I am sure that most of you are aware of my staunch pro-environmental stance here on TWW but recent events have made me question all of that. Captivating and compelling headlines have challenged my previously held beliefs as to the potential risks inherent to activities such as offshore drilling. That stated, it has been made very clear to me that my concerns were completely unfounded and that drilling for oil and gas off of our coasts is exceptionally safe and should be expanded with all due haste to any and every potential source that we find.

Take for example, the modern oil platform:

It's sturdy and practically invincible construction is a modern marvel. It stands as a testament against the anti-capitalists and tree-huggers who claim rigs pose a fire potential of epic proportions.

Here again:

We see the radiating structure of the modern oil platform at night blazing a trail into the future of energy independence.

But, purely for the sake of argument for all of you liberal hippies out there, that something did go wrong. The ocean is a very large place and the drilling that is being conducted is so far out that there is no way coastlines could possibly be affected.


But hey, don't take my word for it, hear it straight from a well respected and trusted leader of a Gulf Coast state advocating the merits of offshore drilling.

Quote :

"Clearly that one isn't far enough and that's about 50 to 60 miles out, it's clearly not clean enough after we saw what we saw today — that's horrific — and it certainly isn't safe enough. It's the opposite of safe," [Gov. Charlie] Crist said."

Besides, today's drilling takes place far beneath the water in order to safely conduct extraction. We're talking a mile or so and if one or two little blobs of oil squirt out, who cares? It's not like any humans live down there anyways.


Lastly, I tried reaching not just one but eleven brave men who work out on oil rigs so they could tell you themselves what a thrill and honor it is to be on the scorching edge of capitalism in action as interest in exploration practically exploded with the president's comments a few weeks ago pertaining to the expansion of offshore oil exploration. Sadly, they could not be reached for comment.

So perhaps Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity were correct all along. Drilling ourselves to a better future is possible. Cheap energy is the American way after all. What harm could come from sticking a few holes in the ground?

4/28/2010 10:27:07 AM

Fuck the earth, I want low gas prices no matter what the cost.

4/28/2010 10:29:32 AM

Also global warming is a myth perpetrated by hippie faggots.

There's no way that consuming naturally produced resources at an exponential rate could possibly negatively affect an ecosystem that we depend on for survival.

4/28/2010 10:30:13 AM

when was the last time (before this rig) that an oil rig shit the bed? how many rigs are in operation? for how long?

I dont know the answers to these questions but there are reasonable risks involved with just about any method of harvesting energy.

4/28/2010 10:36:51 AM

Yes, solar panels and wind mills always have a slight chance of exploding in giant inextinguishable balls of fire that spill billions of gallons of fluid into our oceans. Thanks for pointing that out.

4/28/2010 10:38:36 AM

Quote :

"when was the last time (before this rig) that an oil rig shit the bed? how many rigs are in operation? for how long? I dont know the answers to these questions but there are reasonable risks involved with just about any method of harvesting energy."

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/losses.htm

4/28/2010 10:41:37 AM

i unironically want low gas prices and global warming.

4/28/2010 10:56:34 AM

very few of those are American, and the chart doesnt mention environmental damage.

solar and wind are not yet viable options. you cant store the energy effectively and there are difficulties transmitting that power over long distances.

4/28/2010 10:59:28 AM

^ that doesn't mean you don't try. how about diverting some of the money used for oil/gas exploration into clean technology development. the return on investment will present itself. the long-term damage from even one oil spill is something that ultimately can't be calculated, and the U.S. has never had to deal with a deepwater oil spill this large or this far out in the ocean before.

4/28/2010 11:07:15 AM

What caused the explosion and sinking of this oil rig anyway?

As far as my stance, while its regrettable you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

4/28/2010 11:09:58 AM

I was going to make this thread.

The hubris of the right regarding drilling safety was pretty profound.

4/28/2010 11:10:19 AM

^^ broken eggs don't cost millions of dollars to clean up, or cause long-term ecological damage to hundreds of square miles of ocean.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ^]

4/28/2010 11:10:53 AM

Replace that m with a b.

4/28/2010 11:12:22 AM

^the company should (and I'm sure will) be held accountable for any clean up costs. And long term the Gulf will return to normal. It's definitely unfortunate though.

4/28/2010 11:12:23 AM

how long term is long term? i mean, this is pretty damn bad.

4/28/2010 11:19:17 AM

Quote :

"^ that doesn't mean you don't try. how about diverting some of the money used for oil/gas exploration into clean technology development. the return on investment will present itself. the long-term damage from even one oil spill is something that ultimately can't be calculated, and the U.S. has never had to deal with a deepwater oil spill this large or this far out in the ocean before."

I am all for the most efficient and cleanest ways to acquire energy. I dont care if it is solar, wind, nuclear or petroleum. We are diverting money into clean technology development. Hell, thats all you hear now. Eventually, we will find a good alternative but we have not yet.

It appears to me that the system we have now is the best we have and that we are still several years, if not decades, away from a viable alternate. we cannot abandon oil now, therefore we have to keep drilling and developing oil reserves. we really have no choice.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/28/2010 11:23:43 AM

Quote :

"while its regrettable you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."

Wildlife sanctuaries, after all, are a dime a dozen, right? Or did Fox News forget to mention that's where the slick is moving towards.

4/28/2010 11:29:45 AM

shit happens.

4/28/2010 11:37:28 AM

Im not sure what your point is HockeyRoman, do you drive a car? Buy groceries at the grocery store?

I guess we should outlaw airplanes, cars, and really anything man made bc sometimes it breaks down. I imagine the place you live used to have wildlife on it, what a selfish foxnews loving idiot you must be to think you can tear up nature for your own survival.

Good lord people. Grow up, we need oil now and we just cant wave the magic "green" wand and it suddenly appears. People died here trying to provide energy to the world and you post this.

good post DaBird.

4/28/2010 11:43:02 AM

Quote :

"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years...there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles [32 kilometers] from the seeps. "

shit happens, even when we have nothing to do with it

4/28/2010 11:45:38 AM

Quote :

"Im not sure what your point is HockeyRoman, do you drive a car? Buy groceries at the grocery store? I guess we should outlaw airplanes, cars, and really anything man made bc sometimes it breaks down. I imagine the place you live used to have wildlife on it, what a selfish foxnews loving idiot you must be to think you can tear up nature for your own survival. Good lord people. Grow up, we need oil now and we just cant wave the magic "green" wand and it suddenly appears. People died here trying to provide energy to the world and you post this."

Please go back up to the top of the thread and look at the photos and maps posted. The point is that we need to be accelerating away from the use of non-renewable energy sources. Until we start really ramping up hard on alternate energy sources, stuff like what's happening in the gulf is just going to keep happening. When's enough going to be enough?

4/28/2010 11:50:16 AM

If you want to get off oil is actually real real simple. First off, replace the crap and trade bill with a functional one that does a flat carbon tax across all producers that increases every year. Thats all the bill should do. No special treatment, no subsidies to friends of politicians. A flat, in-escapable carbon tax.

In addition, create legislation that grants businesses and individuals major tax credits (were talking up near 100%) for the installation of wind/solar/geothermal/etc... power generation in their home/businesses up to average usage. Batteries and related equipment will NOT be elegible for credits. Instead, require all power distributors to allow consumers to put excess generated electricity back on the grid at the price when generated. At the same time end all subsidies to any specific manufacturer/builder/installer of these types of equipment.

The goal being to eliminate the absolutely fucking stupid supply side meddling that only benefits the friends of the politicians who can get the special treatment. Instead, all companies will be on level ground competing for the massive influx of demand from individuals and businesses for new installations.

Step 3, encourage the production of new, modern nuclear power plants in order to handle the base load that wind and solar cannot handle.

The goal of all of this would be to replace oil and coal with nuclear, encourage new development of nuclear tech, and to have anyone capable of producing their own power do so whereever possible to decrease overall power demand.

4/28/2010 11:52:32 AM

good post Shaggy

but we all know that wont happen with the tide of political BS in the country currently against passing anything LOGICAL. if by some miracle something like that were ever implemented there would still be a significant amount of time we would still be dependent on oil. therefore, KEEP DRILLING.

4/28/2010 12:07:31 PM

Step 1: Destroy the suburbs and rebuild cities that revolve around public transportation, bicycling, and walking.

Step 2: Purchase large amounts of hybrid vehicles from domestic car manufacturers. Sell these for the purchase price to consumers.

Step 3: Ban all vehicles with a combined < 30mpg by 2020.

Step 4: Ban all coal and natural gas energy by 2025.

4/28/2010 12:12:16 PM

Getting natural gas out of homes is going to be hard, just like it will be hard to get heating oil out of a lot of homes in the northeast. There's an awful lot of construction going on in Raleigh where gas pipes are an integral component in home and water heating.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason : also, i rather like what Shaggy wrote, minus huge tax credits]

4/28/2010 12:15:49 PM

I mean there's a reason no one in NYC drives a car.

4/28/2010 12:19:07 PM

natural gas probably isn't going away any time soon, but thats not a big problem. The us has plenty of natural gas to go around and its not as big a deal as oil or coal. The only real problem with natural gas is transportation. I mean, the entire reason we're so addicted to gasoline is because there is nothing anywhere that packs that much energy into something thats so easily portable in such a small space and that can be that easily produced.

4/28/2010 12:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Step 1: Destroy the suburbs and rebuild cities that revolve around public transportation, bicycling, and walking. "

I'm not certain there is an emoticon for how many LOLs this generates. Is this a serious post?

4/28/2010 12:21:36 PM

Quote :

"I mean there's a reason no one in NYC drives a car."

Yeah, because there's too much traffic.

4/28/2010 12:26:58 PM

Quote :

"minus huge tax credits"

huge tax credits are the only way it will work

4/28/2010 12:28:37 PM

step 1: End ALL subsidies to Oil Companies

(which btw I think Obama is trying to do in the 2011 budget)

4/28/2010 12:30:42 PM

Better city designs would be a good thing, but many people dont want to live in a city for many reasons (too many people, no outdoors, inability to go places on a whim, too expensive, etc... etc...). Encouraging people to work from home would be a good step torwards decreasing car usage and would actually be a viable fix.

4/28/2010 12:31:18 PM

Quote :

"huge tax credits are the only way it will work"

I'm not disagreeing, but that will cause a shitstorm even larger than the attempt to get off of fossil fuels.

4/28/2010 12:33:29 PM

Quote :

"I mean there's a reason no one in NYC drives a car."

Because parking is expensive so there are tens of thousands of people who drive around the city in cars all day and give people rides in exchange for money?

Personally, I can relate to this thread as I weaned myself off of Slim Jim after their factory exploded last year.

4/28/2010 12:35:03 PM

Spill, Baby, Spill

4/28/2010 12:38:24 PM

Quote :

"I'm not certain there is an emoticon for how many LOLs this generates. Is this a serious post?"

It's not sustainable to live on a society where you are forced to drive in your own personal vehicle at least 15-30 miles each way to your place of business.

Quote :

"Yeah, because there's too much traffic."

And there's a subway.

And taxis.

And sidewalks.

And everything is close together.

4/28/2010 12:39:53 PM

(I was joking.)

4/28/2010 12:42:26 PM

(I know, boo )

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-]

4/28/2010 12:43:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm not disagreeing, but that will cause a shitstorm even larger than the attempt to get off of fossil fuels. "

no doubt, but i think its the path of least resistance. Doing what god suggested would work as well, of course, but theres so few people who wouldn't object that it would be impractical.

The only opponents of the large tax credits would be big government types who dont like reductions in their income/power. the oil/coal industry, and probably the bettery companies who are currently rolling in the money obama is wasting on them.

As long as you spin it to americans as "this will lower your bills" and "this will remove our dependence on the middle east" instead of the current "wahh wahh the planet you dumb idiots need to stop doing what you're doing" then it would have a large amount of support from the common man.

4/28/2010 1:06:16 PM

Quote :

"Step 2: Purchase large amounts of hybrid vehicles from domestic car manufacturers. Sell these for the purchase price to consumers"

Good idea, let's ramp up production of worthless hybrids and rape the earth further of its precious metals via strip mines From a cost and energy efficiency point of view diesels are much better.

Quote :

"Please go back up to the top of the thread and look at the photos and maps posted. The point is that we need to be accelerating away from the use of non-renewable energy sources. Until we start really ramping up hard on alternate energy sources, stuff like what's happening in the gulf is just going to keep happening. When's enough going to be enough?"

You want to pay for it? Knock yourself out.

4/28/2010 1:21:11 PM

Quote :

"It's not sustainable to live on a society where you are forced to drive in your own personal vehicle at least 15-30 miles each way to your place of business."

You call it being forced. I call it having the freedom to work where I want and live where I want, as well as having businesses be where they want (within reason). Whether it is sustainable is up for argument, as is whether the cost of rebuilding urban centers in this country would be less than the cost of developing nanotechnology to eat all the bad things for our environment and shit out good things.

I don't mind the hybrid and eventually electric cars ideas. The more things we can convert from gas to electric the better, especially when fusion power rolls in. What we need is more funding on nuclear and fusion research. If we take scarcity of energy out of the equation we'll have a lot more freedom to make every system environmentally friendly.

4/28/2010 1:23:33 PM

^agreed.

4/28/2010 1:24:33 PM

Ah yes, the FREEDOM argument.

I want to have the FREEDOM to pollute however much I want.

Hey, we both live on the same lawn. I don't want you shitting on it.

4/28/2010 1:27:31 PM

arguing with you about freedom is about as futile as explaining gravity to my dog.

4/28/2010 1:35:05 PM

And throwing everyone in a fucking city isn't any better. Instead of having the pollution spread out, you have a concentration of it, resulting in smog (you're familiar with San Francisco) and acid rain.

Getting rid of the suburbs would increase the efficiency of our energy use, no doubt. But we're still using fossil fuels, there will still be off-shore drilling and there will still be "shitting on your lawn."

Putting everyone in cities just decreases the size of the same lawn that we share. Instead of having a 10 acre lawn to shit on, we'll just have a 1 acre lawn to shit on.

Getting rid of the suburbs isn't the answer.

4/28/2010 1:43:09 PM

Quote :

"Yes, solar panels and wind mills always have a slight chance of exploding in giant inextinguishable balls of fire that spill billions of gallons of fluid into our oceans. Thanks for pointing that out."

Not to minimize the problems that oil production causes for the environment, but it's not like the mining processes used to obtain the materials for solar panels and wind mills, in addition to the manufacturing and disposal processes are perfectly harmless activities in regards to their impact on the environment. Never mind the environmental impact of all the batteries needed to store the energy generated. Not to mention there's always the possibilities that massive use of solar / wind technologies could have further unforeseen consequences. And solar / wind technologies aren't practically usable in many places around the country due to geography.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more solar and wind production, in addition to nuclear power, but let's not pretend they don't have their own environmental concerns.

Quote :

"Step 1: Destroy the suburbs and rebuild cities that revolve around public transportation, bicycling, and walking. Step 2: Purchase large amounts of hybrid vehicles from domestic car manufacturers. Sell these for the purchase price to consumers. Step 3: Ban all vehicles with a combined < 30mpg by 2020. Step 4: Ban all coal and natural gas energy by 2025."

1) What do you suppose the environmental impact of tearing down all the existing suburbs and implementing massive urban expansion would be? Also note that urban areas are hardly bastions of nature and health.

2) Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to mandate that hybrids can't be sold at a markup of more than x%? Also, why only domestics?

3) What do you suppose the environmental impact of throwing away 90% of the american motor fleet, and replacing it with newer vehicles would be? Never mind the economic impact of requiring people who can barely afford a $2000 car to now have to spend $30k+ on a new car, and completely eliminating the entire used car market.

4) Yeah... solar / wind heating in upstate NY isn't going to work.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/28/2010 1:43:48 PM

I'd rather have a concentrated 10 mile radius city than a 25 mile suburban sprawl.

4/28/2010 1:53:19 PM

^ With 5 times the population density of the 25 mile radius and smog problems within 10 years of construction.

4/28/2010 1:59:41 PM

I am not sure when people started thinking cities were so environmentally friendly.

Sure, energy consumption per person is probably lower in densely populated areas, but its bit of a leap to assume that means they are "good for environment".

What about almost every other measure of environmental quality? Air quality in major U.S. cities is awful exactly because you have millions of drivers packed on top of one another (please dont tell me you thought everyone in cities used the tube to travel). Surface water quality in cities like NY, Chicago, etc is piss poor not just because people there are filthy, but because the entire fucking place is covered in impervious surface area so when it rains all the oil/garbage/chemicals gets washed off.

But even if we wanted to ignore all that and say "well, we're just talking about global warming" it still isn't clear that cities are the most environmentally friendly option.

First, cities import everything from food to Scandinavian furniture and transporting that stuff and I have not yet seen a hybrid transfer truck or plane to do that job.

Second, more buildings means less tress. Suburbanites and Rural residents might have to drive more than your average city dweller, but suburbs and rural areas are littered with greenways that serve as carbon sinks that at least partially offset some of their emissions.

Lastly, even though energy consumption per person is lower in cities, there are still a shit ton of people in those places. As a result, the largest energy consumers are states like NY and CA:
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/120.htm

Even though they have among the lowest energy consumption per person:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_tot_ene_con_percap-energy-total-consumption-per-capita

You want to use less energy? Get less people. So add "genocide" to that list of steps.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ``]

4/28/2010 2:11:31 PM

^^It's entirely possible to contruct an urban metropolis that doesn't use automobiles.

^I can't get anywhere in Cary without driving.

I can't get groceries without travelling 3 miles.

I can't get clothes without travelling 5 miles.

I can't get to my work without travelling 10 miles.

Plus, I am one person driving a Yukon Denali that gets 15 mpg.

If I lived in Chicago, NYC, Portland, or Seattle, I could walk a few blocks or hop on a subway. I would never have to own a vehicle.

[Edited on April 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

4/28/2010 2:12:20 PM