UMD Libertarians

Why is it that you love oil so much and want to push so hard to bring in more oil? I don’t see you pushing for alternative energy research and merely state "nuclear is the answer" when it’s plainly clear that it isn’t. So what are you planning on doing when you’ve been pushing oil so hard and it turns out that we won’t have a drop of oil for 10-15 years?
If we’d stop subsidizing damn corn and ethanol so much, maybe alternative energy would move a little faster. Then food prices would start going down and the price of a pizza will be back to normal

I think that it’s evident by now that corn is not a solution. We need a much higher sugar content base.

Don’t forget Industrial Hemp.

Kucinich
We need oil for the time being. I might as well ask you why you are opposed to using the natural resources we have. It’s like you think there is something morally wrong with drilling for and using oil. People are not stupid, they see the writing on the wall for oil. That does not mean we can stop using it tomorrow, and as long as we’re using it, a little price relief across the board gives us more money to research alternatives.

Beyond that, I just don’t see what onerous government control accomplishes here, or how it helps anybody. If the oil companies want to drill, let them drill. If they want to not invest in new technology for when oil runs out, let them be shortsighted and suffer the consequences in 50 years, while someone else strikes it rich on the next big thing. Somebody will do that, and frankly, it makes no difference to me who it is.
Why is nuclear not the answer?

It’s not a 100% permanent solution of course because it *will* run out eventually, but it’s still going to be around a hell of a lot longer than oil. Plus it’s already established sucessfully in several countries so it’s not an untried and untested technology either.

Because it produces nuclear waste, so it’s not clean renewable energy. Also, in the time it would take to build up a nuclear infrastructure we could probably do solar/wind/geothermal for cheaper.

Nuclear running out is more akin to saying solar will eventually run out since the end is nowhere in sight for natural uranium deposits and nuclear waste from old weapons. The problem is that you need to have very specific conditions for a nuclear plant to be safe, and even more specific conditions for waste disposal. Not only that, the general public hears the word nuclear power and goes and hides under a table. IIRC (don’t quote me on this, I’ll try to verify, but I remember hearing it somewhere), counties under nuclear power have lower resale values due to the "risk" attributed to having a nuclear reactor.
There is no THE answer. Unless we somehow find a way to harness fusion, and that’s not happening anytime soon. I think the problem is the same as it’s always been… certain people don’t understand how a commodities market works when the commodity starts becoming scarce. We aren’t going to just wake up one day, turn on the telly and hear that some middle-aged housewive in DeMoines burned up the last drop of oil this morning at 6:41am. All of these things happen extremely gradually, including the shifts to alternative solutions.

They want us all to rush en masse to some other form of energy because WE NEED TO GET OFF OIL NOW NOW NOW NOW. Sorry, that’s just not the way it works. What happens is, things get expensive and cause pain and then the market springs up for alternatives and then they start appearing. This is already happening, and if oil goes from the $120s back down to even $80 or $90, nobody is going to be under the illusion that suddenly we have an infinite supply of oil. The cat is out of the bag here, and the market wants alternatives.

But there is nothing to replace oil yet. So we might as well secure a future oil supply. Again, I ask what’s wrong with using oil? It’s killing the planet?

You need shitload of those other things to add up to the energy from just one nuclear reactor. We have limited land, aluminum, silicon, and all the other things required to build thousands upon thousands of solar cells and windmills. When you’re using a lot of these kinds of raw materials, price has a way of ballooning.

Modern nuclear plants are as clean an energy source as you will find anywhere. They make a lot less waste than you probably imagine, and it’s not as dangerous to move around as you probably imagine, and Yucca Mountain has more than enough room to hold it all. For the time being, nuclear is worth using, especially if it displaces dirty coal-burning power plants and dangerous coal-mining operations.

the free market would quickly take care of the problem of nuclear waste

I disagree with you on what would happen if oil went back down….this has happened before and we didnt do a damn thing about it. If the price goes under $3/gal the government should place a tax to keep it around $4/gal-$5/gal and use it to fund alternative energy research/grants. Give tax rebates to lower income folks to aleviate the higher prices.
Because alternative energy sources are still decades away.
The government, (You know, the congress who demands alternatives?) Just put a moratorium on further solar development while an ecological impact study is done.

We don’t NOT want alternatives, quite the opposite. We do want alternatives and this administration has been the most supportive of developing alternatives, but we also realize that until those alternatives come to fruition, this country needs oil to run. It’s that simple.

Also, even when those alternatives come into play, we will still need oil for consumer goods, plastics, medicine, and yes, fuel for equipment where alternatives are not feasible.

ALSO, we see the problem that’s coming down the pike by having almost 70% of our current oil supply coming from foreign sources. If those sources suddenly cut back or stop shipping, then that will be cause for war as we cannot let the country grind to a halt. If you thought Iraq was about oil, you are wrong, because when we actually have to fight a war over oil, it will be fucking HUGE and will be a knock down drag out world war.

So there are many valid reasons for us to up our domestic production.

Republicans have done more for alternative energy than the dems have ever done. Suck it bitch Facts have been posted here in the past.

Republicans know that we need alternative energy, but our dependence on oil is not going to go away in our lifetime.

We have made significant improvements in the last 15 years, and will continue to do so while using oil. Oil is the cheapest most efficient alternative at the moment, and we shouldnt discount it.

Maybe a miracle will happen and there will be some incredible breakthrough in the next few years, but I would rather be conservative and have oil as a backup plan.

If you are so against oil. If oil drilling is such a bad thing then I suggest you sell your car and walk or ride a bike from this day forward. Continue to use oil and you become a hypocrite.

and if we reprocessed in the US, it would produce monumentally LESS nuclear waste, while we place the carbon economy with alternatives over the net 25 years.

USGS - 4B barrels of extractable oil in Bakkan Formation (sp?) with todays current drilling and extraction technologies….

I say we suck every other country dry and save ours for last…

I’ll pay $7 gas as long as in 50 years, we are the only country with oil left….

.

We will always need oil, in some capacity. If the internal combustion engine died tomorrow, we’d still need it for many products; some lifesaving. In fact, parts for electric cars, windmills, and solar cells require petroleum. So we’ll never be completely "off" of oil.

That’s what really gives me a chuckle.
All of the "alternative" ideas out there require petroleum in one of it’s many forms.

Could probably? That is a little optimistic. Nobody knows for sure. I would just say "possibly".

Nuclear waste can be disposed of. Nuclear power wont run out for a very long time.

I wouldnt compare today with the past. We are in a constantly changing environment. Technology is progressing very fast. Faster than any other generation.

teleconferencing It isnt a perfect solution, but it can be an alternative for a lot of business flights.

Yea, maybe if Gore really cared, he’d park his large planes and fleet of SUVs and give his lectures ‘live’, from his living room.

…that’s IF he wasn’t just in it for the money…
I still have yet to hear a solution about getting these alternative powered vehicles into the hands of the majority of drivers.
Most people can’t afford a new car, or even a slightly used car. So how long will it take for a battery or hydrogen or biofuel vehicle that costs 30k now to filter down through the used car market to the point it’s worth 2-4k?
Even if all the manufacturers came out today and said starting tomorrow, every new vehicle will be alternative powered, it’s going to take 20+ years.

good thing those democrats refuse to lift tariffs on cane sugar. thanks guys

another great example of knee jerk emotional reaction taken for a political press op that has backfired and caused more harm than good.
But then again, that’s how this government works.

They’re making fat bank off oil, every one of them.

Sen. Kennedy has a vested interest in high oil prices, as his family owns more than one oil company.

no, they reversed that.

I can tell you beyond all shadow of a doubt that if we pumped oil and refined it it would do the trick.

You just said that corn is a failure.
So if corn is a failure, and if you are against oil for political reasons rather then practical ones, what is the answer?

im convinced
Actually Republicans have done more for alternative energy than Democrats. By far.

The two states that have the largest solar and wind production are red, one of them is Texas.

Republicans support replacing dirty coal and oil power with clean, safe, reliable, and efficient nuclear power.

Republicans support moving away from internal combustion engines and towards electric cars (hydrogen fuel cells) that run off a power grid boosted by nuclear power.

Republicans support lower taxes on oil and automotive companies that result in lower prices at the pump and more money going into real long term solutions to our oil dependency (believe it or not, it’s Exxon/Mobil and the car companies pushing for hydrogen research the hardest).
Meanwhile Democrats have opposed nuclear power for decades, thus forcing us to build oil and coal plants. They say they support wind and solar, but the blue states don’t build them and there’s been reports of Democratic senators blocking solar/wind farms because they’d be near their houses.

Meanwhile they mocked Bush for supporting hydrogen fuel cell research despite every major car company saying its far more viable than hybrids or biofuel.

They pushed for biofuel even though all it does is raise the costs of food which hurts poor people even worse than gas prices.

The list could go on for miles.

The ONLY time Democrats really support the "environment" or "alternative energy" is when they can make a statement on the Daily Show with John Stewart. If they’re not making emotional appeals to the dumbest sheep in society - they ignore it or actively oppose it.

Many Republicans are in the pockets of big oil companies, just like many Democrats are in the pockets of "green" companies and farmers’ unions. The Repubs get paid to make us want oil just the Dems get paid to make us not want it.

And yes, Exxon should be researching new fuel types because they know oil has a limited lifetime. However, you can bet they’ll milk oil for all it’s worth before finally announcing their grand miraculous solution.

As a Republican might say, "the free market will find a solution".

Sure thing. The "free market" would propose dumping that toxic waste just about anywhere, or stocking it up in Yucca Mountain. It’s not like Yucca is a bottomless pit of environmentally-friendly nuclear disposal mechanisms.

I’d rather have Republicans in office that support the oil industry which supplies our needs now and is working to change our needs in the future than Democrats in office who support special interest groups that oppose US business entirely.

So, you don’t think many Dems are invested in oil? Open your eyes…I guarantee that most, if not all, have a vested interest in the oil industry.

How many Repubs own multiple oil companies? At least one Dem does…

fixed

meh, his statement there just tossed any creditability on the topic out the window. Pretty much everyone is invested in oil.

Okay chief, I’m not an idiot and have never been against using oil; I’m against wanting to invest in bringing in more oil when that money could be spent giving corporate incentives to research alternative energies. We can’t use this shit forever, we won’t see any new oil offshore for 10-15 years, and it’s a large pollutant. We need to start thinking long term.

it’s not government money that’s going toward the drilling; in fact, the government would make money off taxes and (i think) money for the leases, which it could then use for alternative energy subsidies. this is not an either/or situation.

Sure would. If they had shit the way the free market weirdos want it — with no regulations — it’d be dumped in the nearest river, like the Hudson.

… and exactly which plan gives us that.

the one that was vetoed 12 years ago.
the initial question in very flawed

republicans/conservatives want it ALL. oil, solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, biofuels, etc..

the question you should be asking is why are the dems opposed to doing it all.

That is the most idiotic reason not to drill. Why do people keep bringing it up?

It’s only idiotic if you don’t think beyond using anything but oil. In those 10-15 years, especially with the way technology advances exponentially, we could be well on our way to finding alternative energies to use on a large scale. Once we get to the point of getting that oil, we could already in the process of phasing it out. What we need to be doing is to sit on that oil since we do NOT need it right now and as we know in the future it will be a valuable commodity, we can use it for economic stimulus.

if you think it’ll be so valuable in the future, buy some and stockpile it for then. that’s not the government’s job to decide when the market can do it just as well if not better (at least, when the government doesn’t stop it from doing so). we’re not going to be off fossil fuels completely in 10-15 years; it’s just not feasible. we might as well drill now.

No one has said that we’ll be off fossil fuels ever. What we need to do is to wean ourselves off them. Now, with that said, I am for offshore drilling if we’ll drill it just to have the supply there if we can do it cleanly (which has shown to be impossible thus far, but I digress) and not gorge ourselves, but you know full and well that we will gorge ourselves and will drill like a horny 16 year old on prom night.

Originally Posted by Karnejj
…refineries are already so that last year, the United States had to import almost . The Wall Street Journal reported oil companies are not building new refineries because it would be bad for their bottom line.

So … your plan is to unveil a time machine?

Right. We could. Not we would.

What happens if we can’t just yet? What if it takes 30 years?

We will still need oil in 50 years, even with alternatives.

It certainly can be done cleanly? How many countries are not doing it cleanly?

Most likely, the machinery to utilize any "alternatives" will be made with petrochemicals.

I agree with the first part, as I’ve said before, as long as we don’t use it greedily and it helps to further research that will eventually get us off oil for things that don’t require it.

Yep, this is what I usually think of when I hear the adverb cleanly:

cute way to avoid the point.

Related posts:

1. Here’s a good read on windfall taxes and why it’s silly to levy them against Big Oil What Is a 'Windfall' Profit? August 4, 2008 The "windfall profits" tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to...
2. What the fuck is Obama doing? He better defend this shit v. offshore drilling Obama Opens the Door to Offshore Drilling By Jonathan Weisman ORLANDO, Fla. -- Sen. Barack Obama suggested he could...
3. Oil vs. renewable energy analogy Oil is like the road system we have, that may have some potholes and ruts, but with some capital investment,...
4. Is it possible to end our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years time? Our oil production: 8.091 mm barrels per day Our oil consumption: 19.993 mm barrels per day What do you think?Yes,...
5. Obama sacks up and calls out republicans for being intellectual bankrupt; I get hard nail on head Republican Propaganda machine disputing the expert community?! Who'd've thunk it... Obama talks; I get hard he...