Why are Liberals intentionally trying to Starve America of Fossil Fuels?

My mistake. Apologies. My point is we need to develop something a little more.....modern.

 

Yes we do. Any idiot can see that. The problem the technology is at least a couple of decades away from being anywhere near mature enough for broad scale usage and we have a bunch of delusional people who think if we just dump a bunch of money in a giant hole, out will fly renewable energy on a massive scale and it won't. It just won't.

Many of the problems with renewable energy are related to the physics of electricity and its storage and generation and have nothing to do with how many windmills we build.

 

America could have gotten off fossil fuels a long time ago but its easy money to depend on it and big businesses and the rich are too lazy to innovate

We must starve them of their easy fixes like pipelines and domestic drilling so that they are forced to comply with our standards which protect the environment and avoid oil wars.

 

Asserting your premise. Rudimentary logical fallacy.

Oil production or extraction? Big difference.

Inflation and government "regulation".

There is nothing to explain. Your entire argument is predicated upon a logical fallacy.

Of course not. Take an economics course.

Another faulty conclusion based upon a fallacious premise.

 

A transparent dodge.

 

Peak Oil was a political machination from the mid 1950s to justify imports.

Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and California had many small producing wells, but their lift costs were high.

 

None of which substantiate the claim in question.

Your graph does not include oil shale, nor does it account for consumption rates. Also, anything past today is a projection. Put your crystal ball away.

 

"Much more"...weasel words.

Shale oil extraction costs are more expensive than conventional crude oil, true, but the extraction costs are trending towards parity, a predictable outcome. The private sector will find a way to exploit it, as long as dumbass progressives stay out of the way.

For now...maybe if wacko environmentalists would get out of the way, shale would be as viable as crude.

Stuff your stupid leftist propaganda!!!

The chemical processes have been well understood, but applied chemistry and geology is different. The applied process has been advancing rapidly and approaching parity with crude extraction costs. Stop regurgitating anti-science leftist propaganda.

No, smart people are talking about it because it's abundant and useful.

Oil shale is oil. Hello!?

 

It was a statistical model based upon certain assumptions which no longer apply. It is just speculation. It is not a scientific law or theory which can accurately predict outcomes.

We have centuries worth of oil and natural gas under our soil. That is an undeniable fact, Margot.

 

I think the general thought among a lot of people is that the world's health is more important to them than the economy. I don't think that's an evil thought or ignorant or anything. It's a difference of values. I can understand it. The oil companies have proven incredibly irresponsible with such matters.

Personally, I think we should drill drill drill! But I see where the people against it are coming from. Maybe if the companies would stop pissing around spilling their crap everywhere then people might not mind.

The same reasoning is behind anti-nuclear power. The risks though small when something goes wrong it's incredibly damaging. The oil spill in the Gulf was incredibly damaging to the ecosystems there. And if you can't understand that some people value this planet's health then you must not be able to understand much at all.



Drill drill drill!

 

We have 178,000 wells in the US and 70% of them produce less than 50 barrels per day..

So you may be right... I haven't seen exploration that proves the claim, however we don't have any economies of scale.

 

..and that is because of environmentalists and the politicians who pander to them, like Obama.

 

Oh Bull.. The oil business has been in the US since the late 1800s..

 

Well much of our "easy to get to oil" was sucked out of the ground and given away/used during world war II. We sacrificed our supplies for the good of the world.

 

the US did not use oil to save the world, but it had since world war 2 to get off its dependence of oil but drilling is easier than innovation

 

Bosh. Only one country profited (some might say profiteered) from WWII... Amerika. She waited to see which way the wind blew and eventually jumped in on the winning side. Again.

 

That theory suggests that had the Nazis been winning the US would have teamed with them. That's utter hogwash. The US was hugely anti-Nazi it's just it tried to stay isolationist at the same time (which Japan's attack canceled).

 

I don't think so.. Hitler's Plan Orient put Germany on a collision course with the US.

 

I know that Hitler was crazy as Owl sh*t.. but he wanted to control all the oil from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf .. Plan Orient.

That alone put him in conflict with the US.

 

That's the same as asking:

"Why is someone trying to starve a big fat obese person?"

Use less (lests say, the same as other Western nations) and you'll need less.

But this is not in the Right wing mind. You believe that you are owed all this oil and you are wrong in thinking so.

 

Vital? Vital that you use a disproportionate amount of oil? Lets face facts, the US needs to go on a low oil diet.

 

Well, lets just look at that one. You think we should be more like Europe. Europe is a declining failing state that does very little actual work, and derives most of its defensive capability from the US. In other worlds, Europe is essentially a client state of America. You couldn't defend yourselves let alone protect your own trade routes. So you can cut your energy usage to the bone. You don't need the oil because unlike America, you don't need to move goods across the globe, nor invent new products. You just wait until your betters ship the goodies to you (using ZOMG OIL) while you sit on your butts and collect welfare payments.

We are not "owed" oil, we need it because unlike Europe, we are still a growing country that has some significance in the world. If you don't like it, then get off of our coat-tails, Europe.

 

No. I think you should consider what GWB said while he was POTUS and reduce the "American addiction to oil". This is actually in your own benefit security wise.

Europe is not a state. You might be talking about the EU, which is also not a state. At this point your knowledge credibility is looking rather low.

The EU is the worlds largest single market, banking, farming, tech, cars, pharmaceuticals all thrive here.

See above. Your BS rhetoric is exactly that.

We have enough nuclear weaponary to wipe the world out and a combined military to defend ourselves according to the risk we assume. The US on the other hand has a military disproportionately large for the risks it faces.

The worlds second largest port is in Rotterdam, Germany is one of the largest exporters in the world. We move a momumental amount of goods and are the largest trading partner of both China and the US.

Sweet jesus. It kinda sounds at this point that you've never actually left your own country. Perhaps you might, once you've left school. Like I said, we are the largest trading partner of both China and the US.

 

He is right, and eventually we'll get off oil. BUT to deliberately starve ourselves of needed resources just because "herp durp teh environment" is beyond stupid. The Earth has plenty of oil, and if it weren't for the laws preventing it, we'd have far lower gas prices -- leading to lower food prices, lower prices of consumer goods, and so on.

Let's see here. A single market with a single currency and a parliment (AKA a government) -- you're right that's nothing like a state. Well, except in every way that matters. You are a state -- a confederacy with a weak central government, but a state.

Which is why when Poland needed protection from Russia, she turned to the United States of America, rather than the European Union. We ended up screwing them over, but it wasn't like you were even a thought. Wonder why? Could it be that our millitary is second in size only to China while the British Royal Navy is the size of Japan's navy? The point here is that America needs a large millitary because it has eliminated the need for you to have one. If we cut our millitary to be in line with yours, you'd find very quickly that you'll need a much bigger army to deal with the threats that exist in the world.

Which is exactly what I mean by a client state. WE are what prevents the fall of the West, at least for a while. We take the lead on issues like nuclear proliferation, while you act mostly as a yes man in whatever we decide at the UN. How is that NOT a client state? We protect you, you know it, and you agree to our policy initiatives.

Without us petrolling the sealanes, you'd lose a lot to somali pirates.

I forgot, when was the last time you actually had some significance in world affairs? Probably not since the end of the second world war has the world cared very much what Europe thought about anything. The rest of the world knows very well that you might have a few nukes, but they know that you won't use them, ever, so it's not even a mild deterrent. They've seen,however that in the last 40 years, that we still have not only the muscle but the will to use that muscle (though thanks to socialists like obama, that will is fading), so when we say something other nations care.

So you really think the tiny European Union Confederacy can stand on its own without the US millitary protecting it? 'Cause I don't think you can, which is why you cozy up to 3rd world islamic dictators -- you know that if you get into a war, that you lose. So like it or not, Europe, you NEED our coat-tails to protect you from the dangers that you can't fight against. You're Welcome.

 

Sure. Come up with a great idea, and get it out in the market. Go for it.