Liberals who care about their fellow man should rethink U.S. energy policy.

[alienlovechild 75]

Gary, you're not going to get responses from the left-wingers the second time around except the usual huffing and puffing, most of it of it off topic.

Since you do not seem to have noticed, poverty has risen under the Republican leadership of the last seven years. Median incomes have decreased. The middle class has become weaker than ever. There are more people w/o proper access to health care services today than ever before. Unemployment is as bad as it hasn't been in decades. The nation collectively is almost twice as much in debt today compared to 7 years ago. Looking at American households, the situation is even worse. And you are going to sit there and lament that liberals don't care about the people? You've got to be kidding.

Dog, our resident expert on Marxism, plays on the class warfare as usual. Gotta get votes someway. The middle class has been hit largely because the good paying factory jobs to those right out fo high school having fallen by the wayside for long time and they ain't coming back. Ask Obama how they now cling to guns and Bibles.

Try get to the facts spouting off the talking points none of which are original or thoughtful.

"Income inequality in the United States, which had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to increase slowly in the 1970s, and has since increased more quickly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...e_United_States

Unemployment worst in decades? Wrong again. Up but not not exactly doomsday.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp

The only I'd agree with is that Bush as been a big spender and that doesn't help the economy in the long run.

Edited June 15, 2008 by alienlovechild

[GaryC 7]

The reality is that since the economy is a political issue for the Obama worshipers they have to make it seem as bad as they can, damn the facts.

I found something interesting just now. A gallup poll on the economy. The top numbers don't look so good on the face of it. 56% say they are better or the same as they were 5 years ago.

But if you scroll down and look at who is saying they are worse off you get to the real truth. Democrats say they are worse off by a margin of 57% to 34% while independents are evenly split and reps say they are better off by a margin of 59% to 23%.

This has only two possible meanings. Dems don't know how to manage their financial lives while reps do or this is a political issue. I would say it's the latter. All dog is doing is trying to bolster his messiah's chances by making the economy out to be worse than it really is.

I also like the way Gallup chose to title the poll. "Four in 10 Americans See Their Standard of Living Declining" rather than "6 in 10 Americans see their standard of living go up or stay the same". Just shows the little ways the bias is working.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107749/Four-Ame...-Declining.aspx

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The libs want us living in caves while they have their limos. Damn them.

[MrsCat 6]

I found something interesting just now. A gallup poll on the economy. The top numbers don't look so good on the face of it. 56% say they are better or the same as they were 5 years ago.

I also like the way Gallup chose to title the poll. "Four in 10 Americans See Their Standard of Living Declining" rather than "6 in 10 Americans see their standard of living go up or stay the same".

5 years ago I was a broke-azz university student. Things are definitely better than 5 ago - however that bar was very low to begin with.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[MrsCat 6]

I think the dude is having some unwholesome thoughts about being in the middle of a love sandwich with those two ladies. He's getting undressed too.

I guess post-Bill Clinton, liberals cannot claim freedom from sexual harassment for their own.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wondering if maybe it would be better not to butt into Gary's monologue ... but

I read in the Financial Times (that liberal rag) a couple days ago that the biggest untapped source of oil in the USA is under Detroit -- referring to the potential of the not-as-Big-as-they-used-to-be 3 to contribute to US energy security by figuring out how to sell energy-efficient cars. GM (Opel) and Ford (Europe) don't do so badly at it in Europe but they haven't found a way to bring that expertise home -- and so they cede market share to the Japanese. Maybe Congress will finally help Detroit by forcing substantial increases in fuel economy ... in effect legislating a demand that they become competitive since they haven't figured out otherwise that they need to be. (I used to work in this industry, on the inside, and know firsthand how severely management there hasn't figure this out.) Oh, who was it who was opposing increases in fuel economy for the past 15 years? Don't think that opposition was exactly rooted in liberalism. Gary, can you help me out there in understanding that?

Maybe Gary hasn't heard of Hubble, a Shell oil analyst who correctly predicted that the USA would peak in its oil production in the late 1960s and begin an irreversible decline. (Is Shell Oil a hotbed of libaralism?) The cries on the right to open this shred of land or that parcel of ocean has been fig leaf to cover an inability to propose an energy policy that has a real, physical basis of working for the long term. You can't power the demands of this country on mined domestic liquid fuels. The resource just isn't there. Sorry Gary, its a scientific fact that you might not be able to do a good job analyzing. But the question hasn't been in serious scientific debate for nearly 40 years. Sure you can find outliers .. but not real, serious debate. The USA is in irreversible decline for oil production. Russia maybe and if it isn't, they are close. Saudi Arabia will be there soon. Iraq would be, but foreign intervention has kept their industry shut down for the last decade. If the chaos there were to magically stop, they might offer a brief reprieve. Things look bleak for a significant increase in production globally of this mined resource. Gotta try something very different. Not sure Gary understands that.

As I said in another thread lately, it is great to be working for a new energy company. I'm humping 60 hrs, 80 hrs, sometimes more a week working to create a sustainable liquid fuel industry that will improve US energy security, mitigate global warming, and help create the basis of an energy economy that will be able to go on indefinitely, rather than living, as Gary seems to advocate, on borrowed time, mining an already depleted resource. It is a very good mid-career change. I suppose if I truly didn't like people or care about the basis of western society sustaining itself energetically, I'd work in plastics and make a lot more money and have a lot more free time.

And this liberal *never* owned a SUV. Presently I own the least fuel economical car I've ever owned -- with an automatic transmission (to make easier for my immigrant wife to learn to drive) that gets only 35 mpg in the city. I've been working the demand side of the equation for decades. Looks a bit countercultural, given all the behemoths I see on the road driven by a solitary occupant.

Leaving fools paradise won't be easy. But it looks like we've been kicked out of the garden. High prices are here to stay. Bush gets only partial credit for that one. The Chinese and Indians also get partial credit, as does the wastefulness we've practiced here the past few decades. Its high time to figure out how to adapt.

Great info, Karl. Good to see you posting here again.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[mendeleev 68]

Wondering if maybe it would be better not to butt into Gary's monologue ... but

I read in the Financial Times (that liberal rag) a couple days ago that the biggest untapped source of oil in the USA is under Detroit -- referring to the potential of the not-as-Big-as-they-used-to-be 3 to contribute to US energy security by figuring out how to sell energy-efficient cars. GM (Opel) and Ford (Europe) don't do so badly at it in Europe but they haven't found a way to bring that expertise home -- and so they cede market share to the Japanese. Maybe Congress will finally help Detroit by forcing substantial increases in fuel economy ... in effect legislating a demand that they become competitive since they haven't figured out otherwise that they need to be. (I used to work in this industry, on the inside, and know firsthand how severely management there hasn't figure this out.) Oh, who was it who was opposing increases in fuel economy for the past 15 years? Don't think that opposition was exactly rooted in liberalism. Gary, can you help me out there in understanding that?

Maybe Gary hasn't heard of Hubble, a Shell oil analyst who correctly predicted that the USA would peak in its oil production in the late 1960s and begin an irreversible decline. (Is Shell Oil a hotbed of libaralism?) The cries on the right to open this shred of land or that parcel of ocean has been fig leaf to cover an inability to propose an energy policy that has a real, physical basis of working for the long term. You can't power the demands of this country on mined domestic liquid fuels. The resource just isn't there. Sorry Gary, its a scientific fact that you might not be able to do a good job analyzing. But the question hasn't been in serious scientific debate for nearly 40 years. Sure you can find outliers .. but not real, serious debate. The USA is in irreversible decline for oil production. Russia maybe and if it isn't, they are close. Saudi Arabia will be there soon. Iraq would be, but foreign intervention has kept their industry shut down for the last decade. If the chaos there were to magically stop, they might offer a brief reprieve. Things look bleak for a significant increase in production globally of this mined resource. Gotta try something very different. Not sure Gary understands that.

As I said in another thread lately, it is great to be working for a new energy company. I'm humping 60 hrs, 80 hrs, sometimes more a week working to create a sustainable liquid fuel industry that will improve US energy security, mitigate global warming, and help create the basis of an energy economy that will be able to go on indefinitely, rather than living, as Gary seems to advocate, on borrowed time, mining an already depleted resource. It is a very good mid-career change. I suppose if I truly didn't like people or care about the basis of western society sustaining itself energetically, I'd work in plastics and make a lot more money and have a lot more free time.

And this liberal *never* owned a SUV. Presently I own the least fuel economical car I've ever owned -- with an automatic transmission (to make easier for my immigrant wife to learn to drive) that gets only 35 mpg in the city. I've been working the demand side of the equation for decades. Looks a bit countercultural, given all the behemoths I see on the road driven by a solitary occupant.

Leaving fools paradise won't be easy. But it looks like we've been kicked out of the garden. High prices are here to stay. Bush gets only partial credit for that one. The Chinese and Indians also get partial credit, as does the wastefulness we've practiced here the past few decades. Its high time to figure out how to adapt.

Great info, Karl. Good to see you posting here again.

Thanks. I pop in and out. Maybe its just me, but it seems when I respond to Gary on topic, he has nothing to say and changes the subject.

[GaryC 7]

Wondering if maybe it would be better not to butt into Gary's monologue ... but

I read in the Financial Times (that liberal rag) a couple days ago that the biggest untapped source of oil in the USA is under Detroit -- referring to the potential of the not-as-Big-as-they-used-to-be 3 to contribute to US energy security by figuring out how to sell energy-efficient cars. GM (Opel) and Ford (Europe) don't do so badly at it in Europe but they haven't found a way to bring that expertise home -- and so they cede market share to the Japanese. Maybe Congress will finally help Detroit by forcing substantial increases in fuel economy ... in effect legislating a demand that they become competitive since they haven't figured out otherwise that they need to be. (I used to work in this industry, on the inside, and know firsthand how severely management there hasn't figure this out.) Oh, who was it who was opposing increases in fuel economy for the past 15 years? Don't think that opposition was exactly rooted in liberalism. Gary, can you help me out there in understanding that?

Maybe Gary hasn't heard of Hubble, a Shell oil analyst who correctly predicted that the USA would peak in its oil production in the late 1960s and begin an irreversible decline. (Is Shell Oil a hotbed of libaralism?) The cries on the right to open this shred of land or that parcel of ocean has been fig leaf to cover an inability to propose an energy policy that has a real, physical basis of working for the long term. You can't power the demands of this country on mined domestic liquid fuels. The resource just isn't there. Sorry Gary, its a scientific fact that you might not be able to do a good job analyzing. But the question hasn't been in serious scientific debate for nearly 40 years. Sure you can find outliers .. but not real, serious debate. The USA is in irreversible decline for oil production. Russia maybe and if it isn't, they are close. Saudi Arabia will be there soon. Iraq would be, but foreign intervention has kept their industry shut down for the last decade. If the chaos there were to magically stop, they might offer a brief reprieve. Things look bleak for a significant increase in production globally of this mined resource. Gotta try something very different. Not sure Gary understands that.

As I said in another thread lately, it is great to be working for a new energy company. I'm humping 60 hrs, 80 hrs, sometimes more a week working to create a sustainable liquid fuel industry that will improve US energy security, mitigate global warming, and help create the basis of an energy economy that will be able to go on indefinitely, rather than living, as Gary seems to advocate, on borrowed time, mining an already depleted resource. It is a very good mid-career change. I suppose if I truly didn't like people or care about the basis of western society sustaining itself energetically, I'd work in plastics and make a lot more money and have a lot more free time.

And this liberal *never* owned a SUV. Presently I own the least fuel economical car I've ever owned -- with an automatic transmission (to make easier for my immigrant wife to learn to drive) that gets only 35 mpg in the city. I've been working the demand side of the equation for decades. Looks a bit countercultural, given all the behemoths I see on the road driven by a solitary occupant.

Leaving fools paradise won't be easy. But it looks like we've been kicked out of the garden. High prices are here to stay. Bush gets only partial credit for that one. The Chinese and Indians also get partial credit, as does the wastefulness we've practiced here the past few decades. Its high time to figure out how to adapt.

Great info, Karl. Good to see you posting here again.

Thanks. I pop in and out. Maybe its just me, but it seems when I respond to Gary on topic, he has nothing to say and changes the subject.

It isn't really on topic. The subject isn't that we are running out of oil, or the various ways to find different types of energy, or the idea that we could be more efficient with what we have. Those are valid points but not the subject for this topic. This subject is about the fact that we can be drilling more of our own and are not. We could have an easier time with it right now while we are looking for alternatives. We could be enriching the Saudis a little less while at the same time paying less for our gas. The liberal elite of this country seems to think that by making as much pain at the pump as they can is the only way to advance the alternatives. They are doing this rather than demonstrating leadership in this area and making alternatives a reality. What really blows my mind is the very same leaders that vote against drilling our own oil are the same ones that vote down new nuclear power plants, coal plants and refineries. It's as if they want us to feel the maximum pain possible.

[rika60607 215]

Gary,

there is an easier way to have less pain at the pump than drilling - yeah, just use more efficient cars.

Oh I see - but those poor folks can't afford to trade in their old SUVs.... Well, wasn't it you, who were preaching personal responsibility when the talk was about health insurance? Why should people be personally responsible (and let them die if they are not) about their health insurance, but not about the type of car they drive?

It is possible to buy a $2000 reliable used four door sedan that will give you 32-34 MPG. That's what poor carpenters should be driving.

(that's what I, a poor elitist, drive)

Rika

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The numbers, my friend, are from the very government that your buddy runs. The facts are the facts. You can ignore them all you want but they are still the facts. And quoting a poll from VJ is about as weak as it gets. Try and read up about proper and meaningful polling. The poll section in VJ isn't it.

They are not the "facts" as much as you would like them to be. It is just one small part of a large economy that you cherry picked to try and paint the economy they way you want it to look like. Try looking at the big picture for once and let go of your BDS.

It's a "small" part that affects most Americans and it's called one's wallet.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, the liberal elite control the pump prices now too? Wow, they are good for a group that is merely a label attached to whomsoever fits it at any given time (I have yet to hear who constitutes the 'liberal elite' but I expect Al Gore will be one of them). I expect Gary to now prove how the 'liberal elite' own all the means of gas production and distribution, controlled the car companies to only produce gas guzzling monsters, created a false sense of security after the oil crisis in the 70's among the general public so that they continued to demand gas guzzling cars instead of more economical and fuel efficient forms of transport and have been secretly buying up all the land that contains the gas reserves in the US. Now their 'evil' plan is beginning to hatch out, all those nasty little Republican poor people are hurting bad and the 'liberal elite' are laughing in their ivory tower.

I expect he will show us how the 'liberal elite' somehow plotted to ensure that mass transportation systems can never work in the majority of US cities and maybe are at the bottom of the housing slump too.

Quite the conspiracy theory and definitely saves one from actually having to think maybe, just maybe it's not exactly a great idea to base the economy and society on ever increasing growth?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It isn't really on topic. The subject isn't that we are running out of oil, or the various ways to find different types of energy, or the idea that we could be more efficient with what we have. Those are valid points but not the subject for this topic. This subject is about the fact that we can be drilling more of our own and are not. We could have an easier time with it right now while we are looking for alternatives. We could be enriching the Saudis a little less while at the same time paying less for our gas. The liberal elite of this country seems to think that by making as much pain at the pump as they can is the only way to advance the alternatives. They are doing this rather than demonstrating leadership in this area and making alternatives a reality. What really blows my mind is the very same leaders that vote against drilling our own oil are the same ones that vote down new nuclear power plants, coal plants and refineries. It's as if they want us to feel the maximum pain possible.

Gary, he just explained why focusing on drilling for more oil as the centerpiece of your solution is futile because the biggest step we could take right now is to reduce our consumption, which the oil companies have fought long and hard against. I challenge you to post a finding by legitimate geophysicists who have no political or financial ties to corporations, that drilling for oil in ANWR will bring us more than about 2 percent of our current annual consumption.

....

Republican Party members will often propagate the misconception that America could achieve independence from expensive, foreign oil and meet her energy needs "if only those damn, tree-hugging environmentalists would get out of the way and let us drill for oil in Alaska." Two spots in the Arctic have drawn the most attention in recent years for their oil and natural gas potential, albeit seriously limited:

The northern coastal plain (also known as the 1002 area) of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) set aside for possible oil and gas production in 1980 by President Carter and a Democratic Congress Offshore in the nearly 30-million-acre Lease Sale 193 area of the Chukchi Sea; off Alaska's northwest coast, above the Bering Strait and to the east of Russia's Wrangel Island A special interest Website devoted to the commencement of drilling is http://www.anwr.org/. They fail to offer the whole truth of the matter; one that is far different from the promising picture painted.

Why do certain groups and politicians propose drilling in ANWR is a solution?

The obvious perils of oil dependence first surfaced in the 1970s. For their part, some politicians are ignorant and some corrupt. Others realize that they have failed miserably in offering candor, providing leadership, incentives, and moral backing to the quest of moving beyond fossil fuels. Few – Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) is one such exception – are informed and courageous enough to publicly acknowledge the straight truth about oil's future.

To compensate for energy-policy failure, they are eager to appear as though they still have the situation well in-hand with a solid "back-up plan". Instead of spending the last 30 years on the path to true independence from non-renewable fossil fuels, it was spent insulating the oil industry from competition through their puppets in Washington, D.C., even when they were well aware of the problem. Blaming environmentalists and Arabs has long been an expedient approach to deflecting responsibility and political consequence.

Moreover, a great deal of money still stands to be made by business and the politicians they influence. The oil companies, like most other businesses, operate to make money. Understandably, they seek to reap a profit from the exploration and drilling for, refinement, distribution and selling of their product, oil and oil derivatives.

The bottom line: there are several industries, though Chevron is quietly warning, with political benefactors committed to fossil fuels maintaining profit-rearing dominance and doing everything in their power to see things stay exactly as they are.

Alternative and renewable energy sources – like solar, wind, wave, and biodiesel – are not a distant proposal in the mind of scientists and engineers. In many cases, they remain economically uncompetitive in the face of fossil fuel preferences enacted into law. The current price of oil does not directly include, for example, the full cost of road maintenance, health and environmental costs attributed to air pollution, the financial risks of global warming from increasing carbon dioxide emissions, or the complications to foreign affairs from importing oil. Alternatives are sometimes commercially shelved as oil corporations have routinely purchased the patent rights to prevent these inventions from being shared with the world.

According to Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) while serving in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 2007:

The average estimate for economically recoverable oil in ANWR is 10.3 billion barrels. That is double the amount of all the oil in Texas, and almost half the total U.S. proven reserves. When we send our hard-earned money overseas to import oil, we send American jobs and American national security right along with it.

Representative Pombo's seemingly heartfelt and cogent statement capitalizes on the ignorance and appeals to the emotions of the American electorate. His contention does not stand even a soft analysis; one need only consider the oil available against oil consumed. He also distorts the argument by suggesting the amount of oil in ANWR surpasses that which lay in virgin Texas ground; Texas past its peak in 1973.

While the Federal Government estimates that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil – and possibly as many as 16 billion barrels – may be recoverable from the Arctic refuge, environmentalists contend the refuge contains no more than 3.2 billion barrels, but neither is enough to dramatically ease the country's reliance on imports!

How much oil and natural gas is in ANWR?

In 1980, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated the coastal plain could contain up to 17 billion barrels of oil and 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

After several years of surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (1983-84 and 1984-85), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) released the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment and Legislative Environmental Impact Statement in April 1987. This report on the oil and gas potential of the coastal plain estimated that "in-place resources" range from 4.8 billion to 29.4 billion barrels of oil. Recoverable oil estimates ranged from 600 million (95 percent chance) to 9.2 billion barrels (5 percent chance). They reported identifying 26 separate oil and gas prospects in the coastal plain that could each contain 500 million barrels or more.

The most recent petroleum assessment prepared by the USGS in 1998 (Open File Report 98-34), increased the estimate for technically recoverable mean crude oil resources to the range of 5.7 to 16 billion barrels.

The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's 1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any of the lower 48 states. ANWR could conceivably produce nearly 1.4 million barrels of oil, while Texas produces just more than one million barrels a day, California just less than one million barrels a day and Louisiana produces slightly more than two hundred thousand barrels a day. Alaskan natural gas production could add 1.1 to 1.5 trillion cubic feet per year to U.S. natural gas supplies.

http://truthalert.net/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Energy%20Culture%20and%20Population.htm