Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pangloss

Offshore Drilling & International Shipping Pollution

Recommended Posts

Renewable energy jobs tend to need large subsidies. they might be good from an environmental perspective, but from an economic perspective, oil is still best.

 

I'd like to see some numbers that accurately support your comments in the context of our future economy. I see where the money is flowing right now, and I can tell you it's not oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see some numbers that accurately support your comments in the context of our future economy. I see where the money is flowing right now, and I can tell you it's not oil.

 

You seriously think that money isn't flowing to oil?

 

The price of oil is sky high. Anywhere that pumps oil is going to have a big boost to the economy. Oil rigs need a lot of skilled, highly paid workers. The associated industries employ a lot of highly skilled, highly paid workers.

 

Oil means money. It means lots of highly paid jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets back to me looking with a longer term view. Oil's gonna run out, and so will people's demand of it. Not renewables. It will open up entire new sectors in manufacturing, engineering, sales, support, service, design, and many others.

 

Oil doesn't share the cross-context potential nor long-term staying power that renewables will have.

 

It's fine if you disagree, but I do believe my stance is based on the most accurate and most abundant data.

 

Sure there's money in oil, but it's not even a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the other approaches this planet is taking collectively for future energy needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It gets back to me looking with a longer term view. Oil's gonna run out, and so will people's demand of it. Not renewables. It will open up entire new sectors in manufacturing, engineering, sales, support, service, design, and many others.

 

Oil doesn't share the cross-context potential nor long-term staying power that renewables will have.

 

It's fine if you disagree, but I do believe my stance is based on the most accurate and most abundant data.

 

Sure there's money in oil, but it's not even a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the other approaches this planet is taking collectively for future energy needs.

 

You might think that in the long run renewables are the best, fine.

 

However, if your looking for an economic boost and thousands of highly paid jobs in an area, then drilling for oil will get that. Telling voters not to bother because those jobs don't have ' the cross-context potential nor long-term staying power that renewables will have.' just isn't going to make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually another benefit of renewable manufacturing instead of oil... the jobs it creates won't be limited to any one geographic location, but can instead be spread across the country in both small towns and big cities. With oil, you're limited to where the oil is.

 

Also, thousands is too low a number for the number of jobs that will be created by renewables. Hundreds of thousands is a closer estimate, and oil can't touch that.

 

 

Only time will tell which one of us is approaching this question the most appropriately. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing about drilling offshore that precludes the creation of "hundreds of thousands" of jobs based on alternative energy sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing about drilling offshore that precludes the creation of "hundreds of thousands" of jobs based on alternative energy sources.

 

No, but if you listen to the arguments of 'environmentalists' that is exactly the argument they use. That drilling for oil or building a nuclear power station or anything else they don't like will 'divert' attention or resources away devloping things that the 'environmentalists' want.

 

It's a false and dishonest argument, but one very widely used and repeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many oil rigs will there be?

How many people are required to run each?

How many others will be employed in the service of this?

 

I'm not saying it won't create jobs, I am saying that it's fascinating that you have to use subjective pigeon holes and labels to respond to my position instead of arguing with data.

 

I work in the industry. I'm not some "enviromental whack job" who is lying or sharing falsehoods. I understand what I'm talking about in this regard, and it's not necessary to fling feces to argue against me.

 

If you think I'm mistaken that the job creation from renewables will far exceed job creation from a few more offshore oil rigs, then show us all why.

 

If you could do it without the labelling, false pigeon holes, and unsupported blanket dismissals, that would earn you some extra credit. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, drill for oil -- it has less carbon than coal. But we're still going to need the renewables. Also, iNow is correct that there will be more jobs in renewables than for oil. It is precisely because oil is so easy to extract that it is being used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.