Should we drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

[Phoenix44]

No. We should not drill in ANWR.

We should be investing in alternative energy research. But, of course, that won't benefit Bush's friends in the oil biz.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think one thing that needs to be remembered in this conversation is that currently most forms of alternative energy are much less efficient than oil and require a lot of energy to produce. This subject comes up a lot on Slashdot a lot, every time a story on alternative energy comes up. I don't know all the details but the general gist is that right now most or all forms of alternative energy take more energy to produce and many that look good at first actually require more oil to initiate and sustain the whole production pipeline

One other thought is that the oil businesses have a lot of money and they also have massive distribution systems for getting stuff around. If a good, efficient form of alternative energy came along, the current oil companies would be in the best situation to take advantage of it and make money in the distribution process and develop it to be commercially viable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm afraid that I'm still not going to be polite about the kind of irresponsible, lazy stupidity on the part of a gaggle of insatiable greedheads.

For those of you who seem to think it's just a NIFTY idea, some home study questions:

1. What's the actual history of ecological damage for these kinds of projects in Alaska? I'll give two hints: Exxon Valdez; Prince William Sound.

2. How much gas does this country waste every year? How much could we save with a 2 MPG average increase in cars? How much could we save if we got rid of SUVs?

3. When was the last time you got off your duff and got out someplace wild...you know, walking?

4. What are your plans for when we've trashed EVERYTHING? The polar caps are melting, we've whacked out the cod (and most other species) fishing in the Atlantic, we're burning down the rain forests, we've got dead zones appearing in the Gulf of Mexico, we've put holes in the ozone layer...what're your plans? Got kids?

Or is it just easier to stick your head in the sand and Not Think? or are you expecting Jesus to be back any day now, so who cares?

 

[Makalakumu]

More questions...

1. Exactly who will benefit from the oil profits?
2. Exactly who is going to pay for the infrastructure?

I've got two answers. One resembles a small tree and the other looks like you and me (as in the taxpayers).

 

[shesulsa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7574562/

House approved it - now for the senate.

 

[Marginal]

Still begs the question, what's the gain? A few months worth of oil dumped into the federal reserves won't amount to anything economically.

I don't especially care either way, but it smacks of a meaningless gesture in terms of securing an independent oil supply. Even a much smaller gain like influencing OPEC pricing in the US' favor doesn't seem especially likely.

 

[elder999]

Apperently the senate thinks so.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it.

What do you guys think?

No.

 

[OULobo]

I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".

 

[OUMoose]

I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".

Yeah, and they also use that word in the fruit stuff you can spread on toast and eat, thereby "consuming" it. *shrug*

It's sad that on a daily basis, I hear things coming from the government that just make me stop, shake my head in frustration, and go about my day.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think one thing that needs to be remembered in this conversation is that currently most forms of alternative energy are much less efficient than oil and require a lot of energy to produce. This subject comes up a lot on Slashdot a lot, every time a story on alternative energy comes up. I don't know all the details but the general gist is that right now most or all forms of alternative energy take more energy to produce and many that look good at first actually require more oil to initiate and sustain the whole production pipeline

One other thought is that the oil businesses have a lot of money and they also have massive distribution systems for getting stuff around. If a good, efficient form of alternative energy came along, the current oil companies would be in the best situation to take advantage of it and make money in the distribution process and develop it to be commercially viable.

Freep is absolutely correct.

Oil is the most efficient energy source that has ever been discovered by man. It is (has been) cheap and portable and concentrated. Because of this and because of blatent corporatism in the last century, the infrastructure throughout our entire country depends on oil.

Oil is literally liquid sunshine. The algea that was buried millions of years ago trapped sunlight via photosynthesis, turning it into carbon compounds. These compounds were transformed into oil, a nonrenewable, finite resource that is solely responsible for the development of the western world.

Alternative energy, as it stands today, cannot even come close to providing our energy needs. And it cannot solve the real energy problem in our country...waste.

The west will blow out the end of last century and the beginning of the next in a frenetic frenzied orgy of oil drilling that will end with the downfall of the west and the alteration of almost everything we do in life.

In order to really understand the need (or will) to drill in ANWR, see this thread ...

upnorthkyosa

PS - as much as I cannot stand the idea of despoiling this pristine area, I'm afraid that it may be unavoidable. I wish that we could invest more in alternative energy and avoid this, but it is too late. We needed to start on this road thirty years ago when Hubbert was warning us of the coming problem. If I were given the choice about drilling in ANWR, I would scream no at the top of my lungs...yet the whir of our SUVs screaming down our freeways taking single people to work to be independent and individual about wasting will eventually drown this out.

 

[Makalakumu]

I love how when people worry that they can't afford to drive their outrageously expensive and generally uneeded SUVs, they give the gov. carte blanche to destroy the very environments that we have already sworn to preserve. I mean it is in the name, "preserve".

It's not just the cars we drive, its the food we eat. For every calorie we consume, we use 10 calories of oil to grow. We literally eat oil in this country. This is the price we pay for industrial agriculture.

 

[ginshun]

How much oil is 10 calories worth?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I agree with pretty much everything I've read here--makes you wonder, with so much agreement among different people, just why it is that the House yesterday passed an "energy," (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) bill that authorizes drilling.

Reasons have already been listed: greed, oil companies, garden-variety stupidity, that make sense to me. However, here's another coup[le of suggestions:

1. Apparently, sales of the Ford Explorer are off 25% or so...good riddance. But unfortunately this is one of the reasons GM is in trouble: we've built our whole economy around endless, endlessly-growing consumption, which makes perfect sense from the standpoint of capitalist economics and is in fact built into the deep logic of capitalism from the git-go.

2. What this means is that most of the smart things to do--and in particular the environmentally-sound things to do--are fundamentally incompatible with the logic of our whole economy. It's the sort of thing Marx had in mind when he discussed the, "inherent contradictions," of capitalism. So, if enough people actually became self-reliant (as was suggested; as makes good sense)--our economy would go boom. I understand that some folks would argue that no, capital in its infinite wisdom will just come up with new markets....no, it won't.

3. It also means that most of the human things to do--the things that in fact, from any kind of half-intelligent martial arts philosophical position are obvious--are going to be very hard to generally accomplish. We would be a far-happier society if we commuted less, consumed less, and all the rest--less stress, more health, personally happier, more connected to reality--but our society encourages the opposite. In fact, our society encourages a dangerous and in fact crazy disconnect ("alienation," and "abstraction," in marxist terms) from reality in all sorts of ways.

4. One of the consequences is a profound--oh, call it "aesthetic," disagreement. My side thinks that, "in wildness is the preservation of the world," wants a quiet day with a quiet sky, loathes the idea of driving into nature, despises digging everything up to build malls and stupid, cramped boxy houses and all the rest. The other side despises nature, says I want jobs and stuff I can buy, screw the turtles, why shouldn't I drive through Yellowstone and throw M&Ms out the window of my SUV with the house and the jet-ski in tow.

5. At the extremes, both sides suck. Problem with my side--it mostly depends on a loony consumer economy for its education, its privileges, and its smug attitude. It's privileged, baby-boomer environmentalism on the part of people who all too often fundamentally believe that the proles will end up doing the scut work for them. (Hell, half these people can't even change a tire when they get a flat in the parking lot at trader Joe's or Whole Earth Foods.) Problem with the other side--it's crazy because it is unsustainable, and even more crazy because IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY. It makes them greedy, discontent, unhealthy, emotionally isolated--and scared by what they see as the growing violence and madness in their growing, insane "cities."

6. We'll probably drill. Then, we'll leave others stuck with the consequences and the bills. Creepily, almost every science fiction novel of the last thirty-forty years depends on the proposition that people got off Earth because they'd hopelessly screwed the place. Hope not--but have you seen the stuff on warming at the poles, particularly the Arctic? Literally, the seasons have been changed...

 

[Makalakumu]

How much oil is 10 calories worth?

A calorie is a measure of energy. I didn't make that clear. For every calorie of energy you obtain from the food you eat, it takes 10 calories of energy from oil to grow it.

We are eating oil.

 

[Makalakumu]

Creepily, almost every science fiction novel of the last thirty-forty years depends on the proposition that people got off Earth because they'd hopelessly screwed the place. Hope not--but have you seen the stuff on warming at the poles, particularly the Arctic? Literally, the seasons have been changed...

The space program depends on fossil fuels. As they climb in price and the energy crunch really hits, we ain't going anywhere...filth or not. Hubris? You bet, and karma.

 

[OULobo]

It's not just the cars we drive, its the food we eat. For every calorie we consume, we use 10 calories of oil to grow. We literally eat oil in this country. This is the price we pay for industrial agriculture.

Sure but comparing the amount used as vehicle fuel vs. the amount used in just about every other application, including chemical production, plastics, rubbers, ect. shows us that the majority of our lust for oil comes from the vehicles we drive.

 

[Ray]

A calorie is a measure of energy. I didn't make that clear. For every calorie of energy you obtain from the food you eat, it takes 10 calories of energy from oil to grow it.

Are you saying that, with modern farming and machinery that use petroluem products, it takes more calories to grow the fruits/vegatables we eat than the energy we get from that food?

Does that include only plant sources of food or also animal?

Thanks

 

[Whitebelt]

Answer to your question: No

 

[Makalakumu]

Sure but comparing the amount used as vehicle fuel vs. the amount used in just about every other application, including chemical production, plastics, rubbers, ect. shows us that the majority of our lust for oil comes from the vehicles we drive.

It is not just the vehicles that we drive ourselves, its the vehicles that drive our stuff around. Most of the stuff in your local supermarket comes from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. In fact, it is considered a termination offense to buy a local head of lettuce at your average fast food chain! ALL of this is waste, too!

The bottom line is that the average person in this country consume their own body weight in oil everyday. It doesn't all go into our cars. It is used in almost everything that we do.

The implications of this are absolutely staggering...

 

[Makalakumu]

Are you saying that, with modern farming and machinery that use petroluem products, it takes more calories to grow the fruits/vegatables we eat than the energy we get from that food?

Does that include only plant sources of food or also animal?

Thanks

It includes everything plant, animal and fertilzer. It also includes the transportation it takes to get the food to your table.