the mass confusion about the
future trajectory of CO2 emissions. With this standard set of scenarios, climate modelers could
then have a standard set of inputs in terms of what was broadly considered a primary determinant
of climate – the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. This proportion is based on new
contributions after deducting removals by the Earth system and assumes a decreasing removal
ability as CO2 increases. For the first time, modelers around the world could compare results
while impact assessment scientists and policy makers could look at points on which most models
agreed. Standardization of scenarios allowed modelers to identify errors or alternative ways to
predict or handle parameters, such as cloud cover. One of the scenarios became heavily used and
is identified as IS92 – Business as Usual. Nearly 20 years ago, it was a reasonable approach and
in the middle range of alternative scenarios. It underpins much of the research findings I will
present today.
There are other respected scientists who believe that the Business as Usual scenario has been
overtaken by events. The cost of fossil fuels is rising, reflecting increasing scarcity and
contributing to a slower CO2 growth in the atmosphere and a lack of acceleration. New science
shows the Earth’s ability to absorb the same proportion of new CO2 each year has not been
3
diminished, removing a key assumption that underpins “acceleration”. Importantly, oceans are
alkaline - not acidic, so use of the term “acidification” unnecessarily promotes fear. If all the
CO2 in the air were put into the ocean, the oceans would still be alkaline. With all this talk of
acidification, we need to reassure bathers that their feet will not dissolve when they step into the
ocean. Ocean water at the surface generally has a pH over 8 and neutral is 7.0 (pure water) while
a puddle of rain water (pH 5.6) is 100 times more acidic after having picked up CO2 in its fall
through the air. Many of our recreation lakes and drinking water reservoirs (such as most of
those in some states; (e. g., 70% in Maine) have pH values so low that they are truly acidic (pH
<7). There is nothing wrong with the fish and the water in these lakes. It is often just that the
lakes have less limestone and more granite on their bottoms. Technically, we should say the
oceans could become less alkaline, rather than more acidic. In any case, unlike rainwater, the
oceans will never become acidic.
Whether or not laboratory studies provide the answers we think are reasonable, we need to look
more broadly. The Russian academicians (of their Academy of Sciences) I worked with in IPCC
taught me to look at how the Earth responded in past ages when conditions were like those
projected, and to get up from the computer and look around. They gravely distrusted computer
models. So, what can we learn from the past and what do we see around us? The oceans and
coastal zones have been far warmer and colder and much more acidic than is projected. Marine
life has been in the oceans nearly since when they were formed. During the millennia life
endured and responded to CO2 many times higher than present, and to temperatures that put
tropical plants at the poles or covered our land by ice a mile thick. The memory of these events is
built into the genetic plasticity of the species on this planet. Impacts will be determined by this
plasticity from past experiences. If we open our eyes, we see that nearly all of our ponds and
lakes are often more acidic than the oceans (pH 8.1), yet they team with most of the kinds of life
that are in the oceans. This is important.
We should also consider that CO2 is required for all plant life and it is in short supply, to the
point it limits growth rates for most plants. This is yet another clue regarding impacts."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

 

[konradv]

If we open our eyes, we see that nearly all of our ponds and
lakes are often more acidic than the oceans (pH 8.1), yet they team with most of the kinds of life
that are in the oceans. This is important.

That may seem important, but is actually irrelevant. The bottom line isn't that in different places or times the pH has been higher or lower, but that the temperature, slinity, pH, etc. at which the organisms in question evolved are important. If one of those ancient corals lived today, they wouldn't live for long because of present conditions being different from when it evolved. Talking about changes in the past is actually a red-herring because those chasnges happened over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, while we're concerned about what's happened over the last two hundred.

 

[Bill Angel]

But I digress...corals evolved 505 to 438 Million years ago. At that time, the oceans were at their highest levels in Earth's history. And there isn't a scientist alive who doesn't agree with that. No ice caps, non equatorial regions were submerged, etc....It's Al Gore's dream come true!...except for the mysterious ice age that ended that period, which happened during high C02 level, and no reputable academician can explain.

Some scientists would disagree with you on that point:

Scientists solve mystery of high-CO2 Ice Age

 

[Cimerian]

I have a fish tank. It is a saltwater reef tank. It is very sensitive to pH levels. CO2 is used to lower the pH if need be. We do need to protect our oceans. They give us much more than you know.

 

[JiggsCasey]

More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.

Leftists don't do common sense.

If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.

Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and decline is imminent.

 

[RGR]

If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.

No one denies global resource depletion. It is a strawman constructed simply for the purpose of calling someone else a name. Once the first crude oil molecule suffered human initiated combustion, humans began depleting a global resource. Same with coal, or natural gas, or what have you. It has been going on for centuries now. Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.

Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and decline is imminent.

Why would anyone pay much attention to banks, who don't find oil fields, sovereign governments, who require the remnants of the 7 Sisters to find and develop their oil, oil giant CEOs with degrees in business or accounting who have never found an oil field in their life but are good at counting beans, or petroleum geologists who became bored with retirement and thought stirring up some shit for bottom feeders like peakers to feast on was a fun way to spend an afternoon?

The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?

When are you going to go back to your church and give us a fully grown Priest of Peak Jiggsy? Your ignorance on the topic, while consistent, is making us all weary.

 

[JiggsCasey]

And, like clockwork, out from under your rock you come within minutes of my 1-2 visits per month. I swear, you're such an unrivaled loser, you send yourself text alerts whenever I appear to take your tired argument behind the woodshed.

If Team "Nothing to See Here" had a shred of "common sense," we wouldn't be enduring the perpetual fraud regarding their denial of global resource depletion.

No one denies global resource depletion. It is a strawman constructed simply for the purpose of calling someone else a name. Once the first crude oil molecule suffered human initiated combustion, humans began depleting a global resource. Same with coal, or natural gas, or what have you. It has been going on for centuries now. Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.

Delicious irony here once again, goal post mover. Clearly, we're referring to the downward slope of global peak production. Asshats like you vacillate between insisting peak is not here and insisting it will be seamlessly mitigated. You can't ever seem to get your own story straight.

You're the one perpetually moving the parameters of the argument being asserted. It's what complete frauds like you do. Stick and move, clutch and grab. Meanwhile, you're losing round after round.

Add Goldman Sachs to the long list of investment banks, think tanks, sovereign governments, oil giant CEOs and petroleum geologists warning that we are at peak, and decline is imminent.

Why would anyone pay much attention to banks, who don't find oil fields, sovereign governments, who require the remnants of the 7 Sisters to find and develop their oil, oil giant CEOs with degrees in business or accounting who have never found an oil field in their life but are good at counting beans, or petroleum geologists who became bored with retirement and thought stirring up some shit for bottom feeders like peakers to feast on was a fun way to spend an afternoon?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So all those entities are lying or dumb?

Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.

The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?

Gosh, I dunno. Perhaps because discoveries never declined back then like they have today? Nose dived, in fact... For some 40 years now.

When are you going to go back to your church and give us a fully grown Priest of Peak Jiggsy? Your ignorance on the topic, while consistent, is making us all weary.

Irony. You're that insidious combination of willful denial and ignorance, coated with a layer of arrogance.

When it comes to global flow rates, their affect on the economy, and the realities facing industrial nations the next 10 years... you're a T-ball player, and I'm in The Show.

Either way, thank you for admitting that you believe all those multi-billion dollar entities who set policy and investment agendas are all maintaining some bizarre conspiracy to artificially inflate energy prices.

Holy crap, RGR. You suck at this.

 

[Dot Com]

Fiore is an acclaimed satirist:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi37tyv7F64&feature=related]YouTube - &#x202a;Oil Anthem&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

 

[JiggsCasey]

I can see that RGR is busy hammering out his latest irrelevant straw man rant, replete with accusations of religious zealotry for an atheist, and allegory to late 19th century conditions.

Booooooooooooooooooooooooring.

His position on this matter can be summed up perfectly:

 

[RGR]

Learn the definition to the word "depletion" already, and stop using peaker theatrical stunts to insult your betters.

Delicious irony here once again, goal post mover. Clearly, we're referring to the downward slope of global peak production.

Clearly, you did not take my advice. Depletion of a natural resource is something which begins with the first molecule produced. The rate of depletion can change over time, but that is not what you said, you simply used the word "depletion". Incorrectly. Is it so difficult to understand that certain words have a certain meaning, and when you use them incorrectly the best you can hope for is for someone to pat you on the head and send you back to the books to learn something?

You can't ever seem to get your own story straight.

My story has not changed once since I started posting on this website. Your memory at any given point in time appears to be, dare I say, disjointed? You would stand your religion in a better light if you stopped parroting and began thinking.

The best geoscientists of their time have declared peak and the end of the oil, and they are worth listening to. They made those claims in 1886. Why don't you ever talk about those experts, and their claims of peak Jiggsy?

Gosh, I dunno. Perhaps because discoveries never declined back then like they have today? Nose dived, in fact... For some 40 years now.

Are you really so stupid as to miss the point, or is my reliance on historical fact so far outside your religions teachings that they have nothing for you to cut and paste?

Discoveries declining was EXACTLY why there were claims of running out, pre WWI. As for your 40 year claim, that is incorrect as well. Global peak oil discoveries (flowing oil now, not that mining operation in Alberta) peaked in 1935. This is using the standard Colin Campbell backdating technique to hide the size of reserve growth of course. So discoveries of oil have been declining since that year, which puts declining discoveries at 76 years. Perhaps I can recommend a math course for you as well?

When it comes to global flow rates, their affect on the economy, and the realities facing industrial nations the next 10 years... you're a T-ball player, and I'm in The Show.

So far we have established that you can't do anything but cut and paste, and call names, don't know when global oil discoveries peaked, can't add, and don't know the definition of depletion. And that is just in your last couple of posts. Care you take another multi-week breather to rest up for your next ignoramus recital?

 

[kenf]

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling" to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?

The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!

 

[Dot Com]

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling" to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?

The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!

Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 4% of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.

 

[daveman]

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling" to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?

The drill baby drill mantra drives (drills?) me nuts... I can accept some short term version of Nat Gas, but oil has got to go!!!!

Yeah, "this great nation" (Paylin-speak ;-) has @ 45 of the worlds reserves & uses @ 25% of the worlds energy. It can't last w/o more wars. Conservatives don't seem to want to own up to the fact that wars are expensive. They also don't seem to want to go anywhere near closing loop-holes & subsidies for Big Oil.

So what do you plan on replacing fossil fuels with when you make them illegal?


I'd like to remind you once again there is no Magic Energy.

 

[whitehall]

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling" to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?

Why does the left cling to the incredibly foolish notion that America should stop drilling for oil? Is it because a simple minded (anti-American?) socialist president decided in the middle of an economic crisis that we use too much of the stuff? If there was a reasonable substitute for fossil fuel we would be using it you friggin left wing dummies. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and now isn't the time to engage in an extortion scheme or pie in the sky stupid stubstitutes. In 30 or 40 years the private sector might come up with some substitutes for fossil fuel if the a-holes in the federal government stay off their backs.

 

[Dot Com]

Because we need to diversify & stop rewarding 19th century energy extraction through leasing public lands for pennies on the dollar and lavish subsidies/loop-holes.