Monday, February 14, 2005

Other enviro news

Expanded drilling in Alaska
"While most of the 22 million-acre reserve is open to oil development, its lake-pocked northeastern corner has been fenced off, dating back to the Reagan administration, because of environmental concerns. That area also is viewed as having the highest oil and gas potential within the reserve."

My question is when is enough? I suspect that since the flood gates have already opened it will only be a matter of time. On the other hand, the oil industry might show gratitude to the Administration for all the favors by leaving the untampered northeastern for the people.

"Most of the federal petroleum reserve was opened for oil drilling during the Clinton administration, although then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt fenced off 840,000 acres, including the area around Lake Teshekpuk. Norton expanded drilling in the reserve last year, but also left the northeastern section alone."

Very generous of the Interior Secretary. Gale Norton has a horrific environmental record. One of the "key players" which I hope to expose in later posts. (Though others have already done so.)

Fourth-warmest year on record

4 comments:

Dry Guy said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Dry Guy said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Dry Guy said...

The Bush Administration has rolled back the clocks to a dependence on gas and only gas as a vehicle choice considering the "alternative" fuel progress has been dampened by cuts for the sake of its oil-friendly commitments. This alone is another example of the conservative movements talk of how in America you have the freedom of choice, yet the Administration implements controlling favors to the oil industry to reap as much profits by dousing other alternatives, and therefore, competition.

"And as a final tragedy, the US would stop being dependent on scum regimes around the world -- yet another circumstance that must drive the enlightened to tears."

I doubt those against drilling have that intention.

"The people deserve to pay more for costly and inefficient "alternative" (euphemism for "last resort") energy sources; it's for their own good, after all."

Well of course those "alternative" sources would cost more because they sit in the minority of the market. As its market expands, so too would the prices decline. And I'm not certain hybrid or fuel cell are inefficient.

Dry Guy said...

"Folks like yourself seem to want to FORCE people to pay more. The free market demand for such obviously isn't there."

Of course not. Again, one of the reasons the demand isn't there is because everytime an "alternative" has thought to been introduced, the powers that be have placed their *influence* in ways that would not exactly make it in to a childrens bedtime story.

"As for those against the agenda to stop being dependent on foreign oil: it doesn't matter what their intentions are. The end result is that we are still dependent on foreign oil. The United States economy runs on cheap oil; if that sounds unacceptable, let me turn that around: prosperity will suffer if oil becomes more expensive, or, worse, we're forced via government fiat to try (ahem) alternative energy sources.

I repeat: the economy will suffer if we don't have cheap oil."

I understand that. The idea is to slowly widdle away at something that will run out eventually. And because the said powers have no interest in thinking of the time when our dependence on an alternative is truly needed, they in fact will be creating the very economical hazards the extremist greens are doing currently. I think there is enough fault to go around.