Are you For or Against an increase in domestic drilling?

[battlemaiden]

Are you for or against increased domestic drilling?

 

1. I am for increased domestic drilling

 

2. I am against increased domestic drilling

 

3. I am unsure

[Marie in Oh]

as long as they do their best to protect the areas where the fields lie.

[Twinmom]

as long as they do their best to protect the areas where the fields lie.

 

Ditto that. I'd love to see ethanol work out, but when you start to see people in the news going hungry because of a lack of grain, you start to wonder.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't trust the environmental record of the PTB. I think that drilling offshore near Montery or up in the ANWR would be tragically and permanently bad for the environment. Also, fundamentally, this will not make us energy-self-sufficient. We need to focus on energy self-sufficiency, IMV, in a strategic way that actually closes on an eventual lack of need for imported oil. That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

[Greta]

That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

 

:iagree:

 

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ditto that. I'd love to see ethanol work out, but when you start to see people in the news going hungry because of a lack of grain, you start to wonder.

 

Except the government is still paying farmers to NOT farm so that grain prices don't drop too far.

 

eta-this is from 2006 but I'm pretty sure it still applies:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

 

specifically on rice:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/137608.asp

 

and they do this in the EU as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1506042.ece

[battlemaiden]

I don't trust the environmental record of the PTB. I think that drilling offshore near Montery or up in the ANWR would be tragically and permanently bad for the environment. Also, fundamentally, this will not make us energy-self-sufficient. We need to focus on energy self-sufficiency, IMV, in a strategic way that actually closes on an eventual lack of need for imported oil. That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

 

What if it wasn't either/or?:001_smile:

 

What if we proceeded with research into sustainable sources of energy, increased production of coal into fuel, AND increased our domestic supplies of oil? What if we did these things all at once?

 

 

Jo

[Carol in Cal.]

What if it wasn't either/or?:001_smile:

 

What if we proceeded with research into sustainable sources of energy, increased production of coal into fuel, AND increased our domestic supplies of oil? What if we did these things all at once?

 

 

Jo

 

This is a fair question, and I would answer it by looking around, LOL. In theory, we are doing all these things at once right now. In theory, there is a free market of ideas that should encourage development of renewable/sustainable energy sources (the 'build a better mousetrap...' theory). In fact, this research is very expensive and is not subsidized like the oil companies are. And to a large extent it has not happened. What will make it happen?

 

In theory, we should be looking for increased production from domestic sources all the time, on principle, to stay independent. In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable. This makes sense unless you have a strategic goal of energy independence, in which case you need to adjust your policies to promote use of known, internal sources. But wait! That would mean that we would need to either subsidize those prices, or tax imports. And taxing imports would violate the WTO. Price subsidies would be unpopular, although one could argue that the tax law is so arcane that we already have some of these and they are just not generally known, so they could probably be extended. But we can't afford this because we are pouring so much money into Iraq and, to a lessor extent, Afghanistan. So there you have it--gridlock/stalemate.

 

The last thing we should do, IMO, is to then turn around in the face of all this and say, "OK, now we are going to do NEW drilling in NEW fields in environmentally sensitive areas, knowing that it is a stopgap, knowing that based on past experience we will use this as a crutch to enable us to refrain from developing the stable sources of energy that we really need, rather than as a bridge to take us in parallel to the stable sources."

 

In my view, the stable sources of fuel will not be developed unless and until there is no alternative; and also, the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

[Colleen]

Are you for or against increased domestic drilling?

 

I'm against it ~ no surprise there.;) It's on par with the band-aid approach to traffic congestion ~ simply adding more lanes.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Sometimes, I wonder whether the current rise in prices is being pushed up by the companies that want the gov't to allow more drilling. If they can get the oil prices sky high, the people put more pressure on the gov't to allow more drilling...

 

Or maybe I have no understanding of how it all works and this is a silly idea. That might well be the case.

[lynn]

It's there go for it.

[StacyWithFourRugrats]

I don't trust the environmental record of the PTB. I think that drilling offshore near Montery or up in the ANWR would be tragically and permanently bad for the environment. Also, fundamentally, this will not make us energy-self-sufficient. We need to focus on energy self-sufficiency, IMV, in a strategic way that actually closes on an eventual lack of need for imported oil. That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

 

:iagree:

 

We procrastinate and continually try to take the easy way out. It is human nature in many cases to do so. It is no different with the environment. If it was easy and quick (and economically viable) to create alternate fuels, everyone would be on the bandwagon (except maybe the oil companies). It is not going to be a quick fix. It is not going to be easy. AND it will most likely be expensive before it gets better. We need to deal with that and stop complaining about relying on imported oil and tapping into the resources below some of the most pristine places left in this country.

 

Everyone, when asked, will say they want to leave this planet in better shape for their kids. But how many people actually do something about it? Or better yet, suffer through hardships to make it happen? All over the world people have been paying out the nose for gas for a long time. They are used to it. Their governments created public transportation as an alternative. Where is our public transportation huh?

 

I don't think drilling in the ANWR is going to make anything better. Just a band-aid as others stated. And for me, I would like to be able to one day visit ANWR without having to go out on a boat through oil-slick water, on roads that have cut through forests and destroyed habitats, and through areas with trees cut down by oil companies. Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

[Quiver0f10]

:iagree:

 

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

 

 

:iagree:

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Agreeing wholeheartedly with those who say it's only delaying the inveitable - another attempt at a quick fix.

[cornopean]

I love Robert Samuelson on this issue. lots of factual info here to ponder. Is there a reason why we can't do both? drill and search for alternatives? are the two mutually exclusive?

 

WASHINGTON -- What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/start_drilling.html

[at the beach]

Are you for or against increased domestic drilling?

 

Completely against.

[at the beach]

Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

 

Not if the oil industry has anything to say about it.

[Kelli in TN]

Their governments created public transportation as an alternative. Where is our public transportation huh?

 

 

 

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

 

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

 

I want some dang public transportation!!!

[battlemaiden]

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

 

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

 

I want some dang public transportation!!!

 

Where I live we have a very active debate about the need for light rail. People are generally for it- if the local radio discussions can be trusted. My dad is a civil engineer who specializes in light and commuter rail- he has worked in Europe, China, and the United States presenting proposals on the various types of public rail that would work in different communities. Hands down the biggest obstacle has been local city government. The Federal Government gives **millions** in grant money for cities to get public transportation up and running.

 

Along with this problem is the complete lack of smart community planning that require a dependence on driving....also a local government failing.

 

Who are we electing to lead our communties in these public transportation efforts? Are we really holding them accountable?

 

Jo

[JWSJ]

:iagree:

 

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

 

Like what?

 

I don't see any real, viable, renewable energy sources that compare to the energy output of petroleum.

[Amy in Orlando]

I feel wishy-washy, but I'm in the "can't we do both?" camp. I'm all for alternative fuel sources and public transportation, but there is no quick fix. It's nice to say that if people are hit hard enough in the pocketbook that they'll change their "evil" ways, but that's just not realistic in many states. I grew up in the northeast and public transportation was the norm, walking was the norm and the towns and cities were set up for this kind of thing. Florida is not. It will be decades before Florida addresses and fixes this problem. If it's even fixable. We're a "driving" state (at least Central Florida). I combine errands, we just today turned on our a/c and it's set at 83, I send the boys on their bikes if I just need a gallon of milk, if it's under two miles, we walk or bike for the most part (until our temps & humidity top 95). But, we're the neighborhood oddballs.

 

So, I feel stuck in the "what can't we do both?" mindset.

[battlemaiden]

And for me, I would like to be able to one day visit ANWR without having to go out on a boat through oil-slick water, on roads that have cut through forests and destroyed habitats, and through areas with trees cut down by oil companies. Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

 

This seems a bit of an extreme statement considering the proximity of the drilling area (a small corner of ANWR right next to established drilling areas and the oil town of Prudhoe Bay).

 

And isn't that area above the tundra? No trees? I'll have to look further into the flora and fauna. My dh flew out of Prudhoe Bay on his way to the North Pole last year- he described it as a barren landscape on the edge of nowhere. It doesn't sound like the ecotourist type of location.

 

I'm assuming you were talking about ANWR. Off-shore drilling platforms in the gulf have a much more established record of attracting sea-life (have you seen the story of about the whale shark's love of platform legs?). Perhaps the Discovery Channel or National Geographic can boat out to those Chinese drilling platforms off of our coasts to do their next story about the sea life habitat. ;)

 

Jo

[battlemaiden]

I feel wishy-washy, but I'm in the "can't we do both?" camp. I'm all for alternative fuel sources and public transportation, but there is no quick fix. It's nice to say that if people are hit hard enough in the pocketbook that they'll change their "evil" ways, but that's just not realistic in many states. I grew up in the northeast and public transportation was the norm, walking was the norm and the towns and cities were set up for this kind of thing. Florida is not. It will be decades before Florida addresses and fixes this problem. If it's even fixable. We're a "driving" state (at least Central Florida). I combine errands, we just today turned on our a/c and it's set at 83, I send the boys on their bikes if I just need a gallon of milk, if it's under two miles, we walk or bike for the most part (until our temps & humidity top 95). But, we're the neighborhood oddballs.

 

So, I feel stuck in the "what can't we do both?" mindset.

 

Hee, hee. My parents live in Central FL and my father has worked for years to get public transportation more accessible. He was part of the project for commuter rail from Deland to Orlando that got scrapped at the last minute. Now he works with Lynx as an environmental impact and rail design expert.

 

You really can't go anywhere in Central FL easily without driving.

 

Jo

[Amy in Orlando]

Jo - I'm amazed your father's head has not exploded in frustration! My hat is off to him for hanging in there.

[Kelli in TN]

Hands down the biggest obstacle has been local city government. The Federal Government gives **millions** in grant money for cities to get public transportation up and running.

 

Along with this problem is the complete lack of smart community planning that require a dependence on driving....also a local government failing.

 

Who are we electing to lead our communties in these public transportation efforts? Are we really holding them accountable?

 

 

 

Well, I can't speak for other communities, but I can tell you that in our community we elect the "good ol' boys club" to lead our city. I am proud to say that, as a group, they are as inefficient and inept in every area as they are in the public transportation area.

 

Of course I am outside city limits and can't vote for these fine folks, so I am left with no recourse but to gripe about our community's lack of public transportation. (as well as our lack of recycling centers, the dismal condition of some our historic areas, and the fact that I am the only person in our portion of the state who drives the speed limit)

[readwithem]

I feel sure the rest of the world is laughing at our dependence on their oil. We want to have our cake and eat it too. It's too bad major cities don't have better mass transport. I read recently the buses in Houston (which desperately needs a train system but it will never happen) have been much fuller recently with the higher price of gas.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm convinced if we want good public transportation and less dependency on automobiles, we need to get rid of the subdivisions. But we all seem to want newer houses with largish yards and two-(or three-)car garages.

 

I tend to get angry at the developers and the local governments, but usually they are just giving us what our actions have told them we want.

 

We have a related issue here. In order to keep the "rural nature" of the area, most land is zoned for 5-acre lots. And yet people complain that we don't have public transportation year-round. What we need to do is cluster the houses together, so it is cost-effective to run buses.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I'm convinced if we want good public transportation and less dependency on automobiles, we need to get rid of the subdivisions. But we all seem to want newer houses with largish yards and two-(or three-)car garages.

 

I tend to get angry at the developers and the local governments, but usually they are just giving us what our actions have told them we want.

 

We have a related issue here. In order to keep the "rural nature" of the area, most land is zoned for 5-acre lots. And yet people complain that we don't have public transportation year-round. What we need to do is cluster the houses together, so it is cost-effective to run buses.

 

 

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation. We need to go back to smaller/local, but I don't know what it will take to do that. Here in our rural area, there is a Wal-Mart 45 min. in each direction, and people will use their gas to go there, instead of to the closer grocery stores.

[Melinda in VT]

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation. We need to go back to smaller/local, but I don't know what it will take to do that. Here in our rural area, there is a Wal-Mart 45 min. in each direction, and people will use their gas to go there, instead of to the closer grocery stores.

 

I think that's a good idea, but I'd like to see that happen in addition to public transportation. :D

[Doran]

This is a fair question, and I would answer it by looking around, LOL. In theory, we are doing all these things at once right now. In theory, there is a free market of ideas that should encourage development of renewable/sustainable energy sources (the 'build a better mousetrap...' theory). In fact, this research is very expensive and is not subsidized like the oil companies are. And to a large extent it has not happened. What will make it happen?

 

In theory, we should be looking for increased production from domestic sources all the time, on principle, to stay independent. In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable. This makes sense unless you have a strategic goal of energy independence, in which case you need to adjust your policies to promote use of known, internal sources. But wait! That would mean that we would need to either subsidize those prices, or tax imports. And taxing imports would violate the WTO. Price subsidies would be unpopular, although one could argue that the tax law is so arcane that we already have some of these and they are just not generally known, so they could probably be extended. But we can't afford this because we are pouring so much money into Iraq and, to a lessor extent, Afghanistan. So there you have it--gridlock/stalemate.

 

The last thing we should do, IMO, is to then turn around in the face of all this and say, "OK, now we are going to do NEW drilling in NEW fields in environmentally sensitive areas, knowing that it is a stopgap, knowing that based on past experience we will use this as a crutch to enable us to refrain from developing the stable sources of energy that we really need, rather than as a bridge to take us in parallel to the stable sources."

 

In my view, the stable sources of fuel will not be developed unless and until there is no alternative; and also, the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

 

 

Carol, I wanted to add something pithy to this thread, but I would not be able to do so without tripping over my keyboard. And, here you've stated an "against" position so well, that I'll just say, "Hear, hear!" Thanks!

[EKS]

Here is what I'm for--legislation for automakers to make high fuel efficiency vehicles (I mean 50+ mpg) and very serious conservation legislation. We simply need to use a lot less fuel. Yes, it's going to be uncomfortable but the party's over, folks. This needs to be done while we still have the infrastructure in place to do it.

[Doran]

Why is it that the poll results here are showing an overwhelming number of people who've voted in favor of increased domestic drilling, but it appears that the majority of those posting explanations are those who are against, or at least seem to lean toward approaches more geared toward conservation?

 

I'm not trying to instigate controversy, but maybe there could be some additional comment from the "in favor" folks? Have I just overlooked them?

[cin]

I, personally feel that the Middle East currently has a monopoly on our oil supply. Therefore, they can charge whatever they want. They KNOW that we will not drill because of our environment. It doens't matter if no one can afford to go see these pretty places, or if we cannot afford to feed our families. And they are probably laughing at us.

 

I just read an article that someone posted. It noted that during Katrina, there were no oil spills. ALl of the rigs in the gulf held up very well. So, whats the problem with a few more rigs? Especially up in Alaska, as someone pointed out, the Chinese are drilling just beyond our waters? Why should they be able to pollute/destroy our enviornment, and reap all the benefits?

 

If we started drilling, even just a couple of new places, the Middle East would realize that they can't sc&ew us as much, and would probably loosen their grip on our oil. They would realize that they are not going to get our money forever. There might even be, COMPETITION????? and lower prices. THEN some of us might be able to feed our families something besides beans and rice, and go to these beautiful places that everyone wants protected. Cause right now, I am not planning on ever seeing the north shore of Alaska. Where all the other drilling is taking place, just not the most efective one.

 

jmho, :leaving:

[Mamagistra]

In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable.

 

...the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

 

I voted 'for' because this is what I had in mind...not new drilling per se, but use of burgeoning technology that would allow the US to retrieve countless barrels of oil from these difficult or abandoned existing sources.

 

There are so many wells that are underutilized, and the technology used to access this "hidden" oil could be, imho, a great boon to our nation. I don't know the statistics on domestic versus foreign usage of such advances, however, I certainly believe that the US should bridge the gap, as Carol put it, by continued investment in technology that will utilize these existing resources.

 

I don't know much about ANWR myself, though I understand the reticence about the intrusion of industry in any unspoiled region. A few years ago, I probably would have been all for such drilling, but now I'm quite skeptical of it. While I'm not in the oil-is-bad camp, I have little regard for either biggie (business or government) at the moment. :glare:

 

ETA: I am all for alternative, clean, miraculous, renewable (affordable?) energy sources, btw. I simply don't see much on that horizon, thus I can't speak intelligently about the subject. :blush:

[4arrows]

I am for it (based on what little info I have). I, too, would like them to protect the area.

[mom2att]

ANWR=Arctic National Wasted Resources

 

It's estimated that the recoverable oil at ANWR is in the neighborhood of 10.4 BILLION barrels. The area required for drilling would be the size of a postage stamp on a football field, relatively speaking. So you get your football field of "sacred" arctic tundra, I get my postage stamp of oil drilling, prices decrease across the board, and we all go home happy. In the meantime, we can be working our little tails off to develop alternative forms of energy that are both environmentally-friendly AND cost-effective. Watching the economy tank while we sit on even more oil than exists in the middle east benefits no one (except the middle east), and hurts many. Our economy relies on cheap, plentiful energy--we need to use what we've been given.

 

My .02--likely worth a lot less! :-)

[Jill- OK]

I'm in the "can't we do both?" camp.

 

But then again...I think the same thing. :D

 

I live in another 'driving state', in a rural area, and no, I can't see developing it all up just to make public transportation workable. You'd literally have to change the face of our state to do that, and the thought makes me shudder.

 

But I do support some of the measures from almost every idea pool. Politics aside, it's not necessarily a black/white issue on every front.

[Jill- OK]

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation.

 

As I said above, under Amy's post, you'd literally have to overhaul our entire state and change generations of ways of life to make a public transportation system like what you see in a place like the East Coast workable here, and I can't express how against that idea I am, lol. (If you look at a list of states by population density, Oklahoma is about 35th, I think. Look at all the other low population density states--Montana, Wyoming, etc.--and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about; they're difficult to make public transit-friendly for a reason--wide open spaces--and most folks that live there, like them that way. And I'm just more conservation minded than I am practical. :D)

 

But encouraging local community is a win-win, IMO.

 

We're fortunate in that we live outside of a small town that really has everything we need, in a bare-bones sense, although it's generally cheaper for me to find opportunities to shop when I'm in 'town' (next bigger town over) or the city. Most of the rural communities around here are the same, but...it's still iffy to invest in opportunities that aren't sure things (located in a population center).

 

My ideal is great public transportation for cities, and centrally located local commerce opportunities in rural/suburban areas.

[Mrs Mungo]

ETA: I am all for alternative, clean, miraculous, renewable (affordable?) energy sources, btw. I simply don't see much on that horizon, thus I can't speak intelligently about the subject. :blush:

 

Well, for the time being I'd just be happy with alternative with an eye toward further change.

 

SO, if we weaned people off of gas-driven cars to electric cars and moved toward burning coal that would be a viable alternative that exists with current technology. Granted, coal isn't clean or renewable (although we have enough coal to last a couple of hundred years) but we could gradually switch those plants over to wind power (which is clean, renewable and works well) or a combination of solar and wind power or some such.

[battlemaiden]

Why is it that the poll results here are showing an overwhelming number of people who've voted in favor of increased domestic drilling, but it appears that the majority of those posting explanations are those who are against, or at least seem to lean toward approaches more geared toward conservation?

 

I'm not trying to instigate controversy, but maybe there could be some additional comment from the "in favor" folks? Have I just overlooked them?

 

I was discussing this fact with my dh last night. Aren't anonymous polls a kick? I think it is a very telling reflection of the wider population.

 

People generally want to drill, but the stigma associated with oil isn't something people want to be associated with. When the responses label drilling as a means of destroying ecosystems, who wants to be a part of that? I believe there are valid opinions on both side, but some are louder and more politically correct than others (and I'm talking about the national debate, not what we've seen on this board).

 

The posts have demonstrated how complex the issue really is, and that the reasons for wanting to drill are varied- some for price purposes, some for national security, and some a mixture of the two. I have enjoyed hearing from everyone.

 

Jo

Jo

[Reya]

I'm for drilling. I find arguments against it ignorant and knee-jerk--I'm saying this as someone who lived down the street from a pump jack and who had a number of acquaintances who worked on various rigs and derricks. Wells aren't "dirty," as a rule. They aren't destructive. I can't imagine what people are thinking of when they freak out about drilling--that millions of acres of forest are going to be leveled? That pipes will snake across the landscape everywhere? It's like people have been trained to go oil=bad! without upper logic centers ever kicking in.

 

Riiiiight.

 

And NO, I am not for living like people from second- and third-world countries. I have done--and continue to do--vast amounts of research on the social implications of technological revolutions of various sorts. So I know that kind of life is enabled on the back of a vast underclass--which consists of the poor, of immigrants, of minorities, and of WOMEN. I am not interested in being a slave of society again just because we want to save a few watts. Most work HAS to be done. It's either done by vacuum cleaners, dish washers, clothing washers and dryers--by trucks, trains, and boats hauling goods across the country--or it is done by hand, mostly by women. Feminism was not possible until the home-appliance revolution because that--and nothing else--freed the average woman from slavery to her house. Low-killed manual labor is not uplifting, though it is necessary. It is something that degrades the monetary value of an individual's work which always, without fail, results in a degradation of their rights and status. If we turn away from industrial and post-industrial solutions to the labor/energy question, we will discover ourselves in a pre-industrial labor situation, which is to no one's benefit but the very rich.

 

I am also against ethanol because it is stupid--technologically and socially, both. I am for developing other alternative fuels. The present state of solar power means that it is an incredibly expensive means of gaining power in 98% of cases, so I am not for that. I'd like to see progress int hat area. I am, however, for an embracing of passive solar design, which can dramatically lower heating needs in many areas just by following a few simple guidelines.

 

I am for restricting the production of SUVs in particular and for adding a tax on trucks that are non-work vehicles. I am for the dramatic raising of gas mileage--though not at the expense of safety. I am strongly in support of nuclear power, which is the only reasonable alternative to coal that we have, but that will do nothing about the costs of oil. I am less than enthusiastic about the results of deregulating utilities, and I think that the average consumer has really been done a disservice. I am strongly against laws that prohibit power plants from improving efficiency and reducing pollutants without completely gutting existing systems. I loathe people who stand in the way of building a better power infrastructure on the "moral principle" that "people should just conserve more." (Funnily enough, most of those people live in suburbs in above-average-sized houses....)

[jacqui in mo]

Well, for the time being I'd just be happy with alternative with an eye toward further change.

 

"we could gradually switch those plants over to wind power (which is clean, renewable and works well) or a combination of solar and wind power or some such.

 

Could you link me to some info on the feasibility of wind power? I don't know much about it. My impressions are that while it might work well in some areas with large land tracts, it cannot be feasibly used everywhere. (not enough land or consistent wind patterns, etc.)

 

Jacqui

[jacqui in mo]

One reason I'm in favor of drilling is that it is going to be a long time before most of the alternative energies are feasible enough to use for big scale uses like oil is now. In fact, most of the research on alternative energies need oil & other fossil fuel based technology to get done. (i.e they need electricity to run the buildings the research is being done in, the computers & other machines to work with, to build parts, construction equipment to build big wind mills, cars for the researchers to get to their labs, etc.)

 

I watched a show on PBS (don't recall the name, Maybe "Curious") & they were talking about a really cool fuel cell they were working on that did sound like it would be more feasible than anything so far. But the researchers lamented that it would be a long road before it was ready for economic use. (Not lack of funding, but just the need for more research)

 

Jacqui

[cornopean]

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

 

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

 

I want some dang public transportation!!!

I respectfully think public transportation is foolish. we know that any govt owned and operated enterprise will be inefficient and wasteful. if there was a need for busing, the private companies would step up and provide it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote;

"Private enterprise... manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Ann. Message, 1806. ME 3:423

 

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1320.htm

[nancypants]

I want horse and buggy to come back in style!! Then we could all not only save a whole lotta gas but we could have really nice and green lawns from all the free fertilizer our transportation sources would produce! :tongue_smilie: Seriously... The Amish are onto something.

 

Fortunately I live in a city where public transport is really good and is ever expanding. We are on the very western edge of our city (of a million people) and the LRT will be right up next to our subdivision within 2 years. And lots of people use it (so many that claustrophobic people like me simply cannot get on those things without having a panic attack. :willy_nilly:)

 

I want more to be done to come up with renewable energy sources and I don't really want the earth to be a big piece of burnt toast, ever.

 

That being said, I do support increasing domestic drilling, not at any and all costs, mind you... but it seems to me that no matter what, fuel cost (no matter the source) at least for the foreseeable future, is going to have a worldwide effect as we are already seeing with ethanol and the worldwide food shortages, which is just downright unacceptable in my view. I think ethanol takes more fuel to create than it saves. I am looking forward to the day they make it so that our cars can run on garbage (remember Back to the Future? :D)

 

Horse and buggy people. That's how I want it... but I live on a tiny city lot the size of an outhouse (okay, so it's a wee bit bigger) so there's no room for my horses. :glare:

[Teddi]

In areas with a smaller population base, like the one I live in, it doesn't work that way. You wait for the next bus in the cold or heat or drizzle a very long time. No thanks!

 

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

 

I want some dang public transportation!!!

[GraceinMD]

I'm for drilling. Wells aren't "dirty," as a rule. They aren't destructive.

 

I am also against ethanol.

 

I am for developing other alternative fuels. The present state of solar power means that it is an incredibly expensive means of gaining power in 98% of cases, so I am not for that.

 

Yup. Have to agree with you, Reya. Ethanol, in particular, I find troubling, because the evidence for energy savings simply isn't there, yet the bandwagon is full of folks who are convinced that we're doing something wonderful by supporting ethanol-based programs.

 

As far as drilling, the ANWR wd be, what, 1% of the area? I do not think that there's any evidence that it would "destroy the ecosystem" up there, and it seems foolish that we're not taking advantage of oil reserves we have access to.

 

Should we be mindful of energy? Of course. Should we be good stewards? Of course? But it seems that people don't look at the bottom line when making decisions about energy.

[Reya]

I want horse and buggy to come back in style!! Then we could all not only save a whole lotta gas but we could have really nice and green lawns from all the free fertilizer our transportation sources would produce! :tongue_smilie: Seriously... The Amish are onto something.

 

I know you're mostly kidding, but horses are FAR most expensive to own and operate as transportation than cars for anyone not already living on 5+ acres. Also, the pollution problems are staggering--just the sheer logistics of the manure that had to be removed from 19th-c cities is STAGGERING.

 

I do support packaging reduction measures, too, btw. Save costs at every point and fit more on the shelves--win all around.

[nancypants]

I know you're mostly kidding, but horses are FAR most expensive to own and operate as transportation than cars for anyone not already living on 5+ acres. Also, the pollution problems are staggering--just the sheer logistics of the manure that had to be removed from 19th-c cities is STAGGERING.

 

I do support packaging reduction measures, too, btw. Save costs at every point and fit more on the shelves--win all around.

 

Yeah, but they're cute and they make a glorious sound when chomping their hay!

 

Really, I am kidding... I don't think I'd so much like the smell of the neighborhood! :blink:

[Reya]

I respectfully think public transportation is foolish.

 

Some is, some isn't. The most AWESOME transportation system that I've heard of is a BUS system that is set up in such a way that it's almost as fast as a subway--but with bus-like costs. It makes so much sense! People pay as they enter a platform-like area, the buses have extra-wide doors, they drive in dedicated bus lanes, and they have limited stops, like a subway--once every 5 blocks or so instead of every corner. They're just amazing! I think it was a South American country that set it up--limited budget and desperate need for EFFICIENT public transportation.