Obama vs. McCain on energy

[Pangloss]

It sounds to me as if offshore drilling is being touted as some magical stopgap measure for current oil prices, but that isn't the case. We're talking about a solution that won't come to fruition for years.

 

Well now wait a second, the peak oil people are telling us that we're about to run out, "within the next few years". And clearly we're not going to be weened from foreign oil during, say, the eight years Obama is president. So are you saying Peak Oil Man is wrong? Wow, that's really off-message! Did you forget to run this by the Ministry of Information?

 

Anyway, even at "years" it sounds to me like a very GOOD idea to get the ball rolling on this kind of drilling.

[Reaper]

There are also national security concerns over off-shore drilling around the U.S. coast lines, so I doubt it's ever going to get passed or be allowed.

 

 

Besides which I doubt drilling is really going to amount to anything, or make any real difference to this problem.

[iNow]

Well now wait a second, the peak oil people are telling us that we're about to run out, "within the next few years". And clearly we're not going to be weened from foreign oil during, say, the eight years Obama is president. So are you saying Peak Oil Man is wrong? Wow, that's really off-message! Did you forget to run this by the Ministry of Information?

 

Anyway, even at "years" it sounds to me like a very GOOD idea to get the ball rolling on this kind of drilling.

 

10 years at the soonest.

3 months worth at the most.

 

This helps us now with prices, how exactly?

This helps us later with advancing to new technologies, how exactly?

This avoids environmental damage, how exactly?

 

 

You can belittle and character attack people warning against peak oil and global climate change all you want. Your proposal is still ignorant bullshit which is equivalent to treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich.

[Pangloss]

This helps us now with prices, how exactly?

This helps us later with advancing to new technologies, how exactly?

This avoids environmental damage, how exactly?

 

It doesn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't. All of which is a straw man, because it isn't why I propose and support it, as you well know.

 

 

WE'RE SAVED!

 

Can you see why a little offshore drilling doesn't change the BIG picture? It would have to be in the order of MILLIONS of barrels a day to really achieve anything.

 

Completely beside the point.

 

We should drill for all domestic oil. We're probably the only country in the world that doesn't do that' date=' thanks to our dire need for self-flagellation.

 

I don't think drilling is any kind of solution, but it's silly not to do it.

 

I agree we need to be moving away from oil. I just don't see why we should be required to beat ourselves about the head and shoulders while the rest of the world digs everywhere it possibly can. That's not fair. [/quote']

 

But hey, nice try.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Well now wait a second, the peak oil people are telling us that we're about to run out, "within the next few years"

 

Those people do not represent me

 

So are you saying Peak Oil Man is wrong?

 

Ample prior art demonstrating such may be found using the forum's handy dandy search feature

[iNow]

It doesn't, it doesn't, and it doesn't. All of which is a straw man, because it isn't why I propose and support it, as you well know.

 

No, sir. It is far from a strawman. It is an observation which cuts the root of your argument off at the ankles. Despite your claim to the contrary, I cannot even begin to fathom why you would propose or support such an approach.

 

Since my words seem to have failed, try this picture:

 

 

 

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp

[iNow]

But hey, nice try.

To paraphrase your argument, if I understand you correctly (after re-reading this thread):

 

"I know it won't help."

"I know it will take a decade for any returns."

"I know those returns will do little if anything to improve matters."

"Gas prices are high right now."

"Other countries are drilling into their land."

"We're stupid not to."

"Let's go!"

 

 

Sound about right?

 

 

If you really want to talk about what other countries are doing, I suggest we open a new thread, as the US falls flat on it's face when it comes to finding real and sustainable solutions compared to other nations on this planet. Iceland is one example among many.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=2

[Sisyphus]

Maybe we should continue drilling, but wait until the rest of the world really starts to run out. Then we can sell that oil for ridiculous prices to those places too stupid to break their oil dependency by then. Everyone wins!

 

[/facetious?]

[john5746]

No, sir. It is far from a strawman. It is an observation which cuts the root of your argument off at the ankles. Despite your claim to the contrary, I cannot even begin to fathom why you would propose or support such an approach.

 

No one is arguing against pursuing alternative energy sources and conservation! The idea is to do many solutions - shotgun vs silver bullet approach. We have several concerns, 1) The cost of energy 2) Foreign dependance 3) Emissions.

 

Let's say the US does lower its consumption of oil drastically somehow. That enlarges the effect of the oil reserves in your graph and it is domestic - no need to worry how the middle east is doing.

 

In any business or pursuit, you have the cash cow and the rising star. Obviously, oil is the big fat cow and we need to look for several stars. While you are trying to find, invent or develop the stars, you need to utilize the cow as long as possible to pay for the research and risk of star finding.

 

The issue is being used as a political football by some, but that does not make it a bad idea. The emphasis should be on alternative energy sources, but these alternatives do not come on the cheap. If anything, they make the problem worse in the short term, because investment is required at greater risk than getting oil. I just say let the government get out of the way in terms of drilling - the market will drill and make profits. As Saryctos mentioned, maybe some of the profits can be used to fund alternative energy. I doubt it will happen, but at the very least, we may shave a few cents off the price and have a little more secure energy for emergencies.

 

On the flip side, I saw two congressmen saying that there are many proven oil locations that are not being drilled currently. Obviously, percieved environmental risk needs to be weighed with costs to drill. Maybe ANWR is the last place to consider in the equation.

[ParanoiA]

To paraphrase your argument' date=' if I understand you correctly (after re-reading this thread):

 

"I know it won't help."

"I know it will take a decade for any returns."

"I know those returns will do little if anything to improve matters."

"Gas prices are high right now."

"Other countries are drilling into their land."

"We're stupid not to."

"Let's go!"

 

 

Sound about right?[/quote']

 

As soon as we start drilling the perceived dynamics of supply and demand will be influenced. It doesn't matter that the oil supply is low, it matters that it gets accessed anyway, while simultaneously charging ahead in alternative energy.

 

These two factors will impact the oil market dramatically. In that light, it's reasonable to predict a shift in the price per barrel now, rather than the assumption that it will only be beneficial when its extracted and processed years from now.

 

I don't know about Pangloss, but I don't want to depend on any other country for a damn thing. I prefer to drill for our own oil, to be used for the machinery that isn't replacable yet (the kind of machinery we don't think about when having these arguments, the kind of machinery you don't even know exists until you see them on "How it's Made" or the Military Channel),while we focus the public on replacing their gas machines with electric or hydro, etc.

 

With this approach in attitude, I think we could create the infrastructure to be independent, while still utilizing the international market as long as it's friendly and cost effective. We just won't be "hostage".

[Pangloss]

No one is arguing against pursuing alternative energy sources and conservation! The idea is to do many solutions - shotgun vs silver bullet approach. We have several concerns' date=' 1) The cost of energy 2) Foreign dependance 3) Emissions.

 

Let's say the US does lower its consumption of oil drastically somehow. That enlarges the effect of the oil reserves in your graph and it is domestic - no need to worry how the middle east is doing.[/quote']

 

Exactly, what john5746 and ParanoiA said. And iNow you left out a point in that summary of my argument that you're way too intelligent to have missed twice:

 

I agree we need to be moving away from oil.[/b'] I just don't see why we should be required to beat ourselves about the head and shoulders while the rest of the world digs everywhere it possibly can. That's not fair.

[ParanoiA]

Why not drill ANWR under the conditions that a % of the profits will go to funding alternative energy solutions.

 

Because it's like allowing Snicker's to harvest sugar on the condition they spend a % of the profits on vegetable farming. It's weird, and wrong.

 

I can't agree with this perverted psychological experiment where we insist on forcing business to promote the market of their competition. Such unnatural forces can't be healthy, and can't be without unintended consequences.

 

How about letting the market work? Gas is up, people aren't having it, SUV sales are plummetting, alternative fuels and hybrids are the talk of the day - government subsidies really aren't necessary, (well are never necessary actually, but...) just kick back and watch the capitalists work.

[iNow]

All of the above arguments being made against my comments rest squarely on the idea that this tiny piddling of oil up there will have enough impact to help.

 

I say again.

 

It's equivalent to treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich.

 

 

The motivations being espoused here I quite agree with. Energy independence. Temporary supports while new technology is implemented. However, implicit in each of these comments is some unsubstantiated belief that drilling for this piddling of oil will provide any of that for us. I'm simply calling that unfounded and against all of the evidence and information we currently have available to us.

 

 

It's wishful thinking, and it's stupid. The costs on this one FAR outweigh the potential benefits being described.

[ParanoiA]

All of the above arguments being made against my comments rest squarely on the idea that this tiny piddling of oil up there will have enough impact to help.

 

Actually, they rest squarely on the idea that this tiny piddling of oil up there will effect the dynamics of the oil market to have enough impact to help.

 

Haven't you noticed how none of us have taken issue with your appeals to the low supply? We don't deny it. Yet you're entire argument rests on repeating that fact. This is going to require deeper analysis than Fox and Friends, or The Daily Show.

 

You seem to be judging our insistance on drilling for this piddly amount of oil within a vacuum. It's only beneficial to drill for this oil as long as we simultaneously reduce the burden for that energy source by charging ahead with alternative energy.

 

Consider that point for a minute, because it directly responds to yours. If we can only begin to use that oil after a decade, then that's also after an entire decade of reduced demand for it by consumers trading in gas monsters for electric or hydro.

 

So that piddly amount of oil will take care of a higher percentage of gas monsters still in service at that time.

 

If there is no unified front between drilling and rolling out alternative vehicles, then yes, you're right, this will do practically nothing. In my opinion, it has to be both. Both will provide a two pronged attack on the oil market, with immediate results even though the real product won't be available for a decade.

[iNow]

If I know that smoking is bad, I'm not going to concede that smoking light cigarettes is different.

 

I'm tired of buring all of this shit into our atmosphere. That's the base of my stance, not Fox and Friends or The Daily Show.

 

 

It's also a bit like a drug addiction. You just need to stop using. You can't rationalize "just a little more" or doing it "the same, but different." It will never happen if we keeping giving everyone one more hit.

 

The benefits on this do not outweigh the costs. I actually care about my children's future, and the future of existing life.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

I saw this the other day. It struck me as a rather intelligent set of observations and ideas:

 

 

 

 

Summary:

 

With our current renewable energy policy, the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge in the green economy. Applied Materials President and CEO Michael Splinter asserts that doing nothing is neither a strategy, nor a policy and he will discuss innovative solutions to create new green-collar jobs and re-establish the U.S. as a technology leader.

 

And doing "something" shouldn't include looking for piddlings of oil in an area legally protected from human ignorance and short-sighted, misguided, and dangerous actions.

Edited June 19, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

So burning this piddly amount of oil is going to put us over the edge in risking human life? I don't think so. I think it's the gazillions of output over the course of an entire century.

 

In comparison, the benefits do actually outweigh the costs. The benefits are based on market perception and reaction, possibly getting our gasoline cheaper, and the independence gained is priceless. The cost to the environment is small since the amount of GW promoting material is small.

 

I care about the future of life on this planet and it will not be acheived by dismissing reality. Reality = alternative fuels are not cost effective. Not yet. We are going to use oil for the next 20 years no matter how awesome alternative fuels take off, no matter how focused society gets on getting rid of it - we have heavily invested in this energy source and it will take an equally significant investment in an alternative to take its place. It's just that simple.

 

You can repy with appeals to stupidity, life, poetic ramblings about 'the children' but none of that is going to magically erase the infrastructure of the oil energy market and the reality that people need it, and are going to pay for the cheapest source.

 

Obviously, my position would be entirely different had alternative fuels been rolled out with significant infrastructure already in place. The only hang up I have is the uncomfortable reality that we still need oil. I hate it. But I don't see any way around it.

[Reaper]

Alright, for all of you who actually support drilling for oil, lets consider this: There are approximately 20 billion barrels, at maximum (The actual mean is about 7 billion in Alaska, and 10 billion from all our coasts), to be dug out from the sea, and in Alaska. The U.S. now consumes over 20 million barrels of oil per day. So, given those figures, we could easily waste all that oil in less than 1000 days, given that our demand is only going to go up here in the U.S. Of course, we are not going to just consume it all like that, most of it is still going to come from either Venezuela and the Middle East.

 

So, how much of a difference do you really think 20 billion barrels is going to make? It might just lower the price just a little, but I doubt it's going to go back to under $120 per barrel. Bottom line, is that it's not going to cut our dependence on Middle Eastern and South American oil, and it sure as hell won't solve our dependence on oil, period. The lower price means that the demand will just simply go back up. In short, it's not going to make any difference at all.

 

So, lets say we do, in our misguided shortsightedness, drill for this anyway despite the facts. What then have we accomplished? Aside from ruining environments, harming tourism, dumping even more pollution into the atmosphere, make it harder on the military to guard the coast, and depleted what ever last remaining reserves we had left, we will just be in the same exact situation we are in now, except without the option to just drill for more. It's basically money right out the window.

 

Basically, what some people don't just seem to understand is, what do we do if those reserves get used up?

 

So burning this piddly amount of oil is going to put us over the edge in risking human life? I don't think so.

 

Well, no one was saying that actually, but it's going to run out very quickly anyway.

 

In comparison, the benefits do actually outweigh the costs. The benefits are based on market perception and reaction, possibly getting our gasoline cheaper, and the independence gained is priceless. The cost to the environment is small since the amount of GW promoting material is small.

 

What benefits do we get from this? Whatever benefits we might get are only going to be very temporary.... And the second statement is actually not true, the cost to the environment is probably going to be much bigger then that. It will not cut our dependence.

 

I care about the future of life on this planet and it will not be acheived by dismissing reality. Reality = alternative fuels are not cost effective. Not yet. We are going to use oil for the next 20 years no matter how awesome alternative fuels take off, no matter how focused society gets on getting rid of it - we have heavily invested in this energy source and it will take an equally significant investment in an alternative to take its place. It's just that simple.

 

Advocating to drill for more oil is the same thing as dismissing reality. The reality is that the alternative fuels are viable, and they will not be more widespread here in the U.S. until we spend a great deal more money to develop both their reliability and the infrastructure necessary, rather than spending it on wars or on drilling for more oil. If we don't start now, then things will be much harder in the future.

 

You can repy with appeals to stupidity, life, poetic ramblings about 'the children' but none of that is going to magically erase the infrastructure of the oil energy market and the reality that people need it, and are going to pay for the cheapest source.

 

They weren't appeals to stupidity, life, etc. Just because it sounds that way doesn't make it invalid. You have yet to show actual figures for your claims.

 

Obviously, my position would be entirely different had alternative fuels been rolled out with significant infrastructure already in place. The only hang up I have is the uncomfortable reality that we still need oil. I hate it. But I don't see any way around it.

 

But the thing is, its not. The reason it's not in place is because we Americans never even tried to develop them in the first place. Oh sure, we had the chance to change smoothly back then, in the 70's and 80's and even the 90's. We could have done it without any real harm done, but the reason we still need this much oil has a lot to do with the choices we made back then.

 

The only thing drilling for oil will do is that it will put us right back where we started, except we won't have that option any more. It really won't make a difference, and we will still be largely dependent on foreign oil. 95% of our entire infrastructure is based on fossil fuel economy. If we don't start investing in alternative and sustainable energies, and changing our habits right now.....

Edited June 19, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[Phi for All]

Basically, what some people don't just seem to understand is, what do we do if those reserves get used up?

This is a very key point, and the answer may seem obvious for gasoline. But is there any application for petroleum that has no alternative, something we should be saving oil for? I asked this in a different thread and I don't believe I ever got an answer.

[Reaper]

But is there any application for petroleum that has no alternative, something we should be saving oil for? I asked this in a different thread and I don't believe I ever got an answer.

 

Well, there also is jet fuel, agriculture in the form of fertilizers, and plastics. While we can certainly develop alternatives for them (biofuels for jet fuel and I think you mentioned vegetable oil for plastics, and we can always replace fossil fuel based fertilizers), the fact of the matter is, is that no one has even invested in actually developing them yet or have done very little investment. Although I read that Boeing (I think it was Boeing, I'll check) has actually created a fuel cell airplane (just a prototype, nothing commercial yet).

 

And one of the main reasons for this is because many people here just kept on saying and spreading around the "oh, well just drill for more oil, and THEN we will work on alternatives", and otherwise just kept on putting it off and continued investing in petro. The point is, it has got to stop, and it has to stop right now. You aren't going to make the change by drilling for more oil.

 

EDIT: Thank you wikipedia! Here is a list of things we use petroleum for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Uses

 

And here's a more in depth list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_product

 

 

The point is, we use them for everything, and while alternatives do exist, we Americans haven't even bothered developing them or the infrastructure necessary yet. If they run out while we are still behind, then we are in real trouble.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Reaper
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Reaper's and iNow's posts:

 

1) Ignore the repeated point I keep making that these piddly reserves will only be effective if the dependence on them is depleted. Since it won't be consumable for several years (I keep hearing around a decade, but I'm no expert), the focus on alternative energy solutions will have advanced in that same time so that the equipment that still requires oil at that time will be reduced.

 

2) Ignore the repeated point by us pro-drill guys that it's not a long term solution. It's a short term market manipulation.

 

3) Ignore the repeated appeals by us pro-drill guys that we've already agreed to commit to alternative energy sources. My position requires it. Maybe I should try a larger font size or bold it in red so everyone will see that we are fully committed to other sources of energy. But I haven't driven by any hydrogen filling stations lately. I also haven't seen any electric cars that I can afford and will take me back and forth to work yet.

 

The stuff just isn't here yet. It sucks, I know. I can't freaking wait until a little electric truck comes out that I can afford. And I'm frothing over the idea of solar panels on my house. I will not be able to contain my glee when I can disconnect from the grid.

 

So, if this thread is going to improve in quality then our points need to be recognized. The repeated attempts at misrepresenting our positions by making points we already agree with is disingenuous. John, Pangloss and I have all been very clear that we are pro-alternative energy committed dudes. We have also been very clear that is a long term solution and so we're now looking at the short term one.

 

This is a very key point, and the answer may seem obvious for gasoline. But is there any application for petroleum that has no alternative, something we should be saving oil for? I asked this in a different thread and I don't believe I ever got an answer.

 

I would think that anything "we should be saving oil for" is something that desparately needs attention by R&D.

 

I don't want to be accused of hating anything oil, it's just that any energy source that isn't essentially infinitely renewable, is just a temporary solution, to me. That's also why I scratch my head at the thought of humans discovering what oil could do and then investing so heavily into it. It was sensible to do something with it, but I don't see the sense in effectively resting our technology at that point. It's just so...primitive.

[Reaper]

1) Ignore the repeated point I keep making that these piddly reserves will only be effective if the dependence on them is depleted. Since it won't be consumable for several years (I keep hearing around a decade, but I'm no expert), the focus on alternative energy solutions will have advanced in that same time so that the equipment that still requires oil at that time will be reduced.

 

How do we reduce dependence if we don't use that money to make the technology widespread, rather than drilling for more oil.

 

2) Ignore the repeated point by us pro-drill guys that it's not a long term solution. It's a short term market manipulation.

 

No, we are reading and understanding your points ParanoiA. What you don't seem to understand is the time it will take to actually develop them, how ineffective it will be in easing the problem, and other problems, environmental, national security, or otherwise. This isn't a trivial problem, nor is it something that can be solved right on a whim.

 

3) Ignore the repeated appeals by us pro-drill guys that we've already agreed to commit to alternative energy sources. My position requires it. Maybe I should try a larger font size or bold it in red so everyone will see that we are fully committed to other sources of energy. But I haven't driven by any hydrogen filling stations lately. I also haven't seen any electric cars that I can afford and will take me back and forth to work yet.

 

Read the above. This really isn't something that can simply be put off. And, another thing, the rest of the world, even China, has managed to build cars that are much better for the environment then we have. In Europe, cars run on alternative fuels are making huge sales and widely available. Their numbers on the road are increasing too. They also have solar power much more widely available. In Iceland, they are already developing a hydrogen fuel based infrastructure. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. And you have yet to provide actual data that drilling will actually work. I know that it won't.

 

The stuff just isn't here yet. It sucks, I know. I can't freaking wait until a little electric truck comes out that I can afford. And I'm frothing over the idea of solar panels on my house. I will not be able to contain my glee when I can disconnect from the grid.

 

The price of oil per barrel will not go down, it will only go up. It sucks, I know. The infrastructure also just won't magically appear. That sucks, and I know. I too can't wait until electric cars and trucks come out, and solar panels go up into my house. We are already planning to build them in place next year, far sooner then you will. Same with recycling bins.

 

We have also been very clear that is a long term solution and so we're now looking at the short term one.

 

My point is, is that people like you have been utilizing the short term solutions for over 30 years, and yet we are continuing to advocate them regardless and putting off investment in alternative infrastructure. And each and every single time, we have found some excuse to not invest in any of the alternatives, we have just been simply using up our existing supply, or going out fighting wars in the Middle East to get it.

 

The infrastructure isn't going to build itself. We have to start investing in it right now, and at the same time start getting rid of our dependence. Drilling isn't going to solve anything, no matter what it seems like.

 

Besides which, the bill to lift the ban will never get through anyways. The military doesn't want the rigs built because they interfere with weapons tests and our ability to adequately defend the coast. Hurricanes and spills are also a big problem too. Sucks, I know, but that is life.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Reaper

[ParanoiA]

I repeat:

 

So, if this thread is going to improve in quality then our points need to be recognized. The repeated attempts at misrepresenting our positions by making points we already agree with is disingenuous. John, Pangloss and I have all been very clear that we are pro-alternative energy committed dudes. We have also been very clear that is a long term solution and so we're now looking at the short term one.

 

These replies ignore that fact:

 

Read the above. This really isn't something that can simply be put off. And' date=' another thing, the rest of the world, even China, has managed to build cars that are much better for the environment then we have. In Europe, cars run on alternative fuels are making huge sales and widely available. Their numbers on the road are increasing too. They also have solar power much more widely available. In Iceland, they are already developing a hydrogen fuel based infrastructure. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

The price of oil per barrel will not go down, it will only go up. It sucks, I know. The infrastructure also just won't magically appear. That sucks, and I know. I too can't wait until electric cars and trucks come out, and solar panels go up into my house. We are already planning to build them in place next year, far sooner then you will. Same with recycling bins.

 

My point is, is that people like you have been utilizing the short term solutions for over 30 years, and yet we are continuing to advocate them regardless and putting off investment in alternative infrastructure. And each and every single time, we have found some excuse to not invest in any of the alternatives, we have just been simply using up our existing supply, or going out fighting wars in the Middle East to get it.

 

The infrastructure isn't going to build itself. We have to start investing in it right now, and at the same time start getting rid of our dependence. Drilling isn't going to solve anything, no matter what it seems like. [/quote']

 

For umpteenth freaking time - yes, we already agree.

 

Now how about responding to the short term issue?

 

This is an example of agenda dismissing valid concerns. We need a short term solution, but every appeal is answered with a lecture on long term solutions. We already agree on the long term solution, so if all you have recycled arguments to convert gas guzzling red necks to green friendlies, then you don't have much to offer here.

[Pangloss]

I say again.

 

It's equivalent to treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich.

 

To steal a quote from a recent television show, there's probably not a heart doctor on the planet who doesn't carry nitroglycerin tablets in his black bag.

 

I'm tired of buring all of this shit into our atmosphere. That's the base of my stance, not Fox and Friends or The Daily Show.

 

Exactly, you want it stopped, right now, by any means necessary. Regardless of the cost.

 

That's not an argument to ween us off oil, that's an argument that society as we know it needs to be destroyed and remade as some kind of left-wing utopia. Which of course has to be sold as "We need cheaper gas!" (a total contradiction with years of left-wing energy policy) just to get the ignorant red-staters on board.

 

I read one of your own quotes right back to you in conclusion:

 

It's wishful thinking, and it's stupid. The costs on this one FAR outweigh the potential benefits being described.

[Phi for All]

I would think that anything "we should be saving oil for" is something that desparately needs attention by R&D.

 

I don't want to be accused of hating anything oil, it's just that any energy source that isn't essentially infinitely renewable, is just a temporary solution, to me. That's also why I scratch my head at the thought of humans discovering what oil could do and then investing so heavily into it. It was sensible to do something with it, but I don't see the sense in effectively resting our technology at that point. It's just so...primitive.

Totally agree. Fossil fuels have a built-in obsolescence, especially at the rate we demand.

 

My point was that if the only place we could obtain sulfur was from oil, that need would supersede any other use for which an alternative exists. I didn't see anything on the Wiki list Reaper posted that couldn't be had elsewhere, including plastics (av fuel is a bit trickier; those jet engines are pretty finicky when it comes to premature ignition).

 

I certainly don't hate oil either, but I'm hating how wasteful we've been with it in the past (hopefully you all know my stance on asphalt curing ), how it seems to be helping terrorism, and how the oil companies are fighting hard to keep us addicted to it, in much the same way big tobacco did. We should hop out of the pot before the water actually boils this time.

[iNow]

That's not an argument to ween us off oil, that's an argument that society as we know it needs to be destroyed and remade as some kind of left-wing utopia.

Ah... yeah.

 

Just like those crazy lefties who put the drilling ban in place via the democratic process to begin with, eh? Gosh, how ever did that get passed? Oh, I know... It was THE RIGHT THING to do!

 

 

Stop with the character/credibility attacks, and start addressing the issues.