How do the liberals or Democrats on this board view oil prices?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

So is that what we think? I personally think we need to start seriously investing in technology that will take care of our problem once and for all. When you lose a limb, you don't put a band-aid on it. Yes, it will be expensive, but I think it's well worth the cost. I recently read an article in Scientific American that said we could be on solar energy alone in around thirty years (I think), if we were to commit to it. If so, then there's no reason why we can't replace our reliance on oil with some combination of nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, coal, etc; prior to that. Hell, doing so would really pay for itself over time, I should think.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

So is that we think? I personally think we need to start seriously investing in technology that will take care of our problem once and for all. When you lose a limb, you don't put a band-aid on it. Yes, it will be expensive, but I think it's well worth the cost. I recently read an article in Scientific American that said we could be on solar energy alone in around thirty years (I think), if we were to commit to it. If so, then there's no reason why we can't replace our reliance on oil with some combination of nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, coal, etc; prior to that. Hell, doing so would really pay for itself over time, I should think.

Okay, lets examine some of the thoughts, like solar power which is very ineffecient as an energy source. And while we are at it, I will use a great example for energy use for a state. Oregon.

Most of Oregon's energy came from hydro-electricity from dams in the columbia river gorge. Sounds great, doesn't it? Clean energy.

But no. Can't keep them because it interferes with the salmon run. So we got to tear them down.

What alternative?

How about solar energy? But wait...the only place it would be effective in Oregon is the desert regions of the state. Even then, it would take so many square miles to even make a dent into the energy demands, it would destroy the ecosystem of the desert region. So we can't do that.

How about wind power? Oh, no. The only place that is viable is in the columbia river gorge. And the amount of avians that die from windmills...can't have that. Plus it will destroy the beauty of the area. Don't want to have a bunch of windmills going through the gorge.

How about bio-fuel? Wait. Nope. Environmental impact study has to be done, and then we don't really want any new refineries built. Plus, although it is bio-fuel, it still gives off bad emissions.

Nuclear? After all, France and Europe relies mostly on this type as a fuel source without incident. And liberals love the europeans...so advanced in their tolerance and views... But no. Can't have that. Nuclear power is scary. Plus the environmental impact studies, time to build them, the waste...

How about wave-power? Put pontoons into the ocean and go with tidal force to generate power? When the tides go out, pontoons fall and generate energy. When the tide comes in, pontoons rise and generate energy. Wait...wait...wait. No good. See, we just can't have anything that disrupts the migration of the killer whale, the fish, or any other sea faring creature.

So what do you have that is left that will magically replace the fuel/energy demands we have today?

(oh, and once you create that magical energy source, what are you going to do with all the misplaced jobs and tax revenue that has suddenly disappeared?)

[Duke1985]

I'm pretty liberal, and I personally am ready to kill every caribou that ever did exist, personally, if it means we can start drilling in Alaska if that means oil prices are going to lower. I'm sick of this ****

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by Duke1985

I'm pretty liberal, and I personally am ready to kill every caribou that ever did exist, personally, if it means we can start drilling in Alaska if that means oil prices are going to lower. I'm sick of this ****

Not a very liberal answer.

What about global warming and your carbon footprint?

[Duke1985]

Originally Posted by Elf1

Not a very liberal answer.

What about global warming and your carbon footprint?

Is drilling in Alaska going to cause global warming, last I knew that wasn't dependent whether or not caribou were misplaced by our drilling operations.
If the caribou migrate east, fine whatever. We rely to much on foreign oil, if drilling more of our own works, fine, so be it.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by Duke1985

Is drilling in Alaska going to cause global warming, last I knew that wasn't dependent whether or not caribou were misplaced by our drilling operations.
If the caribou migrate east, fine whatever. We rely to much on foreign oil, if drilling more of our own works, fine, so be it.

Depends on who you ask.

I am sure there would be those who think any use of fossil fuels equals global warming.

Violating that pristine frozen tundra, having those caribou move 30 feet to the left or right, is adding to global warming.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by Elf1

So what do you have that is left that will magically replace the fuel/energy demands we have today?

A bunch of solar panels in the Mojave. Nobody cares about the sagebrush. Nobody said anything about magic, and there are pros and cons to anything you do, but oil isn't just going to get more expensive. Oil is going to run out. I said quite openly that investing in alternative energy is going to be expensive, but it will be well worth it when it's all said and done. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet right now so the future will be better.

Also, it's quite obvious that nobody wants something that generates power in their backyard. The concerns of locals should be taken into account when figuring out a sane energy plan, but somebodies going to be dissatisfied no matter what you do. Now, I'd personally walk around with a solar panel on my head if I knew it would solve the energy crises, but that's me.

Originally Posted by Elf1

(oh, and once you create that magical energy source, what are you going to do with all the misplaced jobs and tax revenue that has suddenly disappeared?)

I don't know, why don't we just put everyone to work digging ditches and filling them back in again? Because nothing gets produced and everyone starves? Exactly. If you can produce the same quality and quantity of something with less people working to do it, that's a better situation. That's because it doesn't cause people to waste their energy producing nothing, and they can apply that energy elsewhere.

[Elf1]

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

A bunch of solar panels in the Mojave. Nobody cares about the sagebrush. Nobody said anything about magic, and there are pros and cons to anything you do, but oil isn't just going to get more expensive. Oil is going to run out. I said quite openly that investing in alternative energy is going to be expensive, but it will be well worth it when it's all said and done. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet right now so the future will be better.

LOL.

That is quite the bullet you want everyone to bite.

I would actually propose a more balanced energy plan. One that doesn't sacrifice people today for a future that may or may not work out.

I suggest you bite the bullet for your convinctions and give up the car and go back to riding a horse. Do it for your integrity. Bite that bullet today. Once you make the switch, then you can ask others to follow your lofty example.

(Oh, those examples I used for Oregon...real examples. The lovely governor actually went to environmental groups to come up with an energy policy. Each and every proposal was rejected for the reasons stated. At some point, you realize "environmentalism" is more about hating people and being openly hostile towards people, than it is about harmonious coexistence.)

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

Also, it's quite obvious that nobody wants something that generates power in their backyard. The concerns of locals should be taken into account when figuring out a sane energy plan, but somebodies going to be dissatisfied no matter what you do. Now, I'd personally walk around with a solar panel on my head if I knew it would solve the energy crises, but that's me.

Yet you still drive a car instead of riding a horse?

Have you moved into a cave yet?

I notice you are using energy to power your computer.

Is this an example of "do what I say, not as I do?"

Wait a minute. You are Al Gore...aren't you.

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

I don't know, why don't we just put everyone to work digging ditches and filling them back in again? Because nothing gets produced and everyone starves? Exactly. If you can produce the same quality and quantity of something with less people working to do it, that's a better situation. That's because it doesn't cause people to waste their energy producing nothing, and they can apply that energy elsewhere.

What are you talking about.

My point was, many people have NO clue what a stop in oil today would cause.

Not just a bunch of people dying from heat/cold, but economies would stop. Food doesn't get harvested. It doesn't get planted. People don't go to work. Many jobs suddenly stop existing.

But that is the bullet you want people to bite, right?

(side issue...your statement above about advancing with technology and such...I wonder if you would have the same consistent view if we were arguing illegal aliens?)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Originally Posted by Elf1

My point was, many people have NO clue what a stop in oil today would cause.

You misunderstood me. I was stating the fact that oil's going to run out (it being a limited resource and all). Not that we should stop using it. Clearly, we should continue using it.

Originally Posted by Elf1

I suggest you bite the bullet for your convinctions and give up the car and go back to riding a horse. Do it for your integrity. Bite that bullet today. Once you make the switch, then you can ask others to follow your lofty example.

I never said anything about energy conservation.

Originally Posted by Elf1

At some point, you realize "environmentalism" is more about hating people and being openly hostile towards people, than it is about harmonious coexistence.

Anything can be taken to an extreme. I'm no big-time environmentalist myself, but I sympathize with them to a degree. If we screw up the planet, that's it for us. Environmental disasters have helped wipe out major civilizations in the past, after all.

Originally Posted by Elf1

Yet you still drive a car instead of riding a horse?

I proposed building energy-producing infrastructure, not conservation (though, conservation's good to). Also, I don't drive a car, but that's beside the point.

[Van002]

I recently read an article in Scientific American that said we could be on solar energy alone in around thirty years (I think)

Based on this alone, we will still have major oil problems in about 10 years so I assume you are all for drilling to get the price down until the alternative sources arrive?