![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
King George gave a speech yesterday where he endorsed the idea of drilling offshore in Florida, and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
This makes me furious. First, it's again short-range thinking. OIl is a finite resource. No matter where we drill (as Tower of Power once sang) there's only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, it's gone -- we need to cut our ties with petroleum entirely! Bush said nothing about alternatives to oil. No, his solution to the problem (and McCain's, evidently) is to "Drill for more oil!" Yep -- give more money to oil companies whose profits are already obscene.
This is also a chimera of a solution: pure snake oil. Opening up the Alaskan Refuge or Florida will not change the price we're paying at the pump. Not one bit. No oil will flow from those sources to the refineries for 10 - 15 years: that's how long it would take to get the permits in order, do the necessary exploratory drilling, and get the platforms and pipelines set up. We'll ignore for the moment the fact that our existing refineries are already at full capacity: even if we miraculously brought in more oil today, we can't refine it any faster than we already are. Drilling in previously-forbidden areas is not a solution to our current fuel issues. This is a solution to give oil companies more profit. Period. This is to make the gullible American public feel that "Look! We're doing something! Gas prices will go down!"
They won't.
Bush failed to mention any thought of conservation. Japan already has cars that average over 45 miles per gallon. They have diesel-burning trucks that get 40 miles per gallon. But they can't sell those cars here. What would help the pockets of Americans is to force the auto companies to produce cars that have a minimum -- minimum -- of 40 miles per gallon, and to force them to do that next year.
Bush also didn't mention research for alternatives: hydrogen as a fuel source, or developing better battery technology, etc. To my mind, this is the best strategy toward releasing us from bondage to oil. If we put our attention there, I'm convinced cars and engines could be developed that would be incredibly miserly with fuel, or perhaps wouldn't need petroleum at all. What did John F. Kennedy say decades ago about going to the moon? "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." That's the attitude we need to have.
But Bush doesn't want us to follow that strategy. Nor do the oil companies to whose wallets he and others listen.
This makes me furious. First, it's again short-range thinking. OIl is a finite resource. No matter where we drill (as Tower of Power once sang) there's only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, it's gone -- we need to cut our ties with petroleum entirely! Bush said nothing about alternatives to oil. No, his solution to the problem (and McCain's, evidently) is to "Drill for more oil!" Yep -- give more money to oil companies whose profits are already obscene.
This is also a chimera of a solution: pure snake oil. Opening up the Alaskan Refuge or Florida will not change the price we're paying at the pump. Not one bit. No oil will flow from those sources to the refineries for 10 - 15 years: that's how long it would take to get the permits in order, do the necessary exploratory drilling, and get the platforms and pipelines set up. We'll ignore for the moment the fact that our existing refineries are already at full capacity: even if we miraculously brought in more oil today, we can't refine it any faster than we already are. Drilling in previously-forbidden areas is not a solution to our current fuel issues. This is a solution to give oil companies more profit. Period. This is to make the gullible American public feel that "Look! We're doing something! Gas prices will go down!"
They won't.
Bush failed to mention any thought of conservation. Japan already has cars that average over 45 miles per gallon. They have diesel-burning trucks that get 40 miles per gallon. But they can't sell those cars here. What would help the pockets of Americans is to force the auto companies to produce cars that have a minimum -- minimum -- of 40 miles per gallon, and to force them to do that next year.
Bush also didn't mention research for alternatives: hydrogen as a fuel source, or developing better battery technology, etc. To my mind, this is the best strategy toward releasing us from bondage to oil. If we put our attention there, I'm convinced cars and engines could be developed that would be incredibly miserly with fuel, or perhaps wouldn't need petroleum at all. What did John F. Kennedy say decades ago about going to the moon? "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." That's the attitude we need to have.
But Bush doesn't want us to follow that strategy. Nor do the oil companies to whose wallets he and others listen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But in this case, I'm afraid that political expediency appears to be the only reason.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Actually, McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear (or nucular) power plants and invest $2 billion in "clean coal." Talk about snake oil...
I am not bothered by nuclear power so much as I am by the fact that we cannot in any way deal with the waste. Until that is remedied, it is simply unbelievable that we'd even consider adding that much more poison to our planet. Give a closed cycle fission/fusion reactor, and then we can talk.
Clean coal is a joke. The cleanest coal is made by nature; it's called anthracite, and there's not a whole helluva lot of that left. Everything else is opium distillate in a bottle...feels good, but it'll kill you.
From:
no subject
Coal: another and even deader end. Mountaintop removal mining is doing horrible things to the Appalachians.
From:
Exxon Valdez
From:
Re: Exxon Valdez
Oh, wait. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad)
From:
Re: Exxon Valdez
From:
Republicans are always soft on crime
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/political/080619-staff-politicalrahall.html (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/political/080619-staff-politicalrahall.html)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
You wouldn't need any rigs within about 10km of the coast, since directional drilling can reach that from the land.
The UK drills in the North Sea wherever there's oil/gas.
My car gets almost 40mpg (though I think the UK gallon is bigger than the US one...) and it fits 4 of us and a lot of luggage.
Personally, I think we should be going to nuclear in the mid-term and renewables in the long term. Clean-coal + CO2 sequestration might be good in the short term, though our coal industry was trashed in the 1980s to break the unions...
Full disclosure: I work for an seismic exploration company...
From:
no subject
A.