What happens when a leftist is President...

[jreeves]

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact - Yahoo! News


Wonder what happened to the bipartisian deal reached in Congress?

 

[Gunny]

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact - Yahoo! News


Wonder what happened to the bipartisian deal reached in Congress?

Pre-election snowjob. We're going to leave 85% of our natural resources in the ground while the people of the US pay the price.

But it's okay to blight the land with windmills because those don't affect anything even though they take up the same space individually, and collectively require a LOT more space. But for some reason, the endangered, 3-eyes, yellowtail horned bumblebee can fly around windmills but not oil pumps.

The usual double standard bullshit. Suck it up and march on.

 

[editec]

The benefit of wind power is that it does not create CO2 pollution, Gunny.

Stop playing the nitwit, okay?

 

[DiamondDave]

And the detriment is that it is not viable in the amounts we need... while it should be added more to the grid, we should also embrace all we can do in drilling, nuke, and other alternatives to become more independent

 

[Gunny]

The benefit of wind power is that it does not create CO2 pollution, Gunny.

Stop playing the nitwit, okay?

Perhaps YOU should practice what you preach? When the benefit is outweighed by the drawbacks, then it is not a viable solution.

The whole argument is based on people reacting to buzzwords. The left and the media has trained its sheeple to react negatively to anythign fossil fuel and positively to anything else.

How about ethanol? That creates MORE pollution than fossil fuels but because it's not a fossil fuel it's okay.

What's the major argument in Alaska? Displacing a moose because has to walk 5 ft in either direction around an oil derrick? But because it's not a fossil fuel, we can erect thousands of windmills across the Southwest doing who know what damage to THOSE ecosystems. But to some Yankee, who cares? That's just shitting in MY yard, not yours.

Gulf Coast? Some fish would have to swim around platform legs? Oh, the people that live on shore don't want to look at the rigs.

No matter how you slice it, until we have a viable alternate energy source, we need fossil fuels. Period. Ignoring that or pretending we're somehow going to get compeletely off of them is ridiculous.

Every alternative source you can name requires petroleum-based products for the machinery to function.

So when you go to calling people nitwits, look at your own hand first. You're holding a pair of deuces and trying to bluff your way through.

 

[AllieBaba]

The benefit of wind power is that it does not create CO2 pollution, Gunny.

Stop playing the nitwit, okay?

It also will not power cars.

 

[Turboswede]

On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.

"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."

Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact - Yahoo! News


Wonder what happened to the bipartisian deal reached in Congress?

Why can’t we leave this one up to the people of Utah? They would be the ones closest to the positive and negative impacts of opening that BLM land to drilling. When they go through this process do they lease or sell the land to oil companies? If it’s a lease I would think it would be a great revenue raiser for the feds and for the state of Utah.

 

[Old Rocks]

The benefit of wind power is that it does not create CO2 pollution, Gunny.

Stop playing the nitwit, okay?

I find it so strange that some people seem to equating opposition to all alternative power, save nuclear, to be a conservative cause. We have more than adaquete power in the form of geothermal, solar, and wind. There is no need to burn coal or natural gas. We have already built successful electric cars, and a plug in diesel hybrid is well within the present technology. What is lacking is leadership and will.

 

[jreeves]

Why can’t we leave this one up to the people of Utah? They would be the ones closest to the positive and negative impacts of opening that BLM land to drilling. When they go through this process do they lease or sell the land to oil companies? If it’s a lease I would think it would be a great revenue raiser for the feds and for the state of Utah.

Because the disputed land is on federal property. The land doesn't belong to the state of Utah, its pretty simple really.

 

[jreeves]

I find it so strange that some people seem to equating opposition to all alternative power, save nuclear, to be a conservative cause. We have more than adaquete power in the form of geothermal, solar, and wind. There is no need to burn coal or natural gas. We have already built successful electric cars, and a plug in diesel hybrid is well within the present technology. What is lacking is leadership and will.

Alternatives should dominate energy policy, but until it is cost effective to do away with gasoline powered cars we should be using as much of our natural resources as possible.

 

[AllieBaba]

I find it so strange that some people seem to equating opposition to all alternative power, save nuclear, to be a conservative cause. We have more than adaquete power in the form of geothermal, solar, and wind. There is no need to burn coal or natural gas. We have already built successful electric cars, and a plug in diesel hybrid is well within the present technology. What is lacking is leadership and will.

Tell that to the old people who live in the sticks and have monitor oil stoves and nothing else for heat.

Who's going to pay for them to change their heating systems? You?

 

[Turboswede]

Because the disputed land is on federal property. The land doesn't belong to the state of Utah, its pretty simple really.

Yes, I know technically “why” but it’s a new administration and as the BLM is in the prevue of the executive, Obama could base the BLM decision on a State referendum, kind of a cool idea in my opinion.

 

[AllieBaba]

Step up, Robert Kennedy, Jr.

The salmon and the trees belong to the people. If they happen to be on your land, that belongs to the people, too.

The space belongs to the people who live in the cities...if you happen to own land and that land together with more land creates a space...then it all belongs to the people who want to vacation somewhere near that space and not be bothered with looking at whatever improvements you might want to profit from. And NO COWS. They eat the grass, make poo and disturb the water so the vacationers can't fully enjoy their time off.

Sheesh.

 

[jreeves]

Yes, I know technically “why” but it’s a new administration and as the BLM is in the prevue of the executive, Obama could base the BLM decision on a State referendum, kind of a cool idea in my opinion.

So you would have the state control Federal government lands?

 

[Chris]

It also will not power cars.

Actually electricity will power cars.

 

[DiamondDave]

And actually.. as electric cars increase.. the demand for electricity increases.. and with wind being impractical even at the current levels of consumption, it will be even more impractical at that point, in terms of fulfilling our consumption needs

 

[Turboswede]

So you would have the state control Federal government lands?

Not as a general rule, but in this case considering Utah’s political slant, it would rob the right of a major political victory if the people of Utah voted down a proposition to allow drilling in their state.

Drilling in protected areas is based on the premise that the American people need lower gas prices and that increased oil production will lead to lower gas prices. As gas prices tumble the “need” to drill on protected lands becomes less and less. I think it’s an interesting Ideal to allow state populations to determine if a federal benefit is worth the costs to the state citizenry.

 

[Turboswede]

I find it so strange that some people seem to equating opposition to all alternative power, save nuclear, to be a conservative cause. We have more than adaquete power in the form of geothermal, solar, and wind. There is no need to burn coal or natural gas. We have already built successful electric cars, and a plug in diesel hybrid is well within the present technology. What is lacking is leadership and will.

It’s interesting to see the same Ideas about energy emerge in 2008 as 1978. In school I studied economics and one of my all time favorite subjects was energy economics because some of the solutions offered back in the 70’s and today were just silly.

Windmills Kill was one of my favorite articles on the issue of how horribly inefficient some alternative energy can be. Due to the minimal power produced from wind farms, the land they use and, most of all, the number of deaths attributed to windmills per kw/h generated, Windmills are the most deadly and dangerous generators ever devised by man.

First off, why all these CAFE rules and the demonization of folks who drive cars with poor (for today) gas mileage? If the goal is to get the American public to stop using so much gas, raise gas taxes and use the revenue to fund mass transit. It’s an easy solution that works. Oh, and BTW lower taxes on Diesel so the transportation industry doesn’t feel the pinch.

Second, Nuclear Power, why won’t this just go away? Here in Washington we have a number of nuclear reactors that just sit there and blot out the (occasional) sun. The reason we don’t use them is because they are too expensive to operate. Just from an economics argument, nuclear power projects are so capital intensive and have such high maintenance and decommissioning costs that oil will NEVER be expensive enough to justify them.

Third, we are running out of oil? It’s a simple issue of how hard the oil is to get at, not whether or not it’s there so:

At $40 a barrel no one cares about energy policy anyway, Texas looses tons of Jobs and the American oil industry tanks.

At $60 a barrel, it’s cost effective to start hiring rig workers again and bring Texas crude out of the ground.

At $80 a barrel, OMG the sky is falling and we are running out of oil. Drill everywhere even if it’s in Ralph Nader’s back yard.

At $100 a barrel, Exxon Mobile starts thinking that it may be worth investing capital in oil shale refining, but they realize that everyone is thinking of that and shale production is only cost effective at a sustained oil price of $70 per barrel. Why should they invest millions in capital to have a complex that produces oil at $70/barrel when they know it will fall below that before the oil shale process would be on line?

Then, oil goes back to $40/ barrel and all those investors holding oil futures lose their shirts.

It’s happened before, and it will happen again.

Oh, and the US has 500 years of Oil Shale reserves so we are not running out, it just costs to much to get at.

Let me make it clear, I do not hate alternative energy, there are lots of environmentally friendly methods of power production but they are very capital intensive so the private sector will always be scared that energy prices will tank and they will be left holding the bag. As long term, environmentally friendly energy production is the goal, it becomes the state’s responsibility to lessen the market barriers and get the private sector interested in Solar, Water, Fusion and Geothermal.

BTW, electric cars only displace pollution and hybrid cars use extremely toxic and dangerous elements in their hybrid motors (which will only last 100,000 miles before they need replacement).

 

[jreeves]

Not as a general rule, but in this case considering Utah’s political slant, it would rob the right of a major political victory if the people of Utah voted down a proposition to allow drilling in their state.
Drilling in protected areas is based on the premise that the American people need lower gas prices and that increased oil production will lead to lower gas prices. As gas prices tumble the “need” to drill on protected lands becomes less and less. I think it’s an interesting Ideal to allow state populations to determine if a federal benefit is worth the costs to the state citizenry.

So you would base our country's energy policy on political victories.....


While we continue to send over 700 billion dollars a year overseas...

 

[editec]

Perhaps YOU should practice what you preach? When the benefit is outweighed by the drawbacks, then it is not a viable solution.

Poppycock. You're moving goal posts.

I was responding to this blathering nonsense you posted:

But it's okay to blight the land with windmills because those don't affect anything even though they take up the same space individually, and collectively require a LOT more space. But for some reason, the endangered, 3-eyes, yellowtail horned bumblebee can fly around windmills but not oil pumps.

The usual double standard bullshit. Suck it up and march on.

The usual mischaracterization of the opposition's argument itself, is more like, Gun.

The whole argument is based on people reacting to buzzwords. The left and the media has trained its sheeple to react negatively to anythign fossil fuel and positively to anything else.

No, the whole argument for wind power to help us with our energy needs has nothing to do with oil derricks blighting the land, and everything to do with tapping an energy resouce which does not pollute and is sustainable.

How about ethanol? That creates MORE pollution than fossil fuels but because it's not a fossil fuel it's okay.

Environmentalists have been SCREAMING about how stupid ethanol is for over a decade, Gunny.

Perhaps when we develop algae based ethanol we can revisit that issue, but corn based enthanol is basically nothing but WELFARE FOR AGI-INDUSTRIAL COMGLOMERATES.

So here we go again.

You, a confessed conservative are speaking on behalf of people you hate and doing what?

LYING about what it is they say, in ordr to fault them for that which they do NOT believe.

Before you attack somebody's argument, you first have to honestly characterize what their arguments are, sport.

Bullshitting people, as you so clearly just did in the above case, does not get a pass with people like me.