Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

...and you know what? Announcing we ARE going after oil on the contintental shelf or Alaska DOES immediately drive the price down because it sends a signal to the speculator market that in the FUTURE gas is going to be CHEAPER and they start bidding DOWN *NOW.*



( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 18th, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)
So, cheap now trumps a better energy & conservation approach for the long term? I don't know about you, but those dead zones, droughts, and coral die-offs scare the hell out of me - and they're more and more correlated to climate change.

I don't like paying for gas, but I'd rather reduce my driving and take the bus than add further stress to the rest of the world. We're stewards of this planet, not owners.
Jul. 18th, 2008 08:17 pm (UTC)
"So, cheap now trumps a better energy & conservation approach for the long term? "

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The point of fact is right now the high energy costs are crippling our country. People already ARE conserving and driving less and the results are an economy on the brink of recession.
There have already been businesses forced to close because of higher prices. The price of oil affects *everything*...not just how much it costs to fill you tank.

In terms of being a steward of the planet...you're absolutely right but that doesn't mean we need to start going backwards. The countries with the cleanest air and the purest water are also wealthiest.

The poverty stricken countries are the filthiest. The people there don't give a rats ass about conservation and the environment and endangered...they want FOOD and water and to live in a house with plumbing and electricity and they want it YESTERDAY.

You want real environmentalism? You spread CAPITALISM since that's the fastest and best way to lift people out of poverty. When people aren't worried about where their next meal is going to come from and can enjoy living in a country with a POWER GRID...THEN they can worry about an environmental impact.

If we really want to be good stewards we should find a way to provide the cheapest energy we possibly can and provide it world wide so everyone can enjoy our living standards rather than shrugging at the soaring energy prices, ignore the human cost and hope the polar bears are okay.
Jul. 18th, 2008 09:16 pm (UTC)
Capitalism has not worked well for most third-world countries, primarily because the first-world countries are behaving without restraint there. If they likewise get to behave without restraint here, we're all much worse off, much more quickly.

I know people feel the gas issue because I feel it, too. I think that focusing on relieving our pain at the pump, in the face of the much more serious problems in the rest of the world, is precisely the kind of thinking that will eventually make the rest of the world rise up and stop us. That's why we should suck it up and get over the price, and find ways of working around it.

I don't think everyone can enjoy our living standards; I don't particularly think we should live at the standard we do. It's physically impossible for everyone to live at the level of life in the U.S. Of the world's energy consumption, we use about 22%, although we're less than 5% of the world population. We use about 24% of the total oil in the world. It is therefore not possible to share our wealth with the rest of the world. All we can do is fight those who are abusing capitalism and raping much of the second- and third worlds (I'm not anti-capitalist, just anti-taking advantage), seek alternative solutions, and reduce our own consumption.

More math, and more facts, from a Texas A&M economist:
"We use about 13.6-million barrels of imported oil everyday," said Moroney. "It's estimated the reserves in the new Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS) are around 18-billion barrels. So, yes, it would make an impact."

But he's quick to add that the impact of offshore drilling would not be immediately felt at the gas pump. "It won't make any difference whatsoever because new oil that could be found and produced on the new Outer-Continental Shelf won't take place for at least eight to 10 years."

What you discover when you divide that estimated 18 billion barrels by the daily estimated consumption in the U.S. is that not only do you have to wait the better part of a decade for the oil; not only do you pollute the air and water significantly even without spills; but for all that you get less than four years of output.

That four years, by the way, assumes the oil companies direct all the oil back into the U.S., instead of selling to the other markets that need oil, too.

It's a classic risk/benefit analysis. The short-term-but-not-immediate gain doesn't by any means justify the environmental and human expense. I work actively to reduce my ecological footprint. It's hard - I'm careful compared to most Americans, but still wasteful compared to the rest of the planet. I'm still working on it, along with others I know, and getting better. When I see my tiny efforts tossed aside by things like lifting offshore drilling bans, it makes me want to weep.
Jul. 18th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC)
If this did result in an immediate effect at the pump, despite the fact that supply will not change for 8+ years, then it lends some credence to the idea that this is Enron-like manipulation of the markets.

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2012

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow