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.
Yes, but I also like crystal coast beaches the way they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
A couple hundred million Americans clearly disagree with you.
They win.
BTW, you know the Exxon Valdez spill pretty much cleaned itself up, don't you? People wiped off a few birds and steam-cleaned a few surface boulders, but otherwise left most of the oil where it was. Within a few years, the oil had broken up (yes, oil is "bio-degradable") and the shorelines and oceans were back to the way they were before the spill.
The effects of oil spills are way overexaggerated.
And unless that highly exaggerated number of "couple hundred million Americans" live in North Carolina, Florida, or the respective state in which the drilling is proposed I do not care whether they agree or disagree. In the case of drilling off the coast its an issue to be decided by the people who live in a state where proposed drilling might occur and if you do not live here you have no business telling us what to do.
How often does it happen? If it were a regular occurance I'd say no. But it seldom happens. They'll clean it up, life will go on. We've got to sever the ties between us and foreign oil. I'm tired of being so dependant on other countries. This county is is deep trouble.
lol...we can grow oil...we have more oil than we know what to do with...we're not at anyone's mercy...we're using their resources...
There is virtually no evidence left of the spill in Alaska many years ago.
Over react much? Let's just go back to using candles for lighting, and wood stoves to heat our homes.
Wildlife Still Exposed to Exxon Valdez Oil 20 Years After Disaster
ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2010) — Scientists in Alaska have discovered that lingering oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill is still being ingested by wildlife more than 20 years after the disaster. The research, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, uses biomarkers to reveal long-term exposure to oil in harlequin ducks and demonstrates how the consequences of oil spills are measured in decades rather than years.
Alaska beaches still have oil from 1989 spill
An estimated 20,000 gallons of crude oil remain trapped in the gravelly beaches of Prince William Sound, Alaska, long after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...rom-1989-spill
I've heard of "Slick Willy" but now " Slick Barry" takes on a whole new meaning. Still think a President who doesn't care about homeland issues and disasters is a good idea? You dolts should have wised up after 8 years of Bush in the Whitehouse but I guess you wanted some more of the same and you got it.
as a florida resident, i still say yes to drilling.
if we had established energy independence years ago, we might not be over in other countries getting our children killed and our money wasted trying to get / defend somebody else's oil.
i have no doubt that our president, who wants us to be dependent as possible on other countries, will use this as an excuse to stop drilling and halt any attempts at energy independence that we have.
for crying out loud, he wouldn't even stand up to the mexican "do as i say, not as i do" president badmouthing our country......
Last edited by floridasandy; 05-01-2010 at 06:44 AM..
denninger had a good post at market ticker on the subject, also as a florida resident:
(quote)
I supported drilling right here, right now when I moved here, I have written extensive on this in Musings before I started The Market Ticker, I have supported drilling here on this blog, and I still do.
Why?
Because without energy sources we do not have an economy and essentially everything these days contains plastics - which are made of oil. Our food is grown using diesel fuel to cultivate, plant and harvest it. Fertilizers are made from natural gas.
We can live in a cave or we can live in a modern society. Either way we take risks - in a cave you risk freezing to death, among other things. In a modern society you risk the possibility of environmental damage.
Unlike most of the people in this debate, I accept the risks that come with energy exploration and development, because all of the alternatives come with risks that are at least as high, and may be higher.
I have long supported nuclear power, for example, despite living downwind from Fermi I as a child - the only plant in the history of nuclear power the United States that ever threatened to go supercritical (no, Three Mile Island did not.) Even though I would have almost certainly been killed had they lost control of the core in that plant, I would still vote for a nuclear plant to be built 10 miles upwind of me - right now, right here, today.
All choices comes with risks and costs, along with the benefits. In this case we have a society and economy that are absolutely dependent on energy. We can try to deny the reasons why liquid hydrocarbons fuel our planes, boats, cars and trucks, but what we can't reasonably do, today, is change that, and there is plenty of reason to believe from a simple study of thermodynamics that no such realistic option will present itself during my lifetime.
This is a matter of thermodynamics - that is, physical laws, not desires, wants, or so-called 'innovations" or the lack thereof.
So yes, folks, I still think - today, with the possibility that we will have oiled beaches this weekend right here, right now, in my back yard, that we should indeed Drill Baby Drill. (end)
the market ticker forum also had some interesting comments and a spirited debate on the subject.
Actually, it's going west toward Louisiana, not east toward Florida.
As for your question, whether we prefer plentiful and inexpensive oil to power pretty much our entire economy and help provide prosperity and safety for us all, with the occasional (and rare) oil spill that comes with it.... over a country where energy is expensive and difficult to get, cramping the economy and making us beholden to countries that do not have our best interests at heart...
The answer is obvious. OF COURSE we prefer the former. An oil spill every 25 years, though unpleasant, is a small price to pay for the huge benefits oil (and offshore drilling) provides to us.
Is there anything else you are confused over, that I can help you with?
But I want windmill powered cars and airplanes with sails.
American farmers don't need oil they should go back to walking behind a mule like they did in 1871.
But the maybe I am a republican who enjoys pollution and watching dead birds, fish and marine wildlife wash up on heavily polluted shores. Yes, that is it... now if I could just have some poisoned air to breath, tainted food to eat and watch my grandchildren be born with gross birth defects this would be a perfect world.
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.
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.
