Why do we need to drill offshore when 31 of the 50 states already produce oil? Our National Seashore is under protection for a reason. I thought the idea of becoming more GREEN is to look for more alternative fuel and energy sources. I do not want to hear someone tell me again that the technology is too new and un-researched because that would be a LIE. Research into solar, steam, water, wind, air, and bio-fuels has been ongoing for over a hundred years for some and others for more than twenty years. If you truly looked at the polution to the waters where offshore drilling occurs, such as the Gulf of Mexico, you would know that we would be headed for disaster. Not only would our migratory birds, turtles, and crabs be effected, but our fish, oyster, clam, and mussels would also take a blow from our digging offshore. Polution is a very real problem. Even Alaska, Lousiana, and other offshore drilling sites report some form of damage to the natural environment, but they think it is minimal enough to not cause major concern. I have a problem with that. As the levels of Mercury are rising in our fish and more and more shellfish are becoming contaminated, it will only be a matter of time, no matter how distant in the future, before our food supply is so tainted with polutants that we will have a serious problem on our hands. I am very passionate about using alternatives to oil and I know that if we can start weaning ourselves off of oil as a major source of energy and start using more GREEN alternatives that the U.S. will make a major impression upon the world that if we can change, so can any other country. I believe it is worth it to our children both now and in the future to start changing over to more GREENER methods of energy and, in turn, help to slow down the current damage already unfolding in our atmosphere, our waters, our land, and our world. If all you can think about is the here and now, then I feel sorry for you and your children and your children's children, for it is their future that we are destroying.
Posts
Compliance is Not Consent
5 years ago
14 comments:
SueBee I TOTALLY agree with your post. I am so pissed that Obama has given in to this drilling. The problem is that the republican machine has marketed the drilling in such a great way that the shift of approval went in their favor.
Remember we're a country of Sound Bites now... and we can't remember what happened last week. It seems all we want is SHORT term solutions when, in fact, LONG term solutions are what is required.
The democrats need to grow a pair.
Thank you Redwing. It amazes me that I do not have anyone challenging me on this or even agreeing with me(besides you) on this. The silence says it all. It resonates borderline scary if you ask me. People not responding to something we all know to be true and something we all need to address is telling me that either people do not care or want to be ostriches and stick their heads in the sand.
Drill baby drill is the way to go. We need to get rid of oil dependency, this is true. However, it seems like you democrats are more worried over the freaking crab in the ocean than your own mankind. So let us pay $6/gallon when minimum wage isn't much more and then these people have no money to live on, but who cares about them, the crab will die. Why should we continue paying other countries? We need to get off oil as much as possible, but we will most likely always need oil, so why not from our own country? The majority of Americans want offshore drilling, and now you are the minority. Sorry.
One more thing, if you democrats want to be all GREEN, then why would my own democrat boss not want 4 day work weeks? Granted the boss doesn't have the authority to do this without corporate approval, but they do not want it is my point. Other companies are doing it. This same boss LOVES Al Gore. So explain that one to me. Maybe because the boss pretends to be a green person, but truly could care less? Or maybe because it will not affect the boss? Or doesn't help the boss? So forget the people who make less money since the boss can afford it? If a democrat doesn't want offshore drilling SHORT term, but we are suffering SHORT term, and to help us SHORT term by offering 4 day work weeks is a possible thing at a company, then why would a democrat not be for a different kind of SHORT term help? Maybe then gas would go down and we wouldn't even have gotten to the offshore drilling.
I am astounded that this keeps creeping forward, but one of the big reasons that W was installed as president/king was to make this happen. The greed in this world is amazing. I think every one of these oil people should have the fable about the goose with the golden egg tattooed to his/her forehead. Either that or "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein.
Forget for a moment that they'd be ruining my state - and ultimately the planet - and just consider the fact that the proposed drilling would only yield enough oil to buy us another few years. Then what do we do? We will have sacrificed everything for absolutely no payoff for anyone - except for the oil companies.
Larry, you just do not get it! You have a limited vision. The crab is a FOOD source. If the crab is polluted and dies then we lose a FOOD source and the same goes with birds, fish, and other shellfish that are so important to our survival. So, what? You want to counter that there is always beef or bison or deer, etc.? Though you have not said that yet, let me say how ignorant that would be. The methane levels go up with the more cows being bred. I am no vegetarian or tree hugger, but what is wrong with that. The environment sustains us all. Did you get that? THE ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINS US ALL!!!!!!! If you screw the environment then you screw us all! Do you get it yet? Do you Larry? If we continue at the rate we are going now without changing our wasteful habits, we doom ourselves and the future of the entire human race. I do not care if you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Progressive, an Independent, a Libetarian, whatever, you still need to think about what we can do right now to insure a better future and starting to look at alternative energy sources is a very viable and very real thing right here, right now. I am tired of the excuses. Oh, maybe tomorrow or maybe in ten years. Yeah, and maybe then nothing will exist anymore because we keep telling ourselves to put it off and do it later. THINK!
Oh yes, and a side note: buy a Prius, or another hybrid and work the extra day to put money in your pocket and food on your table. Suggest to your boss ways to make the office more green by recycling, etc. and set an example. To my knowledge, the majority of America still works a 40 hour work week and that generally means five days a week.
To recap that advice: SET AN EXAMPLE and SUGGEST WAYS TO MAKE YOUR OFFICE MORE GREEN!
Boy Sue you sure do sound a little angry just like I felt Obama did at times.
Do you work Sue? We'd still be working 40 hours a week, just in 4 days. It would be stupid to think I want to work 4 days and lose a day's pay Sue. Come on. Oh and have you ever done the research on hybrids and their expense compared to when you get back that extra expense?
I understand what you are referring to on the environment and the food sources, but sometimes we have to do things for the good of the country. Offshore drilling, which OBAMA AGREES WITH, is better for the country in whole, KNOWING we have to remove our dependence of oil. Both Obama and McCain appear to agree on energy, so you need to call Obama (and McCain if you support McCain) and tell him how you feel.
And guess what Sue? I do get it. Let me ask you this Sue. What is the difference between us drilling compared to foreign countries drilling? Somebody has to drill Sue until we remove our dependence on it as much. If drilling is messing up the environment, just because it isn't here in the US, doesn't mean it isn't messing up the environment and food supply does it? Maybe you mean only offshore and not land or Anwar in Alaska? How come you don't care about the drilling in Iraq and Iran if the environment is all you really care about here Sue?
I do care about what is being done in other countries. I am a member of a community that has members from just about every country in the world. All of them agree to work on making people in their local and regional communities aware of what it means to be GREEN and what they can do to help make a difference. I think it is sad that both candidates support offshore drilling. As far as the Hybrids go--it is a start. While I would prefer an electric car or an air car, the Hybrids can be the ambassadors of the alternative energy revolution and help transition people into using and relying less and less on oil and oil products. There are alternatives being created everyday and the research is more in depth than ever before. In India, they are introducing air taxis to help alleviate pollution and they are hoping to wean their citizens off of gasoline dependence. It may take many years for that to happen, but at least it is a start to a new and brighter future. China will probably be the last to join in on the GREEN revolution, but, perhaps if people all over the world decide to set an example, China will as well. The United States may be hated by some countries, but we can make a difference and impress upon others that look up to us and admire what we have.
well Sue that was an intelligent and well thought out response showing no anger or negativity. Knowing that you are just against expanding oil dependency in the world makes sense as to why you are against offshore drilling here. The entire world should remove that dependency, but folks in the Middle East are rich because of oil so they could care less I suppose. If it turns out that offshore drilling here doesn't help us out over the next 10 to 20 years then I'll apologize for wanting it. I just hate paying other countries for something we have. Had Obama never changed his position on certain things there would be no way I could vote for him, but he did and I respect him for it. Him doing this only gave me a harder time choosing.
suebee i love your post! im glad there are other people writing on this blog too.
i think the issue of short term solution is impossible to solve. drilling oil is not a short term solution as it will take 7-12 years to even begin the refinery process.
i think if we put that same money into renewable energy like wind and solar that by 7-12 years we will have produced the exact same amount of power without a large environmental impact.
my opinion is that it is extremely narrow minded to think oil is the solution to this problem. while obama has agreed to have off shore drilling as part of a larger energy package i am pretty sure that he is not happy with it. the concept of 'drill baby drill' shows the complete lack of empathy by the conservatives in america.
i am still upset that i see commercials on tv that portray twenty five miles per gallon as a good thing. perhaps higher gas prices is the solution to our problem? if we had higher gas prices we would have much faster innovation and a much more critical view of oil.
i try and post this without picking on mr. sensitive but he is the only one representing the other side. can someone else agree with larry so he wont think im picking on him? im not calling you 'narrow minded' but instead anyone out there who thinks 'drill baby drill' should be a mantra.
keep posting suebee! it wont be long before you surpass redwing as my favorite!
jessica
I thought you dissappeared Jessica. Going back and reading every exchange you and I had, seems like we BOTH were too sensitive, so why are you calling me out? Also, it is quite obvious that you intended voting Obama from the very beginning. I can't imagine how Palin would've changed your mind if your true views are more liberal based. I am glad you have now made up your mind.
And I do agree with you that we should spend money on solar/wind energy over the next 7 - 12 years. They just passed the $600 billion deal allowing the offshore drilling ban to lapse. Today gas here in NC was 3.79.. yesterday 3.93... It just relieves pressure on the prices is all. Even if it takes 7-12 years to get anything from it.
Larry, would your job allow you and others to work from home? That would be an even better sollution. In fact, it is probably the most GREEN solution of them all. Staying at home would eliminate the back and forth driving that so many people do everyday and it would also free up highways and otherwise, congested roads into and out of the city. My next blog will address how to GREEN-up everyone's workplace and home. You would be surprised at just how easy it can be. I have a friend who just moved from Georgia and even though her job is in Atlanta, she works from home near Winston-Salem, NC! She asked her boss if it was possible to take her job home and she said YES! Not only does she not have to drive in rush hour traffic anymore with her car idling and spewing out harmful fumes, but she can check in with her boss using instant messaging via the internet. Now, I know that not all jobs allow such a luxury as working from home, but it never hurts to ask the boss if it is possible and present to him or her the benefits to the company and its employees. It could even be an extra bonus for their insurance carrier. If you work from home, you are not being exposed to other people's germs and illnesses and that can lead to better job performance if your employees are in better health. Another bonus for those with children is that you will spend more time with your them and nurture a better family relationship. I could go on and on, but you get my point.
Thanks Sue. I could see maybe one day a week working from home, but I prefer leaving the house. But to be greener and all the advantages to our environment from not driving a car, I could fall for it. I don't think it would fly with the "ungreen" boss though. I can't wait until your Green post. I would like to hear your thoughts on what else I can do and hopefully turn my Al Gore loving Democrat boss into a more green person herself.
About Green Energy War
by John Geesman
War as metaphor is a dubious tradition in modern American politics. Presidents use it to effortlessly summon urgency, priority, mobilization and (implied) sacrifice for a crusade against some amorphous foe. In the past several decades, various Commanders in Chief have declared wars on Poverty, Crime, Drugs, Cancer, Inflation, and Terror.
Many will observe that these jihads never succeed, especially when measured by the grandiose objectives and optimistic time frames announced at launch. With no Homosapien adversary from which to extract a formal surrender, how are these wars supposed to ever end? How will we know when we’ve won? Politicians’ use of war as metaphor may rely more on the Cold War “perpetual struggle” trope than the WW II “finite resolution” model. This realization doesn’t undermine the original motivation behind the policy as much as it limits the ongoing conceptual usefulness of the metaphor.
Within 90 days of taking office in 1977, President Carter declared U.S. energy challenges “the moral equivalent of war”, borrowing a phrase from the early 20th Century pacifist philosopher, William James. “With the exception of preventing war,” Carter said, “this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes.”
Carter’s take was centered on resource scarcity: “We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources,” he said. “Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems — wasteful use of resources.” He called for a shift “to strict conservation, and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.” The alternative to his proposals, by Carter’s estimation, “may be a national catastrophe.” As he observed, “Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and Congress to govern.”
Well …
Without rehashing the Carter Administration’s political effectiveness, technological choices, or allegiance to market mechanisms — all worthy topics better left to a more contemporary context — one conclusion seems beyond dispute: the United States (and the world) is in a worse energy position today than it was when Carter spoke. U.S. oil imports, the most politically salient indicator, tell the story in shorthand: an annual average of 8.6 million barrels per day in 1977; reduced to 4.3 million barrels per day in 1985; and increased to 12.4 million barrels per day in 2006, the most recent data available. Dependence on imports went down from 47% in 1977 to 27% in 1985, but ballooned to 60% by 2006.Blame it on the policies. Blame it on the commanders. Blame it on the troops. Blame it on the public. Regardless the cause, the Moral Equivalent of War evolved pretty quickly into the Moral Equivalent of Desertion.
Concern about accelerated global warming was not on the policy radar screen during Carter’s era. The momentum with which policy elites around the world have taken up the climate change imperative may reinvigorate the war metaphor. Al Gore, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, observed that, “without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: ‘mutually assured destruction.’ ” (Ironically, the aforementioned William James, opposed to war but impressed by the civic bonding associated with militias, proposed a system of national service that would conduct “warfare against nature”.)
But the stop-the-war meme, which resonates with many drawn to environmental issues, may not have the scalability or economic growth potential of its win-the-war cousin. The American yearning to provide leadership to a world adrift, the prospect of at least putative allies around the globe in common cause, the anticipated ease of enlisting industry in profitable pursuit of unassailable objectives … it is heady stuff. Are we prepared to pay any price, bear any burden, endure any hardship in the long twilight struggle of our time?
On the ground, where the consequences of war are experienced firsthand, outcomes are determined by choices — often by choices made far away. What technologies are deployed? How are they paid for? Do energy security priorities conflict with environmental objectives? What subsidies are deemed essential to the greater good? Should strategic emphasis tilt toward bottom-up pluralism or top-down authority? What mix of price signals and government edicts is best? How does consent compete with coercion? What role does social equity play? When does transparency trump secrecy? Who decides which competing public values should prevail?
Metaphor is of limited utility in public debate, but that’s more than none at all. As we say in California to the motorcyclists: “even if the helmet’s fit leaves something to be desired, put the damn thing on your head — for your benefit and for ours.” This is the Green Energy War.
john geesman,
Excellent post full of relevant historical facts on our current energy crisis.
My personal opinion is that the electric hybrid cars such as the Chevrolet Volt can help save this planet. With theoretical 1-2 fillups per year if you live less than 40 miles round trip from work can change people's lives. With electric motorcyles coming out at 300mpg things are really beginning to change.
We need more investment into lithium ion batteries and/or fuel cell derivatives. All this would take is some really good money poured into these new batteries and hybrid electric engines. SO I say screw the oil drilling in new areas, stick to the onse you have because if we take the white house this November, we won't need as much oil within 10 years thanks to this technology.
We need money spent on this NOW.
Only filling up once or twice a year if it's just a 'work only' car? Sounds great to me and is a helluva first step to saving this planet.
Post a Comment