there may be some environmentalists who are totally against drilling but not all are. i am not against it, as long as it is regulated and safe. as far as your comment on campaign money, you are 100% correct. There should be a law that prevents any institution from contributing to campaigns. In my opinion that is the biggest problem with this country. People who are elected do not have the people's best interest at heart, they only care about appeasing the bastards who shelled out dough on their campaigns.
OK. Your numbers are bullchit. That is 8 years under the best conditions, chief, if we don;t use imported oil. We must buy foreign oil until a technical breakthrough is made in generating and storing electrical power.
That's your data for the argument that you're making? Thanks. You just made my claim that you're uneducated on the subject look pretty bulletproof. I am not sure what the point you're trying to make here. I don't see anyone arguing with you that Environmentalists generally spend more dollars lobbying Democrats than Republicans. ($3.6 million in 2010 D:91%/R:9%) What you seem to ignore is the vastly larger amounts of money that Oil Companies give to both Republicans and Democrats ($27.5 million in 2010 D:23%/R:77%). Last year Democrats received $2.7 million from Environmental Lobbies and $5.9 million from Oil & Gas Lobbies. If it's as simple as the $$$ why are the Democrats ignoring the people who gave them twice as much? I tell you the reason: They're not. They're doing exactly what the Oil & Gas Companies want them to do. If you just ask yourself "Who stands to gain from seeing me break the bank to fill up my car?" the answer is not "Environmentalists". Your argument of "Environmentalists are lobbying the Democrats" being the reason why gas prices are rising and it's simply not accurate. Not only is not accurate, it's ****ing retarded. It sure as hell doesn't begin to explain why gas prices skyrocketed to th ehighest prices in my lifetime right in the middle of a GOP majority in Washington DC (Legislative, Executive) and it doesn't explain why gas prices are high right now. It completely ignores how Oil Companies manipulate the market to increase their profits. Thinking that drilling in ANWR or the Gulf would lower gas prices is like thinking that boycotting the purchase of auto gas for a day would have any effect whatsoever on the pocketbooks of Big Oil. The biggest effect that environmentalists have on the oil industry is probably the local impact of jobs.
but clearly environmenalsts do want precisely that, as oil prices drive down use and drive money into alternatives. the best thing an environmetalis can hope for is high gas prices. if you believe them, it might literally save the world. your sense of entitlement is absolutely insane. again, i liken this to you negotiating your salary at work. or labor unions striking for pay. or any buyer or seller of anything in the history of the universe trying to make money. its not wrong. if oil costs too much dont buy it. or buy less. it really isnt your concern what oil companies do with the market. again ,your philosophy can be summer up with "me wanty".
You missed his point. Environmentalists aren't profiting from oil price increases, Big Oil is. It may not be yours but evryone else in the world has to be concerned. Not buying gas is not an option for 99% of us. If you can't realize this, you are a fool. Yours can be summed up with "me apathetic".
you are missing my point. high oil prices could literally save the world, if you believe the environmentalists. well, it isnt a concern for me or you, like you said, you are not bothered and you drive a gas guzzler even for commuting and errands when you dont need a big car. get back to me when gas prices are such that you actually change your behavior. thats true of all of us. none of us appear to be willing to change our behavior at all. we want to change other people's behavior. we want to impose our prices on other people, and pretend we have no other options. meanwhile we all drive SUVs.
No. That's my argument for "even if we drill now it'll take 10 years to have any effect. As for Red, I can cite links that will say there are 500 Billion barrels of oil in ANWR and in the Northern plains, but I won 't.
I think the section here (in my italics) sums up the whole issue. No matter how much or how little of the ultimate solution you may think green energy is, the fact remains that green energy can't solve our problems today. Not enough green cars on the road, not enough in production to replace the gasoline-powered cars, no way for everyone in America to switch over to them in if there were, not enough infrastructure to support them. Green energy may be the wave of the future, but today, its oil. Its in America's best economic and security interests to produce as much as possible, and the Obama administration is failing (or refusing, depending on your beliefs) to make it happen. I posted this thought here when Bush was pres, and I'll post it again: I believe the President should approach the energy independence issue with the same sense of urgency - a "national mission", if you will - that America took with the space race in the 60's. The mission should be to achieve as much oil independence as possible, as quickly as possible, while simultaneously doing whatever can be done to develop affordable and sustainable energy alternatives. America went from barely being able to get a rocket off the launch pad, to successfully landing men on the moon and returning them home safely, in less than 20 years. Why couldn't the goals I've proposed by achieved in the same time?
Same as I said earlier. If we can put a man on the moon and build a stealth bomber why can't we have a 300 hp auto getting fifty miles per gallon? Red said that the r&d would be in the billions. The patent on this engine would net it's producer billions. The incentive is there but our best and brightest aren't on it. DARPA should be on this problem with the us gov working on it as a matter of national security.
