Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,751,326 times
Reputation: 10454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
Do we need oil and lots of it? Is this true? Or is it our current reality based on the old way of thinking?
If it's our "current reality" then it's true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,059 posts, read 12,970,206 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
If it's our "current reality" then it's true.
It's not reality. Not at all.

We as Americans enjoy 20 million barrels of oil per day. We need not a drop more.

Then again, drug addicts can often never get enough of a good thing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,751,326 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Personally I think it would be stupid to cause permanent harm for temporary gain. What'll our kids think?
I should care what they think? I raised the little buggers, got them into lucrative trades or paid their ways through college (every nickel) and now on top of that I'm supposed to care what THEY think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:53 PM
 
3,414 posts, read 7,143,538 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
Indeed. No more tattoos.
Okay, that is hilarious!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,751,326 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
Some people like the way their bodies look with tattoos. Most people don't like the way oceans look with oil rigs sticking out of them or oil spilled all in the water.

What do I care if people don't like to see oil rigs on the water? I don't live on the ocean and those that do are just gonna have to put up with it. If they don't like it they can move; afterall if they're living on the ocean they probably have plenty of dough to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 02:58 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,473,857 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Our domestic oil sources are rather limited, about 11 years' worth at current consumption if we relied solely on our own oil. It's better left in the ground for the future.
Quite so. Regardless of when the time actually comes, there will be at some future point a need to walk away from oil. This is most quickly and particularly true with regard to transportation energy. Meanwhile, the process of converting to some new energy paradigm will be an oil/energy-intensive one. So long as people in other places are willing to sell us their oil at what in the long run are bargain basement prices, we should continue to buy it from them, reserving as much as we can of our own stocks for later use, watching both their utility and their value increase through no more complicated a process than simply leaving them right where they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,751,326 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Quite so. Regardless of when the time actually comes, there will be at some future point a need to walk away from oil. This is most quickly and particularly true with regard to transportation energy. Meanwhile, the process of converting to some new energy paradigm will be an oil/energy-intensive one. So long as people in other places are willing to sell us their oil at what in the long run are bargain basement prices, we should continue to buy it from them, reserving as much as we can of our own stocks for later use, watching both their utility and their value increase through no more complicated a process than simply leaving them right where they are.

OK, that makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 03:15 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,183,047 times
Reputation: 55008
We have built our world over the last 100 years on the use of oil. We need some time, maybe 20 years to wean ourselves away.

In the meantime we need new sources.

Every state should only get what they produce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 03:35 PM
 
955 posts, read 2,157,499 times
Reputation: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
I know in my heart that we cannot drill our way to abundance and cheap fuel. Our path is conservation of our remaining precious natural resources and finding ways to use and develop sustainable resources. This is our only hope for the future.

Our planet has finite resources, a growing population to use the remaining resources, and weapons that can destroy everything and all of us. It's time to choose a different path. We must learn to conserve. We must learn to share.

So let it be.
In my heart, here's my plan:
  1. Announce drilling plans in ANWAR and offshore. The futures markets (called so because they are predicting oil prices down the road, not today) will fall dramatically with this announcement (somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-$40 bbl.
  2. Actively encourage nuclear power plant construction. You guys all know that France is about 80 percent nuclear and they are not exactly conservation hating neocons)
  3. Ramp up our clean coal program. Coal is this country's oil power.
  4. Use tax incentives to speed up fuel cell development - from lab type models to production capable and ready vehicles.
  5. Continue production cost effective methods of solar and wind in locations where it would have the biggest impact.
  6. Explore ways to make geothermal work on a larger scale. Instead of single home only, look for ways to use in offices, communities, etc.

So my heart of hearts says that the plan must be comprehensive and well coordinated. It must also send a message to other countries.

Conservation will only work if it is government mandated. If you believe that either of our candidates will stand in front of the American people and propose no action to best use our country's brain power to solve a grand problem (like going to the moon) but will force various selective conservation mandates, my read is that it will not happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2008, 04:02 PM
 
3,414 posts, read 7,143,538 times
Reputation: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpperPeninsulaRon View Post
In my heart, here's my plan:
  1. Announce drilling plans in ANWAR and offshore. The futures markets (called so because they are predicting oil prices down the road, not today) will fall dramatically with this announcement (somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-$40 bbl.
  2. Actively encourage nuclear power plant construction. You guys all know that France is about 80 percent nuclear and they are not exactly conservation hating neocons)
  3. Ramp up our clean coal program. Coal is this country's oil power.
  4. Use tax incentives to speed up fuel cell development - from lab type models to production capable and ready vehicles.
  5. Continue production cost effective methods of solar and wind in locations where it would have the biggest impact.
  6. Explore ways to make geothermal work on a larger scale. Instead of single home only, look for ways to use in offices, communities, etc.

So my heart of hearts says that the plan must be comprehensive and well coordinated. It must also send a message to other countries.

Conservation will only work if it is government mandated. If you believe that either of our candidates will stand in front of the American people and propose no action to best use our country's brain power to solve a grand problem (like going to the moon) but will force various selective conservation mandates, my read is that it will not happen.
The most important part of this post Ron was your "knowing all this in your heart." LOL!
Great ideas (with or without "your heart").
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top