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

WTF do you think you are to tell us anything?

Your arrogance is just amazing. You can't do anything in this country without oil.

 

"Hey, that crack head looks like he's having tons of fun. Let's not disrupt his supply, yeah?"

"Man, those withdrawal pains are a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Maybe you should get... just a little more?"

 

Fossil fuels will become less and less available, while the cost to extract them will become increasingly more expensive. Its the Law of Diminishing Return.

Most intelligent people recognize this fact, and most would agree that a transition to a renewable fuel, using the naturally abundant supply of vegetation that can be grown, on the abundant supply of farmland in the US, is a more sensible and viable way to sustain our energy needs. There is even unharnessed power available from the worlds oceans.

Most intelligent people recognize the potential of solar energy. Germany and Brazil have already demonstrated the economic surplus derived from solar energy, and biofuel production as well. The opposition to a more advanced form of energy production, which also is more environmentally friendly, is driven by the Oil Cartel, which is, for all practical purposes, the Republican party of late. I doubt seriously, that Ronald Reagan would have objected to the idea of a more advanced technology that makes America strong, and independent. What happened to REAL conservatives?

 

This sounds like the Law of Making Up Laws...because there's no way to know for certain either at what rate we'll discover new reserves, nor what technological discoveries could either make extraction more cost effective, or utterly unnecessary.

We keep finding more oil reserves. Do you have any way to know anything about the metrics of cost/extraction/delivery for the future? No one does: but we do know this: we're discovering a lot more oil.

This certainly smacks of the environmental tactic of "the argument is over; the science is settled: AGW is real." It turns out that producing and consuming a gallon of ethanol emits more pollution than does creating and consuming a gallon of gasoline. This doesn't even address the concerns about diminished foodcrops as a result of land usage for biomass.

There are all sorts of potential technologies in development, and many pilot programs - with companies spending billions - to see how the ocean can be harnessed. There is no reason at all do not research/advance alternative sources, while simultaneously maximizing our use of existing fossil fuels.

Um...surplus? Cite please.

This is just pap. The only opposition in evidence is opposition to forced implementation; premature adoption, and subsidization of failures. As I've already stated: Oil companies spend more on alternative energy research than any other single entity.

 

Peak oil (or gas, since it applies there too) is pretty much a fact of production, not supply. There's a limit to how fast the stuff can be pumped out of the ground, and there's no way around the laws of physics, no matter how advanced the technology. Taking the optimistic route of hoping for some miracle technology to solve all of this is a pretty poor stance for national policy. Note; the DOE studies into this matter project several different courses, including one proposal with some rather astoundingly, amazingly high improvements in production over time... and the problem will still happen--has happened, actually. We're already past the peak. The global economic slowdown has helped to mask that, but as soon as the economy starts to recover, gas will shoot back up again.

Peak resources is an economic problem relating to physics, not a resource problem. It's basically an admission that the low hanging fruit has already been picked, and that we'll have to go to ever more desperate measures to maintain supply as sources run low. We'll have to start drilling in places no one would have even thought about trying thirty years ago, and exceptional technological progress is already assumed to allow that. The predictions get very dire indeed if technology fails to meet that challenge.

The very fact that you're proposing that there might be sufficient production in the future to maintain current levels of production as the very best possible outcome is indicative of just how obvious this problem is. Resource depletion happens. Get over it. The market can manage it brutally, sharply. The government can handle it gently. Either way, it will get handled. The question is if you and another few billion people want to die of hunger in the process.

 

You're going to need to explain yourself on this one, as the only thing which is throttling our extraction of oil isn't physics, it's policy. Peak oil is a leftist canard, and easily refuted:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuzSqOgDbV0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuzSqOgDbV0[/ame]

Huh? Where did I ever hinge anything on a "miracle technology"? I'm criticizing those who would wish to harness deeply flawed green technology, and mandate its implementation as a key to our energy grid, even though it is highly cost ineffective, and far too adolescent!

What is pretty poor stance is basing our national policy on the BS of Peak Oil.

First: cite? You make pretty galvanizing and definitive statements, but you don't provide cites.

Second: you just contradicted your very first statement. You just referenced a DOE study which is talking about greatly increasing production, even though you've said we're past peak...

Economies improve demand. That doesn't have anything to do with 'peak' - which is a term I hate because it was invented as a political tool - it has to do with supply chain throttling, which has several causes, most of them policy-based.

Predictions which have proven to be about as accurate as Climate Change predictions, as you can see by the definitive cites in the video I provided you.

I never said anything about maintaining current levels of production. I said that there will be future production available to us, and I didn't cite at what levels.

You're the one that bandied about "Peak Oil". You should play closer attention: the only ones hanging on to that myth are fairly strident leftists: that's how easily it has already been refuted.

Unsupportable assertion.

 

Sorry, that is what greenie weenies do. They imagine some miracle technology is going to suddenly appear if we just starve America of oil(and any other fossil fuel) through national policy.

 

You know, that's what the Iraqi's said when you forced democracy on them.

Your arrogance is just amazing.

 

What else was the UN trying to do through 10 years of sanctions and no-fly zones we enforced? Were we supposed to just keep the clamp down on them for untold decades?

The world wanted Iraq to be Democracy, that was the entire reason that there were sanctions and no-fly zones, to destroy Saddam Hussein, but he wouldn't cooperate so we finally got tired of it and just went in and finished the job.

I have a right to be as a citizen of the Global hegemon that rules your entire world, culturally,economically and militarily.

 

Why did the US not take the same view with democracy in Saudi?

Didn't you accuse me of arrogance on another thread today? Yes, it was you.

I consider myself to be lucky enough to be of an age where I will see the passing of the US's hegemony. It's happening right now, all around you.

 

Who do you think paid for that decade of no fly zone over Iraq?

It wasn't the US.

Our strategy in terms of Iraq was absolutely stupid.

 

Well, I don't think Democracy is such a great idea in Iraq either, given that every time we try Democracy in the Middle East, it ends with Sharia law, public floggings and stonings, oppression of women and dhimmis, and the domination of the entire society by Muslim Clerics. So, there you go.

You'll want us back, because if it's not going to be us leading the world, it's probably either going to be the Muslim Umma or China, neither of which have any respect for human rights, democracy, or free speech. It will be either world-wide fascism or world wide communism as the de facto law of most of the world. Enjoy.