A must read...

Dungheap said:
You can support expanding domestic oil and natural gas production without pretending that it will solve all of our problems, which is the main problem with the VDS piece.
Click to expand...

Well, it certainly isn't negligible. If they really went bananas w/ domestic, it could potentially be a bonanza for jobs & the economy a few years down the line. There is too much propoganda on both sides, imo - both trying to justify an agenda. One side might have you believe it will solve everything, while the other says that it will do little or nothing. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between - which is significant.

What is ironic to me is that there is a perfect piece of compromise legislation out there that hasn't been written & will likely never be on the floor of the Congress, where those on the right agree to huge incentives for research & development on green energy, in return for those on the left agreeing to huge expansion of domestic drilling & production. Everyone wins, and America thrives. It just seems so simple from the outside.
 
Dungheap said:
The article is transparently stupid. If you want to read something about energy policy read something from someone who knows about energy policy and isn't a hack, right-wing or left-wing.
Click to expand...

And you still haven't added anything to the thread at this point, even an explanation as to why it is so "transparently stupid" in a sniping, sarcastic, and comedic way to put Superfreak in his place for supporting the ideas expressed in the article. You have added nothing to the thread. At least post an example of one of these great minds that isn't a "hack" that supports your view.
 
Damocles said:
And you still haven't added anything to the thread at this point, even an explanation as to why it is so "transparently stupid" in a sniping, sarcastic, and comedic way to put Superfreak in his place for supporting the ideas expressed in the article. You have added nothing to the thread. At least post an example of one of these great minds that isn't a "hack" that supports your view.
Click to expand...

Pretty bossy for someone who still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he said Jarod was a liar because he could have gotten into the high-risk pool at any time in Florida.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm sorry that you're upset that I called out the VDS piece for what it is. It's you're standard fare right-wing hackery.
Click to expand...

Two pages of comments and you have yet to add to the conversation at all. You can't even point out how the piece is "hack" you just expect us to believe it is because you "say so"...
 
Dungheap said:
You can support expanding domestic oil and natural gas production without pretending that it will solve all of our problems, which is the main problem with the VDS piece.
Click to expand...

Wow. Finally.

Now, do you support such expansion and believe that it is smarter to produce our own energy than it is to rely on Iran and pay them for the privilege of using it?
 
Superfreak said:
You mean, the one that says it ADDRESSES all three. It does.

Do you understand the difference between ADDRESSES and SOLVES?
Click to expand...

I assume the question is rhetorical. He understands the difference if somebody has a D after their name and completely is incapable of understanding anything if there is an R after their name.
 
Let's move on to the other quotes that SF highlights:

Current crises in American foreign policy -- Iran's efforts to obtain the bomb, the protection of an embattled Israel, stopping the funding of radical Islamists -- might be freed from the worries of perennial OPEC threats of cutoffs and price spikes.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. OPEC controls too much of the world's oil production and reserves. The only way this could actually work is if we increased our production and refining capacity without actually bringing it on line such that we could ramp up production in response to an OPEC cut off and substantially replace the OPEC oil. That's implausible at best.


Federal subsidies for inefficient corn-based ethanol production in the Midwest also could cease. That would save the Treasury billions of dollars and allow millions of American acres to return to food production to supply an increasingly hungry world.
Click to expand...

We could cease federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol tomorrow. They aren't an energy policy problem. They're an electoral politics problem. Getting rid of Iowa's first in the country primary and getting rid of legislators in hoc to agribusiness are the only way you're going to get rid of corn subsidies. Increased domestic oil production isn't going to do it.
 
Dungheap said:
We could cease federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol tomorrow. They aren't an energy policy problem. They're an electoral politics problem. Getting rid of Iowa's first in the country primary and getting rid of legislators in hoc to agribusiness are the only way you're going to get rid of corn subsidies. Increased domestic oil production isn't going to do it.
Click to expand...
That's actually short sighted on both sides. First the corn being used for ethanol probably wouldn't otherwise be used to feed others in this hungry world cause of shipping cost and little to no return on investment. Though corn for ethanol, on the balance, doesn't make economic sense, it does make political sense. Developing ethanol as an alternative fuel is certainly valid and cost affective, that is, as long as the infrastructure to support has been developed. The politics of corn helps immeasurably in this respect. We are incentivizing farmers in the creation of this infrastructure and providing them a vested interest in it's use and development. They in turn help provide the political will to develop ethanol infrastructure, which is vital cause it cannot be done with out the political will to do so.

Once ethanol infrastructure has been developed to a certain critical mass then other agricultural media can be used to substitute corn that does make economic sense, and uses non-airable land in the process and is sustainable and renewable not to mention cleaner. Sugar beets or Multi-Flora Rosa for example. So yea....corn for ethanol doesn't make economic sense but it makes a hell of a lot of sense politically.
 
Darla said:
Pretty bossy for someone who still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he said Jarod was a liar because he could have gotten into the high-risk pool at any time in Florida.
Click to expand...

I am sure he is just taking his time to pen the perfect apology!
 
Darla said:
Yes, become a vegetarian. Look up the stats on that - it's the single biggest thing any individual can do to drastically lower your contribution to global warming, among other things. It's really stunning. If it's too much, and for most it is, become a vegetarian-except-for-weekends, or a vegetarian-before-5pm. Even that would matter. A lot.

That's something I've known for years. Right now I'm in the middle of studying up on the science. Honestly, I am sick and tired of listening to the deniers, but I've never read up on the science. It's something I've known I'd have to tackle for a while.

Actually, Superfreak inspired me to take it up.

That boy soooo needs an ass-kicking on the topic and I finally realized that like everything else in life; when you want something done and done well, do it. Don't wait for someone else.

So that's coming. 2012 and it's totally on.
Click to expand...

I read an article and though I am still a omnivore, i try to cook meatless a couple times a week. Lately, it has been more than that when the guys are gone. I find I feel better. I just can't go full blown, yet. Bud would never convert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top