The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Muppetesque]

The truth of Rob revealed - not only does he have a splooge-stained avatar but he has a fascination with wide stances. I think Carrie's e-lust is cheating on her...

[daitong]

Here's a great story:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html

[L Independant]

Here's a great story:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html

We really are led by a pack of winners, aren't we?

[nietoperz]

I'm not sure whether I find that sinister or hilarious.

[daitong]

I'm not sure whether I find that sinister or hilarious.

You know who else doesn't like it:

[L Independant]

You know who else doesn't like it:

It's okay, though...we have zoos. Thus, we'll always have polar bears.

[MoneyMelon]

I keep hearing about the government's attempts to limit gas demand and/or increase oil production via drilling... but isn't it refineries that we're in dire need of?
Why isn't everyone pushing to build more refineries?
Instead, every republican seems to be pushing for more drilling?

I admit to not knowing a lot about the subject so maybe somebody can clue me in.

Didn't the Saudis recently tell Bush that drilling more (wherever one might drill) wasn't the solution, but rather a lack of refining capacity was at the heart of our current price problem?? Not a lack of raw crude.

BTW, I loved how the Saudi's phrased it to Dubya - practically quoting the Merovingian to Neo. They said they "saw no reason" to increase drilling/production on their end, "no reason at all". No reason at all, indeed.

On a related topic, does Dubya have any clue what the country's strategery oil reserve is for? Maybe he'll buy a clue when it gets a little closer to election time.

From my understanding, yes building newer, more efficient refineries would go a long way to lowering the price we pay for gas and heating oil. However, every attempt at building newer refineries has been blocked by environmentalists because refineries do create a lot of pollution.

Drilling would also help lower the price because then we have a certain amount of control over production and the costs of transporting the oil would be significantly cheaper. However, every attempt at drilling in Alaska where we know there's a lot of oil has also been blocked by environmentalists.

So we're sort of at a crossroads. Do we choose our economy or the environment? It's not an easy question to answer.

[nietoperz]

The environment, plain and simple.

[L Independant]

From my understanding, yes building newer, more efficient refineries would go a long way to lowering the price we pay for gas and heating oil. However, every attempt at building newer refineries has been blocked by environmentalists because refineries do create a lot of pollution.

Drilling would also help lower the price because then we have a certain amount of control over production and the costs of transporting the oil would be significantly cheaper. However, every attempt at drilling in Alaska where we know there's a lot of oil has also been blocked by environmentalists.

So we're sort of at a crossroads. Do we choose our economy or the environment? It's not an easy question to answer.

We're starting to see some changes that, in my opinion, are good for us. Congress approved the Amtrak bill, and it's veto-proof. And a lot of people are staying closer to home for vacations. If this keeps up for a few years, until we've kind-of made a switchover to a more fuel-conservative economy, we're going to be a stronger and more sustainable economy in the end and not beholden to the feelings of Hugo Chavez or OPEC.

That said, corn and soy aren't going to get us there. But ideas like GM and Ford are now putting into production are a beginning. Here's hoping city planners and the like come up with ideas to make commuting easier and less oil-intensive for people who've spent the last 20-30 years moving to and living in suburbs. Hell, the Detroit Metro area could use and affordable and fast transit system like Chicago's or DC's (above-ground and/or subway) for sure. I'd even encourage GM, Ford and Chrysler to design and build it.

[MoneyMelon]

The environment, plain and simple.

I don't think it really is that simple. I mean, try explaining that to somebody who can barely feed their family because the prices of gas and food have risen dramatically.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of deal, IMO.

[nietoperz]

I don't think it really is that simple. I mean, try explaining that to somebody who can barely feed their family because the prices of gas and food have risen dramatically.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of deal, IMO.

No, because if we destroy the environment any further we're damning all future generations.

[L Independant]

The environment, plain and simple.

I'd say both, but it's going to be a rough transition. We got really used to low fuel prices here in the US and used our economic booms to build around that idea...in economics classes, we largely ignore energy costs when looking at international or regional trade.

I wish we could undo the corn-ethanol and soy-biodiesel shit, though, so food prices wouldn't suck as they do. Good on Sweden for making the first Western move on that front.

That said...China banned biofuels from food-feedstocks last year or the year before. Smart lot, they are.

[Spidey-Man]

You can do both in a reasonable way.

It's unacceptable to simply condemn people living today to save the environment of the future. Save it for what if you are condemning the people now and then to misery.

At the same time, you don't have to have a scorched earth policy.

But productive, economically humming societies are ones that can and do keep an eye on the environment,

Many of the environmental regulations are based on fear and nonsense science. Politics and fear mongering are very real in the environmental world, like everything else.

The environment in the US is cleaner than it was 30-40 years ago on just about all measures.

[MoneyMelon]

No, because if we destroy the environment any further we're damning all future generations.

And if we don't figure out a way to get more oil or get more out of the oil we have, we're damning current generations.

I'm torn on the issue, personally. I think protecting the environment is extremely important, but on the other hand, what do you do when people can't afford heating oil in the winter?

[L Independant]

You can do both in a reasonable way.

It's unacceptable to simply condemn people living today to save the environment of the future. Save it for what if you are condemning the people now and then to misery.

At the same time, you don't have to have a scorched earth policy.

But productive, economically humming societies are ones that can and do keep an eye on the environment,

Many of the environmental regulations are based on fear and nonsense science. Politics and fear mongering are very real in the environmental world, like everything else.

Indeed. Just like certain wacky politicians claiming Chinese oil-drilling off the coast of Cuba.