Six environmental threats worse than offshore oil drilling

There is no doubt that resistence to off shore drilling is nothing more than a power play on the part of the environmentalists, at least in my opinion. That said, drilling will not solve our long term problem. We are dependent on oil, like crack rock, and ultimately most of it goes back to places with bad folks like Saudi Arabia.

We also need a long term plan to become energy independent like Brazil. Here is my free market solution…

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-oil-to-energy-part-iii.html

I don’t have much in the way of a list of worse things we tolerate, but it does strike me as beyond idiotic to NOT take advantage of billions of barrels worth of proven oil reserves. If the “Peak Oil” guys are correct, then by not drilling, which will take about 10 years or so to have any effect anyway, we’re really doing just about the worst thing possible.

cow flatulence aka methane (further compounded by third world incomes rising and them moving to meat)

It seems to me that transportation (i.e. tankers, pipelines) causes far more environmental problems than the actual rigs themselves.

Despoiling pristine desert vistas with acre upon acre of mirrored solar collectors.

Pipelines don’t generally cause environmental problems…

“Pipelines don’t generally cause environmental problems…” What short memories we have. Check this out:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p02s01-usgn.html

What about water table depletion?

If I could ask reporters to do one thing, it would be to always frame coastal reserves in terms of current consumption.

There is a strong (predictably irrational?) tendency to only mention the one-time gift this oil might give us in prices, and not where that will leave us, after.

There is a strong (predictably irrational?) tendency to assume that all those technologies we’ve been dreaming of for 30 years (hydrogen and electric cars?) will suddenly be there when this oil gives out.

There are environmental arguments, but the strongest ones I think are based on prudence and caution.

… as they sometimes say in energy circles “use their oil first.” We might need ours in the future WAY more than we do now.

(McCain mentioned about 60 billion barrels today, which I think is about 1 year of world production. You can only spend that once.)

^ oops, I think 20 billion

C’mon Justin!
This is predictable campaign rhetoric.
There are plenty of ugly things out there already, no need to add to the list. And compared to world oil production (forget about dependence on foreign oil argument; its a global market now and will be more so by the time this oil arrives) the inventories aren’t increasing much. Didn’t the Saudis say last week there’s plenty of oil being produced right now? (Though they are opening a little more.)
The interim costs of this folly will drive domestic prices even higher. And look—you don’t start saving for retirement at 59. That’s where the world oil reserves stand. We’re nearly out (source: Nat’l Geo) and if we don’t start learning to use something else now there’s going to be hell to pay in the future. Time to start weaning the pig.

“And look—you don’t start saving for retirement at 59″

Good analogy. I tried for something retirement related, but couldn’t do it … though, is this plan more like borrowing from your retirement account at age 59?

Let me get this straight. We are doing all the stupid things you listed, so let’s do something else really stupid, like (potentially)polluting the oceans, ruining the coastlines of some pretty significant real estate, destroying more ocean species. Sure, that makes a hell of alot more sense than actually trying to solve the problem!

We have had our heads stuck in the sand since the oil supply issues of the 70′s, and continue to do stupid things like promote SUV’s , so why change now?

Exellent logic – not.

Water table depletion is a good one. Agreed.

How about building millions of houses in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts and other equally water-starved places — LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc. Brilliant! What happens when Lake Mead and Lake Powell and the other water systems run out? Desalination?

Anyway, how stupid are we not to get our Colorado, Wyoming and Utah oil shale in production (or at least ready for it?)? Congress has been forbidding the leasing of oil shale rights on federal land (almost all shale is locked up in federal land — the feds rule the West and treat it like a big playground). Other countries utilize shale and produce oil in measurable quantities — we don’t. The US has enough shale to provide all the oil it needs for itself for over a century — prices are getting high enough the economic viability is probably there if we put a little effort behind it. The only reason why we shouldn’t do that is to end up being the only ones holding significant oil production capacity after other countries run out (or try to blackmail us more than they already do). Conservative estimates of produceable oil reserves from the shale puts the amount at three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Back to you, Justin.

Justin,
Just b/c you don’t complain about those things, doesn’t mean other people don’t. And the whole argument that this should be permitted because we already do other bad things is pretty moronic. Would you advocate legalizing heroin and cocaine because people already drink alcohol?

BrooklynGurl,
Shale oil is very environmentally destructive – basically it is extracted the same way as coal, but is even dirtier. Moreover, this is less efficient than just liquefying coal. Oil shale processing also consumes large quantities of water, a precious resource in the areas, such as Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, where it is present.

The world needs to advance to renewable resources. Using oil shale delays the inevitable while accelerating global warming.

I like odograph’s comments. They make sense.

Thanks, Dad!

odograph, it would be irrational NOT to expect that alternative energy technologies will be cheaper and more advanced in the future, when the oil runs out. Perhaps you’ve just been dreaming about them for the last 30 years, but other people have been working hard to make them a reality. It doesn’t happen overnight, and these technologies won’t suddenly become mature in the next few years just because we starve ourselves of oil now. I get the impression that some environmentalists take a perverse pleasure in making the transition more painful than it has to be.

Meh,

See this for my response

http://crazyleftycrapanddamnproudofit.blogspot.com/

bigmetaltoothbrush,
I definitely agree with your thoughts on your blog.

donovong, I agree with you too. You said:
“Let me get this straight. We are doing all the stupid things you listed, so let’s do something else really stupid, like (potentially)polluting the oceans, ruining the coastlines of some pretty significant real estate, destroying more ocean species. Sure, that makes a hell of alot more sense than actually trying to solve the problem!
We have had our heads stuck in the sand since the oil supply issues of the 70′s, and continue to do stupid things like promote SUV’s , so why change now?
Exellent logic – not.”

Putting the environment in jeopardy (potential oil spills) due to our overconsumption is just plain dumb. Cutting back on oil consumption is the answer.

There’s plenty of alternative energies now that are easily useable. (hybrid vehicles, all electric vehicles, electric scooters, etc.) Plenty of better mpg transportation options. People just need to trade in their gas guzzlers for better options. It’ll save you money and it’ll save more pollution going into the air.

And people are developing new cleaner transportation vehicles each year.

The real question is why are lots of the inventors of brand new alternative vehicles being killed or threatened by people or their great inventions confiscated by the government?