Posted 7 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
For those who think that we can drill our way out of the current oil price conundrum, realize that domestic oil production peaked four decades ago while demand continued to grow unmitigated. The easy oil is long gone and as we scrape the bottom of the barrel and find little patches of undeveloped energy in Alaska and offshore, it might be wise to not lose sight of the fact that we are scrounging. Preserving what we have left might be more responsible policy than developing it.
The Bush administration policy of “drain America first” has left us only more addicted while others develop a cure. Any cure for oil addiction will also relieve anthropogenic climate change. As I trek through the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this summer, observing wildlife and monitoring glacial retreat, I will be thinking differently about energy and how I use it. Will you join me in introspection?
GREG SCOTT
Evergreen
108 Responses to “Drilling in ANWR is just scrounging for last drops of oil”
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Going for a walk across the tundra while it isn’t frozen are you?
I heard that it takes hundreds of years for the tundra to repair itself from careless human footprints.
But you are on of those environmentally correct types, so any damage you do is perfectly acceptable to your tiny little circle of friends.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oil from Anwar would replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for many, many years. Drilling offshore would replace a large portion of our imports from other countries. Environmentalists do not want to drill anywhere in the planet. They should show some courage and take full responsibility for our dependence on enemy countries for our oil.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog: “Oil from Anwar would replace our imports from Saudi Arabia for many, many years.”
Not according to the U.S. Energy Dept. Here is what they say:
“WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.”
The actual data indicate that even at peak production from
ANWR, we would still have to import 2/3 of our oil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, it is not true that environmentalists “do not want to drill anywhere in the planet.”
I could just as easily say Republicans want to drill every inch of the planet taking no measures to protect the environment along the way, but I know that would not be true either.
As far as ANWAR one thing I would want to be sure of is that the resources would be refined and sold within the U.S. instead of going on the global market. Also would it be American companies doing the drilling? Or would we just be making other countries rich in trade for this slice of our wilderness? Many more questions to ask about ANWAR but here is one environmentalist who does not rule out the possibility.
If it is truly going to help our economy survive as we develop more sustainable technologies for the future then maybe we need to do it. But right now that seems to be a big “if”. I really need to research more. If anyone has any good politically neutral links that would be appreciated.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, a third from ANWR, a third from the Gulf of Mexico, a third from offshore California, a third from off the East Coast, a third from various other new discoveries in the US, and pretty soon your dependence on foreign oil begins to weaken and wane.
Toss in a few dozen nuclear power plants, coal gasification plants, lower cost solar panels making them affordable to the general public, more efficient wind generators, and get rid of unproven ‘environmental regulations and turn the American People loose to do what they do best, and soon you have a roaring economy and everyone is a winner.
Well, everyone but the liberals and environmental nutcases that cry when they watch bambi.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
???
” If anyone has any good politically neutral links that would be appreciated. ”
Ain’t that like a double negative or something?
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
… like the link Classof52 just provided. Very helpful.
I suspect it is more of an economic issue rather than a “keep us supplied with oil” issue. With prices as high as they are whichever oil companies drill in ANWAR or anywhere are going to get a great return on that investment in the current market. I am not saying that’s a bad thing. I do not think all oil companies are evil. They are in fact a crucial leg of our economy.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis: “Ain’t that like a double negative or something?”
??? I don’t think so. A redundancy maybe.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I suppose you could try this one.
It’s the Governor of Alaska attempting to destroy the entire ecology of her State.
It’s not like she enjoys living there or wanting to get re-elected or nuthin like that ya know?
http://www.anwr.org/
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
anwr.org is created by Frontier Communications which, in turn is provided by the North Star Group, a lobbying firm out of Washington DC. If you don’t think this group is a neo-con mouthpiece, check out the flattering, 40 yr. old photo of Ted Stevens. What a hoot.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah it looks like a very biased website to me. An Steve King of Iowa? Eeeeeew.
But thanks anyway
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52, we currently import 1.5MM barrels per day from Saudi Arabia. Technically recoverable oil from the area is in a range of 4.3 billion to 16 billion barrels with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion. We import 1.5MM barrels/day from Saudi Arabia. If oil was pumped at that rate, it would replace Saudi imports for 19 years:
Estimates of oil reserves in Anwar:
“A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km³).[3] In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km³), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km³).[3] Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km³), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km³).[3] (current market prices are over $120 and using inflation rate between 1996 to 2007 it comes out to $89 dollars in 1996)[3]
The U.S. consumes about 20 million barrels (3,200,000 m³) daily. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to supply 5% of the U.S. daily consumption — most is imported from Canada (19%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (11.5%), Nigeria (10.5%) and Venezuela (10.5%)[11] — the reserves, using the low figure of 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m³), would last approximately 4300 days, or almost 12 years. Using the high estimate, the reserves would last approximately 11800 days, or 32 years. Using the increasing price of oil this supply (with 10.5 billion barrel mean and crude oil at over $120 a barrel) would be worth 1,260,000,000,000.00 ($1.26 trillion).
In total, the oil deposits in ANWR contain as much oil to solely support U.S. consumption for 10 years (4.3B estimate) to 20 years (16B estimate).
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger, I am interested in reducing our dependence on the Arabs and other enemies of this country, for national security reasons. We don’t need to keep fighting wars over oil. I really don’t care if Martians do the drilling.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 6:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog: what do you mean by Arabs? The entire ethnic group? If you meant Saudi Arabians I would have to agree (even though our Commander in Chief considers them his best friends)
What if Chevron does the drilling? Then we enrich Venezuela. Is that a good idea to you?
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Also what is your source for post 12? I am not being antagonistic, just want to see if it is a trustworthy source.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 7:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ugh in post 14 I meant to say Citgo, not Chevron!
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK another PS — I do realize it’s hard to say one oil company is “of” one specific country or another. They all seem to be multinational now. So maybe bullishfrog is right, they may as well be Martians.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 7:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am trying to remember which paper or news service just ran a story talking about the huge oil find in Montana. 45 billion barrels, if I remember correctly ( I will keep looking til I find the reference ). Add that to the fact that there is, in Pennsylvania, New York, etc., a much larger gas bearing formation than anything out here in the Rockies. And should I mention the vast oil deposits off the coast of Brazil?
Already, our national oil consumption has dropped dramatically. The price of a barrel of oil has fallen $13 in the past three days. Let’s just keep conserving and creating alternative fuels and make petroleum based fuels obsolete. I would love to see Exxon/Mobil trying to sell oil at $5.00 a barrel to a world that doesn’t need it. ( I know, I am just dreaming ).
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Even if the Arctic Refuge were leased tomorrow, it would take at least 10 years before that gas would be available to consumers.
Reducing demand and moving toward the new energy future that we all (or most) know must come, is our only solution for achieving energy independence.
Americans could reduce energy consumption dramatically without significantly impacting our quality-of-life, perhaps by 50% through efficiencies alone, according to a report funded–in part–by the Department of Defense (under W even). Add in sensible conservation measures and our demand can be reduced even more.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 9:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog: “Class of 52, we currently import 1.5MM barrels per day from Saudi Arabia. Technically recoverable oil from the area is in a range of 4.3 billion to 16 billion barrels with a mean estimate of 10.4 billion. We import 1.5MM barrels/day from Saudi Arabia. If oil was pumped at that rate, it would replace Saudi imports for 19 years”
Well you have given us a couple of paragraphs of facts and figures but not a single reference. Could you please supply us with a source (or sources) for this information.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have heard that 10 year figure from many sources too Oliver. I think it is pretty solid.
And of course we need to reduce consumption and move toward renewables as quickly as possible.
We still need fossil fuels for many years to come, but everyone needs to realize it’s just a stopgap. It is going to run out sooner than we think and if we are not ready then, God help us.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve been kind of following this thread and my interpretation of what’s being said is that human activity in pristine wilderness areas has a detrimental effect on the wildlife and the environment. It was mentioned that the impact of a single human footprint could last for years, and the ripple effect set into motion by the said human activities are far reaching. And by drilling, these effects would be multiplied many times over. The same would hold true for the wilderness areas in the lower 48. Although I don’t consider myself an environmentalist in the radical way that it is now used, I do consider myself a conservationist, and I am concerned about the welfare of our wildlife and their habitats.
I am trying to understand the environmentalist position. Are you trying to say that our pristine wilderness areas should be protected from human activity which disrupts the normal patterns of wildlife? Are road less wilderness areas proposed in order to assure that the birthing areas and winter feeding areas, etc., utilized by wildlife, are not disrupted by human activity? Is the goal to create areas where wildlife is free from the disruptions of human activity? Would the ideal state be one which allows wildlife to live as they did before the presence of man?
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I count four good questions at the end of your post.
As someone who considers themselves an environmentalist I would say in order
yes, yes, yes … but to the last question (and to some degree all of them) we do not live in Eden anymore. We need to preserve and protect wilderness as much as we can but there will be exceptions where man needs to encroach on wild areas. In these cases we should do it in a well thought out way that minimizes our impacts.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 10:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
Thank you for your reply. I see what you are saying, that we should ban the most disruptive activities, those that frighten and disrupt wildlife the most, but make allowances for those activities that impact wildlife the least. But wouldn’t it be best if we didn’t impact the wildlife at all? I know from experience that a doe will often abandon her fawn if she detects human scent on or around it. And it would seem to me that if we could avoid this, it should be avoided.
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree AP, it would be best not to impact wildlife at all if it can be avoided, but can it be avoided absolutely, if we are to survive too? I just don’t know if that is possible. What do you think?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, you are correct. There has been determined that there is now a huge pool of recoverable oil in Montana. Actually, that field has been drilled for many years but new horizontal drilling methods are now available to increase production by a huge number. In fact, I bought stock in Continental Resources a couple of weeks ago. This is currently the largest driller in the area.
Let me be clear about my position on drilling in the US. I fully realize that we need to wean ourselves from oil. But I am a realist and I believe that it will be many years before it can be done no matter how much money we throw at new technologies. In the meantime, I want us to rely less on unfavorable foreign sources (for national security reasons) by using as much of our own resources as possible.
I do not want to see oil consumption increase. I am all in favor in raising taxes on gasoline to keep the price high (in the same way Europeans have done) in order to force consumers to buy more efficient vehicles.
Bill Clinton used the 10 year argument to help make his case against drilling in Anwar. Had he allowed it, we would be getting that oil today. I am convinced that oil will still be used 20 years from now, though, hopefully, it will represent a much smaller percentage of our energy usage.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My source for reserves at Anwar came from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have tried to enter my source for the statistics I quoted on Anwar but, for some reason, they don’t get posted. Anyway, you can google “Anwar Drilling” and go to the Wikepedia website.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting bullishfrog;
I am all in favor in raising taxes on gasoline to keep the price high (in the same way Europeans have done) in order to force consumers to buy more efficient vehicles.
Bad idea!!! We are not Europeans. Most americans do not want to be anything like “them”.
He continues;
I am convinced that oil will still be used 20 years from now, though, hopefully, it will represent a much smaller percentage of our energy usage.
20 years? you must be kidding! Try 75 years minimum!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In spite of rhetoric from some, I know of no environmental organization that says there should be no drilling, no exploration, no energy development. If someone has a quote from an established, reputable organization that says differently, please share it.
Wilderness–as a political designation–is not an absolute. Wilderness Areas, in fact, allow lots of human activity–from livestock grazing to development of mineral resources on pre-existing leases, to wildfire control and mitigating disease, insect outbreaks, and the like. Its a political designation–wrought over ten years of compromise and deal-making, it is not the ‘idea’ of wilderness without human interference at all.
In Colorado’s prolific Piceance Basin, about 90% of the BLM lands have been leased for oil and gas development–in the heart of the habitat for North America’s largest migratory deer herd, sage grouse habitat, and numerous other wildlife and natural values. And yet, only about 30% of the federal lands already leased for energy development in Colorado have yet been put into production. Williams acknowledges it already has a ten-year inventory of drilling sites.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 7:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wilderness—Land of no uses!
There are too many Wilderness Areas now!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
Notwithstanding political designations, and deal-making, the idea of wilderness was to protect the wildlife and their habitat as much as possible from human activity. One of the designations utilized in this process is critical habitat. It would seem important that some quantifiable method would be necessary in determining what activities present a threat to wildlife and their habitat, in order to determine what activities are detrimental, and differentiate those from those that are beneficial to wildlife. Unless, of course, these determinations are made, not on what is beneficial or harmful to wildlife in their habitat, but rather for political or economic reasons, in which case there would be unintended consequences, which may, in fact, have the opposite effect from those intended.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall, I’m not a big fan of Europen policies either, particularly when it comes to their failed economic policies. I am also against raising taxes in almost all cases. But when it comes to oil, I believe we need to reduce our consumption, PRIMARILY, for national security reasons.
Oliver, you state: “I know of no environmental organization that says there should be no drilling”——-You are correct. Now find me an environmental organization that will not put up every possible obstacle to try and prevent drilling.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall, I have a plan on this whole tax idea.
It does a little damage to the concept of a secret ballot though.
When you are in the voting booth, your vote is attached to your personal identification.
If taxes are increased, those taxes only apply to the people that voted for the politicians that increased taxes.
If taxes are lowered, those cuts only apply to those who voted for the politicians that lowered taxes.
Anytime you made any purchase, you would need to slide a card with your ID to either pay the increase, or get the decrease in taxes.
It would truly reflect the concept of getting what you voted for.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Not to take us too far off subject here, but you are right. Such as the mill-levy freeze enacted by Colorado Governor Ritter recently, by decree, that forced you to pay the same tax regardless of the housing market, or the declining value of your property of your home. Thank goodness we have County Commissioners like Janet Rowland who saw this as a punishment to property owners and so testified in court (State, Denver) and Ritter’s mill levy freeze was overturned. The vote for the governor was not a blanket vote to raise our taxes but we would have paid the price. If some of our public officials weren’t watching out for our interest. As it was, it used thousands of tax dollars for courts, lawyers, and public officials to testify, etc. and it was all unnecessary.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis—-GREAT IDEA!
Make it so!!!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
Thanks to your bestest buddy clutzof52, we are required ti use correct usage here.
” dc
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm PM This User Report this comment
anwr.org is created by Frontier Communications which, in turn is provided by the North Star Group, a lobbying firm out of Washington DC. If you don’t think this group is a neo-con mouthpiece, check out the flattering, 40 yr. old photo of Ted Stevens. What a hoot. ”
While ‘neo-con’ may sound like a cutesy phrase to use, is defined as “newly Conservative”, which the above named are not ‘newly’ conservative.
They have always presented the real facts of all issues they have covered.
In short, they have always been honest.
The organizations are above legitimate reproach, from the continuous liberal attacks under false pretenses.
However, the other ’source’ mentioned, msnbc, has repeatedly been found to present a less that accurate and honest representation of the ‘news’.
In short, they lie to sway peoples emotions to their way of thinking.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog: I have tried to enter my source for the statistics I quoted on Anwar but, for some reason, they don’t get posted. Anyway, you can google “Anwar Drilling” and go to the Wikepedia website.
Unfortunately the Wikipedia site is not an authoritative one. The articles there are contributed by anyone who takes the time to post one and can be modified by anyone. There have been many instances of false or wrong information posted on that site. I sometime use it to initially get information which leads me to other sites, but I would never cite Wikipedia (or blogs like World Nut Daily) as a primary source of data. So I would say that your data are suspect until or unless you can get us a confirming reference from a real source.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52 - thank you for your data and sources. They are very useful.
Patriot - thank you for trying to understand.
Ashhugger - thank you for your positions and efforts to explain them.
From my point of view drilling the crap out of the planet may see okay under ideal best practices - but there are 2 problems with that. 1) it only contributes to carbonizing the atmosphere and therefore greehouse effects. 2) even if currently identified best practices are used in all the geographic areas this administration wants to exploit, there will be so much devastation to wildlife and our environment (which are one in the same to me) that I believe irrepairable harm will be done. 3) this kind of depletion thinking can only sustain us so long, while it continues to devatate our planet and make corporate fat cats a pile of money while they continue to keep our economic and environmnetal growth in a choke-hold.
In reality, best practices are typically only used in areas where there is high visibility and that visibility will have an impact on how the public perceives a company when spotlighted by those who care enough to discover the impacts. Otherwise, there is simply no economic incentive to “do the right thing” verses “do the faster, and therefore more profitable thing”.
Drilling is not the answer. That’s like Jaba The Hut saying, “I’ll go on a diet. I’m definately planning on going on a diet - but first, let me eat the world.”
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From gene…
” There have been many instances of false or wrong information posted on that site. I sometime use it to initially get information which leads me to other sites, but I would never cite Wikipedia (or blogs like World Nut Daily) as a primary source of data. So I would say that your data are suspect until or unless you can get us a confirming reference from a real source. ”
You much prefer msnbc, proven to be wrong 97% of the time?
It shows in your posts gene.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa, your reply is typical of those who have made us dependent on OPEC for our economic survival. It is the reason your Democratic Senators are talking of suing OPEC unless they increase their production. These Senators somehow believe that OPEC will take them seriously when asked to increase THEIR production while we are prevented from increasing ours.
As I have posted earlier on this thread. If your interest is to reduce carbon emissions, then you should, as I do, urge for an increase in supply and a decrease in consumption (i.e. demand). You can increase domestic production by drilling at home and, at the same time, decrease consumption, and carbon emissions, by keeping prices high.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, here is another source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course, gas and oil exploration and development are a part of the human activity discussion, but it would appear that debate is more or less at logger-heads. Meanwhile, there are other human activities detrimental to wildlife occurring in time critical habitat, (winter forage, birthing and fawn development periods). It doesn’t make sense to ignore these factors in a quest for a mostly political and symbolic opposition to oil and gas industry. Why not consider banning all human activity during these critical time periods on our public lands? That would include oil and gas drilling. I offer this example: We all know that a car driving down a road is a human activity that has a lesser effect on wildlife than a human walking down the same road. This concept is easily established by observing the reaction of wildlife. As long as the car is moving, little reaction is seen. If the car is stopped, and a person steps out, the reaction is almost immediate. This is something that we have all observed. Common sense dictates that the car driving down the road is less detrimental than a person hiking through the woods, especially during time critical periods.
It would appear that the common sense approach is being ignored in favor of political agendas, and meets resistance in direct proportion to whose favored activity is being banned. If the effort is truly to benefit wildlife and their habitat, then there should be no difficulty in getting all sides to sign off on the total ban, during the critical time periods.
Don’t you agree?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ must be off his meds again this morning. Someone should ask him to cite a credible source to bolster his contention that MSNBC is wrong 97% of the time. He won’t respond, of course, because no such source exists.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree that activities that disturb wildlife suring critical times should be curtailed. Some activities are of course more disruptive than others. Ever observed elk trying to rut in the midst of a buch of 4-wheeling, whiskey-drinking loud-mouthed hunters? What frigging utter chaos.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
lisa, i truly hope you aren’t lumping all hunters into that category, tho i admit that many fith that description
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
I am a little confused. There is already a ban on drinking while four-wheeling (driving). Which of the other activities did you want to ban? Whiskey drinking, loud mouths, hunters or four-wheeling? I respectfully suggest that a total ban on human activity could be extended into the August and early September rut period, and that would alleviate your concerns, and would also allow a month and one half or two months for human activity, before the snow begins, for hiking, camping, fishing, four-wheeling etc. Don’t you agree?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ll vouch for Willis—MSNBC is wrong 97% of the time.
2-1 we win!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall-Vouching for WLJ is not the best way to enhance your credibility on this or any other forum. In their fantasies, many men may think of themselves as Brad Pitt, but this does not make it so. Just because you and Willis believe MSNBC is wrong 97% of the time does not make it so. Please cite at least one credible source to reinforce your position. Who knows, if you do, someone might believe it other than you and Willis.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have been in the oil & gas industry for 35+ years and it still amazes me how 97% of the people who have no real knowledge of the industry are suddenly experts in the field. Since the industry is constantly looking for competent employees, where are all these experts.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It speaketh.
” Sugarfoot
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am PM This User Report this comment
WLJ must be off his meds again this morning. Someone should ask him to cite a credible source to bolster his contention that MSNBC is wrong 97% of the time. He won’t respond, of course, because no such source exists.’
And
” Sugarfoot
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 10:51 am PM This User Report this comment
Rexall-Vouching for WLJ is not the best way to enhance your credibility on this or any other forum. In their fantasies, many men may think of themselves as Brad Pitt, but this does not make it so. Just because you and Willis believe MSNBC is wrong 97% of the time does not make it so. Please cite at least one credible source to reinforce your position. Who knows, if you do, someone might believe it other than you and Willis. ”
My meds are for lung disease and asthma.
Yours, apparently is designed to keep the voices quiet so you can get some sleep.
Please present one “credible” ie;’reputable’ source that refutes my statistics.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No redneck, I’m not lumping all hunters into this category. I have friends who bow hunt and they are what I would consider real hunters. They are careful, they are thoughtful, they are also true sportsmen.
Others I know - Okie boys - who have camped on my living room floor (we all make mistakes and I was trying to accomodate a dear aunt….) brought a pickup full of whiskey and high-powered firearms. When they weren’t picking fights with other hunters camped out nearby, they were staggering around and falling into the fire. Sadly, these guys reflected a lot of what other guys were doing also. It was a culture of crazy.
There are worlds of difference in how two different people try to achieve the same thing. Some go about it correctly - others…. not so much. Same thing with the energy industry. Those that do it right are welcome to stay. Those that do it incorrectly - well, I boot them out as quick as the Okie boys who were not extended a second invitation.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“If the effort is truly to benefit wildlife and their habitat, then there should be no difficulty in getting all sides to sign off on the total ban, during the critical time periods.
Don’t you agree?”————————–My effort is to benefit humankind; wildlife is secondary.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
thanks for clearing that up, lisa….i agree that there’s many horrid examples out there, and i agree that as long as people play by the same rules, hunters as well as energy companies, then we can always work differences out…i myself am a rifle hunter, but while no angel, i don’t drink enough to be considered a “drinker”…i try to show respect to all, but have had issues with “anti-hunting” activists in the field during hunting season…i don’t hunt horns, but meat for my freezer for esthetics as well as the health benefits gained from fresh venison…danged sure can’t be for the savings…lol
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
B-frog,
I’ve benn a part of high-stakes negotiations and yes - I believe there is always a sign-off. Their must always be a sign off or we stagnate or move backward.
But, what is given and gotten throughout the hard process of hammering out our differences defines what we value as a culture - for right now. Such agreements should be fluid and reflect changes as our circumstances change.
Polarized politics coupled with basic greed and self-servitude - more than any other singular social mechanism - has jacked up the very civilized idea of ‘balanced’ negotiation in very short order.
So yes, but my effort is not to choose one interest (human folk vs. wildlife folk) above the other, because we cannot afford to do that. We live in a world that has been co-evolving for millions of years. I don’t want to see that fragile structure —-canned because of our selfish short-sighted interests. So for me, it’s about the even harder job of figuring out how we can benefit and preserve both at the same time.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I can respect meat in the freezer and a drink now and then too. When it comes to the $$, I think for some of these guys, it’s really more about a break from the grind than it is a bonafide hunt. I can appreciate that desire, but not the effect it has on the wildlife. Too bad there’s not a better excuse for these guys to drop seven-grand and head off on an adventure with their buddies. Wait. There is bass fishing…. God help the wind-surfers….
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Lisa…
” Others I know - Okie boys - who have camped on my living room floor (we all make mistakes and I was trying to accomodate a dear aunt….) brought a pickup full of whiskey and high-powered firearms. When they weren’t picking fights with other hunters camped out nearby, they were staggering around and falling into the fire. Sadly, these guys reflected a lot of what other guys were doing also. It was a culture of crazy. ‘
I saw that ‘made for TV movie’ also.
I believe it was titled “The Guns of Autumn” in the early 70’s.
CBS went to Rifle, interviewed a bunch of hunters, took their comments out of context and presented an entirely false impression of those people.
The same show, they traveled to an exotic game ranch in Texas and paid a ‘professional’ marksman to murder an animal by shooting it numerous times, in various non-lethal places while the cameras rolled from many different angles.
I believe it took several gut shots, a hit in the spine and had a couple of legs shot out from under it, before finally being killed.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
i actually hunt for different reasons…first, it’s the only vacation i get all year….second, i enjoy tracking and taking game the way my ancestors did….at least since the invention of gunpowder, anyway….and lastly, so i can teach my children about our natural resources that i cannot see us as a species being able to live without
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - I don’t know what movie you’re talking about, but I do know that in Texas they put corn in feeders to lure in whitetail and call that hunting. My uncle is a part of the culture and I despise that method, but luckily he eats everything he kills. You know, as for whoever participated in whatever you saw and regardless of whether it was staged or real - dirtbags proliferate the world over.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis writes, “Please present one “credible” ie;’reputable’ source that refutes my statistics.”
The real question is where “my statistics” come from. It’s obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than 50 they come solely from his mind.
Come on Willis, stand up, be a man, and tell us where you got your statistics - or are they a matter of national security?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Redneck, I think educating our kids about the wild and our role in it is so important - kudos to you for taking the time to invest in that knowledge with your kids. Not only, I’m sure, will it give them a broader perspective on the world, but I imagine it will build memories that they will call on for a lifetime.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitekredneck and Bullishfrog,
I really think you fellas should take a second look at the proposed ban on human activity between Dec. and the last of August. There are several obvious advantages, for you, in this. First, unless you are a bow hunter, your time slot would not be included in this ban. Second, at present most of the things that you want to do are already banned in the so-called wilderness and study areas. Why not include the environmentalist in the ban and their activities. This proposed ban would add a whole new dimension to the rifle hunting seasons. Imagine, if you will, tens of thousands of out of state hunters camping side by side with the Sierra Club types. Animal rights activists flying their ALF flags outside their tents. Gas and oil rigs blocking the roads. Bird watchers and hikers flinching with every shot. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Think of all the additional people that would be put in opposition to these bans. They could be extended to river rafting, mountain biking, crosscountrysking and snowshoeing. Ranchers would be opposed, miners too. The point is why let the opposition infringe on our rights, by arbitrarily labeling them harmful, when their activities are in some cases more harmful and less beneficial (hunting) to wildlife. That is why it suddenly got quiet on this thread. Come on guys, let’s try to be inclusive here.
And we haven’t even talked about the US Forest Service policy of leasing designated campsites (end of road)to outfitters and guides for a percentage of their gross. Just think, the animal activists and their groups could compete for up to 20 exclusive campsites per group, including base camps, drop camps etc. If you are a resident hunter, this could be of great benefit in your efforts to draw tags in the limited draw areas. Man, I just don’t see any down side to this. The dog and pony show during the fall hunting season would well be worth the price of admission. Let’s go for it guys, let’s get this show on the road.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have to admit, the visual image you present is intriguing. But do you think I would want to get in on the ground on that kind of fiasco? Fly over with a chopper and film the chaos of human wildlife competing for the same limited resources wildlife cope with very day - all at once? Yes…. definately. But the irony in that scenerio? The wildlife will have fled to any other direction away from such an epicenter, probably in search of an aspirin or a marguirita. The real up-shot, between the flag-pole thrusting, gunfire and explosions from the mining industry all called to action maybe some of the worst offenders will thin one another out.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
huh…kind of a disturbing picture, tbh….mebbe after i’m too old to hunt, ok
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
I am counting on it. I got me a nice little ambush spot that would be used by every elk in the area to egress the crowds. What a lot of non-hunters don’t realize is the more people in a given area, the more likely you are to get an elk. It keeps them moving, you know. As for flying over the area in a helicopter, I would suggest a 3,500 foot altitude. That equates to just over a thousand yards. That way you can be safe while filming, and not bother the little critters so much with your rotor wash.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the altitude tip. And you watch out for stampeeding cows - they’ll probably take the same routes.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, about this movie—-I saw that ‘made for TV movie’ also.
I believe it was titled “The Guns of Autumn” in the early 70’s.
CBS went to Rifle, interviewed a bunch of hunters, took their comments out of context and presented an entirely false impression of those people.
Are you sure that was CBS? I think it may have been that movie that classof52 made and is so proud of.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As silly as this conversation as become - do you all realize how close we already are to that scenerio? Patriot isn’t too far off - only a little exagerated. It’s only by thin margins of overlapping use that we’re not already there. At some point concrete management policies dissolve into theory. At some point, our wild places and the wildlife that depend upon them can absorb no more. Multiple use for the wildlife means crapping, scapping, sleeping, eating and procreating. At some point, these are the multiple uses that will have to take priority just to keep the system functioning. I, for one, would forego a walk in the woods to benefit that preservation.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
I am depending on it, I drew for a cow tag. I tried the horns, but they are a little tough for my taste. It was interesting that you like to watch the rut. I personally try to avoid it, so much violence.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog: Thank you for the new reference. The USGS in this reference has a mean estimate of roughly 10 billion barrels of oil available in ANWR.
Now I have to question your mathematics. The U.S. uses a little more than 20 million barrels per day according to 2008 figures and including the recent decrease in use. For 365 days that total would be in the neighborhood of very roughly 7.5 billion barrels (unless I have totally forgotten my math in my old age). This suggests that the total estimated ANWR production would fill our needs for only a little over a year. And since that production would occur over a period of time the U.S. Energy Department estimates about effects on price and production quoted by MSNBC in the reference above appear to be quite reasonable.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Silly Patriot, I meant MOO cows.
Yes I’ve watched two bulls go at one another - like bucks and rams in my unending quest to try and figure out the purpose behind male competition.
Antlers get bigger, skulls get thicker, hormones rush wilder. And throughout it all, they are oblivious to what is around them - including disinterested females. This helps me try to figure out the human guys in the world, where voices get louder, swaggering a little more pronounced and the size of everything from houses to engines to home-improvement projects get bigger…. from a woman’s point of view, violent or otherwise, it really is fascinating.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
You skipped on down in the discussion and nullified my next post. So I’ll skip on down and get to the real subject. POPULATION CONTROL. How, what, when, and who decides? This is like the fourth time I have tried to bring this solution to most of our problems into discussion. Since Class of 52 isn’t speaking to me, and bobbie thinks I am irrelevant, I will stay out of the discussion, but it is one that needs to be addressed. All of these other issues, with the possible exception of prayer and evolution become moot. Somebody has to broach this question. If we do not, the answer will be provided for us, and you ain’t going to like that. Mother nature is not into the touchy-feely stuff. She’s a hard core___. Go to it.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52. If one were to measure the viability of a drilling project based on your criteria, I doubt that we would be producing any oil in this country. As I’m sure you know, even if we wanted to, the Anwar oil field could not produce 20 million barrels a day. Production is estimated at somewhere in the order of 1.5 to 1.6 million barrels per day. We import 1.5 million BPD from the Saudis. We could eliminate those imports with Anwar for 18 years.
But we should not stop there. There is oil off our coasts that could produce more than Anwar and could be used to offset oil imports from other countries.
Once again, let me repeat, I do not propose that this new production be used to INCREASE consumption. I am not proposing an increase in carbon emissions Instead, I would keep gasoline prices at a level that would not increase consumption (using taxes). My goal is energy independence (or as close to that as possible).
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From Lisa— I, for one, would forego a walk in the woods to benefit that preservation.
I say—no way no how , not, nada, not gonna happen!!!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes - population control now that is a topic that needs talked about. In China, by political law, couples can only have one child. That’s whack in my opinion. But so is the idea, furthered by religious adgendas, that in order to gain a foothold and dominate socially, you should have as many kids as the body is able to generate - good grief. I think that’s whacked too. Where is the common sense? And where is the notion that every individual should consider that we should only produce as many as resources can support? I mean, that’s nature, and yes, it is hard core. China’s policy used to be religiously motivated and procreation was a major goal. Now, though - so little resources are available that couples can only have one child. China is actually a pretty good example of whacked-out policy (religious and political) that has lead to really dramatic social controls. Nature does indeed have its own way of taking care of problems and since we’re a part of that - whether or not we recognize it - we end up adjusting in our own messed-up ways to the circumstances we continue to create.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lisa,
Bravo Lisa, It should not be construed that this post has anything to do or is related in any way to the subject of population control. I’m out of here.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, Patriot who wanted to talk about it then bailed, brought up a point dead-on when it comes to talking about the oil/gas industry and our reliance on energy of all kinds.
Energy is everything and happens all the time - anytime something moves, grows or changes forms there is a transfer of energy.
Some say all the oil in the ground is made up of life that consumed and converted the sun’s energy (original solar!) thousands of years ago.
There are so many ways to harness energy for the purpose of a growing population - wind, solar, tidal, SO many! Oil and gas is just ONE way. And the whole idea of oil resources being finite? That is seriusly debatable.
The old oil wells in PA that were dried up and considered played out are now recharging! Some scientists think the deposits are made way deep in the earth from tectonic forces and then aerobically (that’s probably mispelled) converted by organisms in the earth’s crust into oil. AND Russians are drilling WAY down past where there should be any deposits of ancient life. They’re going down 40 and 60 thousand feet.
But, still - no matter if it regenerates or not, no matter how much energy we can harness, it’s our porportion population-wise to all of our other resoruces like wilderness and sustainable environments that we have to consider. And I just can’t see sacrificing our environment to get at more oil when our population depends upon those natural processes to survive beyond our need for energy.
Let’s pursue alternative forms and create diversity in our portfolio. That’s what nature does - invests in diversity…. and it seems to have worked pretty well all these years.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BullishFrog : “My goal is energy independence (or as close to that as possible).”
I quite agree. I am a strong advocate of increased nuclear energy production (this will come as a very great shock to WLJ and others who are always eager to pigeonhole people). But as with nearly every other problem we have solved in this country ranging from medical to space exploration, the key is research. The present administration has had absolutely no coherent energy policy or a plan for the future since I am sure GWB is gleeful about the profits his oil company friends are raking in. A new Democratic administration-always in the past much more friendly to research-will in my opinion change that dramatically.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Lisa
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis - I don’t know what movie you’re talking about, but I do know that in Texas they put corn in feeders to lure in whitetail and call that hunting. My uncle is a part of the culture and I despise that method, but luckily he eats everything he kills. You know, as for whoever participated in whatever you saw and regardless of whether it was staged or real - dirtbags proliferate the world over. ”
Well, it’s good to know that, upon losing her argument, Lisa went to Texas to complain about the way they do things there.
Are we going to have a discussion on exactly why they hunt Whitetails in that manner Lisa?
Or is just bad?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Sugarfoot
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis writes, “Please present one “credible” ie;’reputable’ source that refutes my statistics.”
The real question is where “my statistics” come from. It’s obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than 50 they come solely from his mind.
Come on Willis, stand up, be a man, and tell us where you got your statistics - or are they a matter of national security? ”
No snookems, it’s up to you to prove me wrong.
Now, standup (past the knuckle dragging position) pretend you know what it takes to be a man, and PROVE ME WRONG!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In American_Patriots posts he suggests a ban on human activities during critical time periods of mating, birthing, rearing of the newborns, as well as winter foraging as a way to improve the health and wellbeing of the greatest natural resource this State has.
I see quite a bit of logic in this concept.
The critical time periods would not necessarily conflict with the scheduled hunting seasons which have, historically, been in non-critical periods of the various species, thereby preserving the economies of the smaller towns like Rifle, Meeker, Rangely, Craig, etal, as well as the more local to Mesa County communities.
The wildlife herds would be much healthier and robust.
I don’t see a downside to this idea.
Take the various political positions out of the picture and give the wildlife a chance to live a more natural rhythm of life during the critical time periods.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52. I’m glad to hear you are in favor of nuclear. So is John McCain. But not Senator Obama. My vision is for a move to electric cars powered by nuclear energy. Hold your nose and vote for McCain; he’ll get you closer to nuclear development than Senator Obama. And, as you know, McCain is also on your side in his position against drilling in Anwar. I disagree with him on that as I do on a number of other issues. Which is why he will draw a lot of Democrats and independents to his side.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve got an idea, let’s just drop the idea of population control as a solution. Let’s just forget about food, water, and all the other resources. Or the fact that sooner or later, the population will outstrip our ability to furnish any of these things. Let’s just talk about the politics of oil exploration. And in that way, we can somehow cathartically dismiss the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Nice try, Lisa, thanks.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American Patriot, the population control you seek is already happening in most industrialized nations. And the consequences of their projected dcline in population is disastrous as the older generation becomes a greater and greater proportion of the population. In this country we already know what the stagnation in population growth is doing to Social Security. If it wasn’t for the Mexican immigration, we would be in real trouble. You want population control? Start in Africa where children are born to unberable conditions.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
B-Frog: “If it wasn’t for the Mexican immigration, we would be in real trouble.”
WTF?
Please explain!
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What I mean Lisa, is that the birth rate of the Spanish minority has been quite a bit higher than that of those who are not of Spanish descent. Without our Mexican immigrants, our population would be declining. And please, do not take that to mean that I’m in favor of ILLEGAL immigration. I am not. We do, however, need to increase our LEGAL immigration to keep our population growing. A declining population is bad for the economy.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
Oh, a disaster to Social Security. You don’t think we are going to have one of those anyway, do you? Our economy would go in the crapper. If I were you, I would get ready for that one right away. And there will be nothing but sunny days ahead, when we reach that tipping point where we have used up all of our resources. Now, contrary to popular belief, wind, solar and nuclear power, nor any of the other fuel sources will add more water, or food. Can you name any wars that have been fought for resources? I’ll just bet one comes to mind right away. Everyone seems to treat this issue as a platform for their own political rants, (Illegal immigration).
Is there truly a belief that resource use is not tied to population? What kind of time frame do we have to actually solve this problem, and make our little planet sustainable? Can we just go on dismissing the issue? About 90% of everything that we see as a problem in today’s world could be solved by the somewhat painless process of population control. Why do we continue to ignore the issue? Sure, it is not totally painless, but what a legacy for our grandchildren if we cannot make the hard choices now. It is a matter of supply and demand. The more population, the more demand, and all the while our resources diminish. We are headed for a cliff, at an ever increasing speed. We have the stereo cranked up, and nobody is driving. We are all in the back seat, playing slap and tickle with each other.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
B-frog, okay. Yes, a healthy population does encompass a wide swath of demographic profiles, and immigration can be a helpful tool in achieving and sustaining that balance, but Patriot is right about resource use. And you know what? With all of those people - you have to maintain a sustainable economy with an equally wide swath of professions and trades. With this administration’s (and other’s) brilliant move toward outsourcing, what we’re going to end up with is a nation of people increasingly dependant on government/corporate welfare. Geeze don’t get me started.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree Lisa, let’s all go to walmart and harbor freight and help destroy the American manufacturing base.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As far as ‘outsourcing’ jobs goes, a substantial portion of that blame lies directly on the shoulders of the environmentalists and the ‘labor unions; themselves.
Ford Motor Company recently built a new plant in Brazil.
Due to government regulations and union contracts, it is not feasible for any auto manufacturer to build a plant such as this one within the confines of this country.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“what we’re going to end up with is a nation of people increasingly dependant on government/corporate welfare”————————-Not if you keep liberals out of government.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
B.Frog: “A declining population is bad for the economy.”
Perhaps, but it would be good for humanity and for the health of the ecology of the planet as a whole. The population of many of the countries of Western Europe have apparently come to this conclusion and they are now reproducing at less than the replacement rate.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting, downsizing the population.
What a concept, has it been tried before?
Well, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, idi Amin, etc.
Was it good for the ecology when they tried it?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof92, the Europeans are going to find out that their lack of population growth will, eventually, turn their bad economy into a disaster. Further, if they don’t curb immigration, they will end up with a large muslim population that will make life very miserable for them.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis_Leon_Johnson
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:34 pm PM This User Report this comment
Interesting, downsizing the population.
What a concept, has it been tried before?
Well, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, idi Amin, etc.
Was it good for the ecology when they tried it?
heck yeah it was good fer the ecology, willis….all them bodies made a heckuva fertilizer
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Point made, and taken.
but only in small, select areas.
Perhaps the ruling class could be a little more generous with the ‘former members of the population’?
Just a thought.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My idea in suggesting this topic was discussion aimed at avoiding the solutions of Hitler, Stalin, etc. Each time this subject is approached, the reasoning baffles me. Oil drilling is bad, larger populations are good. Birth control is bad, more oil drilling is good. Immigration is the answer. If you want to control price, you have to cut the demand. Immigration is bad. It is not about price, it is about alternative sources. Save the rain Forest. The cost of lumber is too high. But think about the economy.
Makes one wonder how we ever got by with the population in the 20s and 30s. But there was a great depression then, wasn’t there. That was probably caused by underpopulation. Is there a religious aspect to this issue? Is there an economic aspect to this issue? Is there a human aspect to this issue? Yes to all of the above. But there is also an imperative to this issue. We can deny it, we can talk around it, and we may not be able to solve it, but we can’t make it disappear.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Classof92, the Europeans are going to find out that their lack of population growth will, eventually, turn their bad economy into a disaster.”
What bad economy? This always comes as a shock to Americans who do not know very much about the world, but the truth is that the standard of living of some European countries is substantially higher than ours.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
but gene,
” Classof52
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm PM This User Report this comment
BFrog: “Classof92, the Europeans are going to find out that their lack of population growth will, eventually, turn their bad economy into a disaster.”
What bad economy? This always comes as a shock to Americans who do not know very much about the world, but the truth is that the standard of living of some European countries is substantially higher than ours. ”
If it’s so wonderful, why are you here?
I have an acquaintance, recently naturalized, from Switzerland, who refutes your statements.
Life is so much better here, than ANYPLACE in Europe.
Even though it will always be where she grew up, and she loves it dearly, this is HOME.
Why is that gene?
Why are people from all parts of the world doing everything they can to get into THIS country instead of trying for some place in Europe?
Methinks thou hast no clue.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52. First of all, I did not mention the state of the European economy and I did not say that it was bad. That is a whole other subject and while I know that most of Europe has historically had high unemployment, I’m not ready to go and start digging out statistics. Maybe another time.
My comments relate to what will happen “eventually” if current population trends continue.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for all the truly great food for thought folks - my vacation time is up and I’ve got to get after it. Over and out -
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Classof52. First of all, I did not mention the state of the European economy and I did not say that it was bad.”
Well I dont want to be argumentative here but your actual comment was: ““Classof92, the Europeans are going to find out that their lack of population growth will, eventually, turn their bad economy into a disaster.”
It is hard for me to interpret that as anything other than a currently bad economy turning into a disaster. But you apparently must have meant something else And I would not pay too much attention to WLJ and the mutterings of his disaffected ex Suisse. My European friends of which there are many enjoy the occasional visit to this country-primarily because of the great science we do here. But none would ever consider living in a country which could elect a man like George Bush as president (this is almost the exact quote). They also mention the murder rate where some of our cities exceed their whole country’s total by several fold. I have lived abroad extensively (two years in Europe), 6 months in S. America, and 6 months in Canada. That together with up to 15 trips per year to Europe during my working days (fewer now) gives me a pretty good feel for the European milieu.
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 3:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, you are correct. As you clearly point out, I did say the economy in Europe is bad. And I believe that. I didn’t want to go digging out statistics right now but I could. And it has been bad, relative to that of the United States, for countries like Germany, Spain, Italy, France, and others who have followed socialist leaning policies controlled by strong labor unions. Unemployment has been cronically high in these countries. I travel to Europe, on leisure, about once a year. I spent a week in London in November with a British couple who does not fit the typical “America is always wrong” attitude held by many Europeans. They are being taxed like crazy and their social programs, particualrly their socialized medicine, is showing its deep flaws. When you ride the tube you see adds for private medical insurance.
But you know,the point we were discussing were the pros and cons of population growth. This was brought up by others in relation to the original subject matter concerning the drilling for oil. We are veering off the subject.
You can see the impact that declining population growth is having on our ability to sustain our own Social Security and Medicare programs in the US. Can you not?
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “You can see the impact that declining population growth is having on our ability to sustain our own Social Security and Medicare programs in the US. Can you not?
Yes, I do. But it is a matter of priorities. From my point of view turning this country into a giant version of what Pittsburgh was like not so many years ago is a far worse outcome which is likely to happen with unbridled population growth than the financial problems that a decreasing population would have on our social security. For that matter those with an ounce of economic sense and the willpower to invest for the future rather than satisfy short term desires never depend upon social security for their old age anyway. My own social security check provides about 5% of my old age income.
And incidentally try traveling to Norway or Dennmark some time to see “socialist” countries with a very strong economy whose population enjoys a standard of life which would be the envy of most Americans. I do not believe that the data will support your contention that unemployment has been chronically high in Germany, (but I have not looked it up).
Posted June 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52. This is a shock. Are you telling me that you are not concerned about social security because only those without an “ounce of economic sense and the willpower to invest for the future rather than satisfy short term desires never depend upon social security for their old age anyway”————————-Am I have a discussion with a Republican?
The unemployment rate in Germany just fell below 8% for the first time in 15 years. The US unemployment rate over the last 15 years has never reached 8% and, eying a chart, it looks like the average has been around 5.5%.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/29/business/EU-FIN-ECO-Germany-Unemployment.php
I realize that countries like Norway and Denmark have strong economies. I know that Norway derives a lot of their wealth from oil resources. But, I am not familiar enough with their economies to discuss it.
Posted June 7th, 2008 at 9:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BTW Willis,
Your definition of neo-con in #37 is incorrect. It refers to New Conservatism, not newly conservative. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on that.
Peace.
Posted June 7th, 2008 at 10:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Classof52. This is a shock. Are you telling me that you are not concerned about social security because only those without an “ounce of economic sense and the willpower to invest for the future rather than satisfy short term desires never depend upon social security for their old age anyway”————————-Am I have a discussion with a Republican?
Well, as I have repeatedly said, I don’t fit very neatly into any stereotype. But I do believe in the social justice of the Social Security system because some through no fault of their own become destitute in their old age. It’s just that those of us who are luckier are obligated to take care of our own long term economic interests and should not rely on S.S.
“The unemployment rate in Germany just fell below 8% for the first time in 15 years.”
Yes but this figure is very deceiving because of the unusual structure of the German economy. The unemployment rate in what was formerly East Germany is more than twice as high as the rest of the reunited country due to the terrible lack of infrastructure and investment policies of the Communist regime. In addition Germany probably unwisely earlier encouraged the importation of a lot of “guest workers” notably from Turkey. Technology advances and temporary economic downturns preferentially affect those people contributing to what seems a high unemployment rate. In recent years the German economy has been booming. When I travel in Germany I always marvel at the host of gadgets and labor saving devices which arrive on the American markets only two or three years later.
Poste