Earth Day
04-25-2010, 07:43 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 289
04-25-2010, 07:46 PM
#12
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
05-03-2010, 06:17 AM
#14
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Drilling, Disaster, Denial
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 2, 2010
It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.
And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution.
If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.
Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,” its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.
It wasn’t that hard, under the circumstances, to mobilize political support for action. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the Clean Water Act was enacted, and America began making headway against its most visible environmental problems. Air quality improved: smog alerts in Los Angeles, which used to have more than 100 a year, have become rare. Rivers stopped burning, and some became swimmable again. And Lake Erie has come back to life, in part thanks to a ban on laundry detergents containing phosphates.
Yet there was a downside to this success story.
For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”
This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.
Nor was a loss of public interest the only negative consequence of the decline in visible pollution. As the photogenic crises of the 1960s and 1970s faded from memory, conservatives began pushing back against environmental regulation.
Much of the pushback took the form of demands that environmental restrictions be weakened. But there was also an attempt to construct a narrative in which advocates of strong environmental protection were either extremists — “eco-Nazis,” according to Rush Limbaugh — or effete liberal snobs trying to impose their aesthetic preferences on ordinary Americans. (I’m sorry to say that the long effort to block construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod — which may finally be over thanks to the Obama administration — played right into that caricature.)
And let’s admit it: by and large, the anti-environmentalists have been winning the argument, at least as far as public opinion is concerned. Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again.
For the most part, anti-environmentalists have been silent about the catastrophe. True, Mr. Limbaugh — arguably the Republican Party’s de facto leader — promptly suggested that environmentalists might have blown up the rig to head off further offshore drilling. But that remark probably reflected desperation: Mr. Limbaugh knows that his narrative has just taken a big hit.
For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.
Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.
It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.
But he needs to get beyond that. The catastrophe in the gulf offers an opportunity, a chance to recapture some of the spirit of the original Earth Day. And if that happens, some good may yet come of this ecological nightmare.
http://www.nytimes.com:80/2010/05/03...html?th&emc=th
Published: May 2, 2010
It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.
And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution.
If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.
Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,” its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.
It wasn’t that hard, under the circumstances, to mobilize political support for action. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the Clean Water Act was enacted, and America began making headway against its most visible environmental problems. Air quality improved: smog alerts in Los Angeles, which used to have more than 100 a year, have become rare. Rivers stopped burning, and some became swimmable again. And Lake Erie has come back to life, in part thanks to a ban on laundry detergents containing phosphates.
Yet there was a downside to this success story.
For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”
This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.
Nor was a loss of public interest the only negative consequence of the decline in visible pollution. As the photogenic crises of the 1960s and 1970s faded from memory, conservatives began pushing back against environmental regulation.
Much of the pushback took the form of demands that environmental restrictions be weakened. But there was also an attempt to construct a narrative in which advocates of strong environmental protection were either extremists — “eco-Nazis,” according to Rush Limbaugh — or effete liberal snobs trying to impose their aesthetic preferences on ordinary Americans. (I’m sorry to say that the long effort to block construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod — which may finally be over thanks to the Obama administration — played right into that caricature.)
And let’s admit it: by and large, the anti-environmentalists have been winning the argument, at least as far as public opinion is concerned. Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again.
For the most part, anti-environmentalists have been silent about the catastrophe. True, Mr. Limbaugh — arguably the Republican Party’s de facto leader — promptly suggested that environmentalists might have blown up the rig to head off further offshore drilling. But that remark probably reflected desperation: Mr. Limbaugh knows that his narrative has just taken a big hit.
For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.
Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.
It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.
But he needs to get beyond that. The catastrophe in the gulf offers an opportunity, a chance to recapture some of the spirit of the original Earth Day. And if that happens, some good may yet come of this ecological nightmare.
http://www.nytimes.com:80/2010/05/03...html?th&emc=th
05-03-2010, 09:51 PM
#15
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Rather interesting he doesn't go into the calculation of the "terrible bargain", or the fact that the government is investigating the security of offshore rigs.
BP can afford the cleanup, government is broke and can't.
Feel free to mention any realistic alternatives.
BP can afford the cleanup, government is broke and can't.
Feel free to mention any realistic alternatives.
05-04-2010, 03:38 AM
#16
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 2, 2010
It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.
And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution.
If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.
Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,” its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.
It wasn’t that hard, under the circumstances, to mobilize political support for action. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the Clean Water Act was enacted, and America began making headway against its most visible environmental problems. Air quality improved: smog alerts in Los Angeles, which used to have more than 100 a year, have become rare. Rivers stopped burning, and some became swimmable again. And Lake Erie has come back to life, in part thanks to a ban on laundry detergents containing phosphates.
Yet there was a downside to this success story.
For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”
This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.
Nor was a loss of public interest the only negative consequence of the decline in visible pollution. As the photogenic crises of the 1960s and 1970s faded from memory, conservatives began pushing back against environmental regulation.
Much of the pushback took the form of demands that environmental restrictions be weakened. But there was also an attempt to construct a narrative in which advocates of strong environmental protection were either extremists — “eco-Nazis,” according to Rush Limbaugh — or effete liberal snobs trying to impose their aesthetic preferences on ordinary Americans. (I’m sorry to say that the long effort to block construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod — which may finally be over thanks to the Obama administration — played right into that caricature.)
And let’s admit it: by and large, the anti-environmentalists have been winning the argument, at least as far as public opinion is concerned. Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again.
For the most part, anti-environmentalists have been silent about the catastrophe. True, Mr. Limbaugh — arguably the Republican Party’s de facto leader — promptly suggested that environmentalists might have blown up the rig to head off further offshore drilling. But that remark probably reflected desperation: Mr. Limbaugh knows that his narrative has just taken a big hit.
For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.
Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.
It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.
But he needs to get beyond that. The catastrophe in the gulf offers an opportunity, a chance to recapture some of the spirit of the original Earth Day. And if that happens, some good may yet come of this ecological nightmare.
Op-Ed Columnist - Oil Drilling, Disaster and Denial - NYTimes.com
Published: May 2, 2010
It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.
And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution.
If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.
Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,” its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.
It wasn’t that hard, under the circumstances, to mobilize political support for action. The Environmental Protection Agency was founded, the Clean Water Act was enacted, and America began making headway against its most visible environmental problems. Air quality improved: smog alerts in Los Angeles, which used to have more than 100 a year, have become rare. Rivers stopped burning, and some became swimmable again. And Lake Erie has come back to life, in part thanks to a ban on laundry detergents containing phosphates.
Yet there was a downside to this success story.
For one thing, as visible pollution has diminished, so has public concern over environmental issues. According to a recent Gallup survey, “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years.”
This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.
Nor was a loss of public interest the only negative consequence of the decline in visible pollution. As the photogenic crises of the 1960s and 1970s faded from memory, conservatives began pushing back against environmental regulation.
Much of the pushback took the form of demands that environmental restrictions be weakened. But there was also an attempt to construct a narrative in which advocates of strong environmental protection were either extremists — “eco-Nazis,” according to Rush Limbaugh — or effete liberal snobs trying to impose their aesthetic preferences on ordinary Americans. (I’m sorry to say that the long effort to block construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod — which may finally be over thanks to the Obama administration — played right into that caricature.)
And let’s admit it: by and large, the anti-environmentalists have been winning the argument, at least as far as public opinion is concerned. Then came the gulf disaster. Suddenly, environmental destruction was photogenic again.
For the most part, anti-environmentalists have been silent about the catastrophe. True, Mr. Limbaugh — arguably the Republican Party’s de facto leader — promptly suggested that environmentalists might have blown up the rig to head off further offshore drilling. But that remark probably reflected desperation: Mr. Limbaugh knows that his narrative has just taken a big hit.
For the gulf blowout is a pointed reminder that the environment won’t take care of itself, that unless carefully watched and regulated, modern technology and industry can all too easily inflict horrific damage on the planet.
Will America take heed? It depends a lot on leadership. In particular, President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.
It’s true that Mr. Obama isn’t as well positioned to make this a teachable moment as he should be: just a month ago he announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic coast to oil exploration, a move that shocked many of his supporters and makes it hard for him to claim the moral high ground now.
But he needs to get beyond that. The catastrophe in the gulf offers an opportunity, a chance to recapture some of the spirit of the original Earth Day. And if that happens, some good may yet come of this ecological nightmare.
Op-Ed Columnist - Oil Drilling, Disaster and Denial - NYTimes.com
You are right, it is an environmental disaster.
Having said that, I'll throw out a couple of thoughts:
---In 1979, a structurally similar mishap effectively stopped the expansion of the nuclear power industry in the US. Are we better off now without the dozens, perhaps 100s, of new plants that never went on line? A reasonable person could disagree, but I think not.
---There are hundreds of rigs in the Gulf. Do we now advocate shutting them all down or continuing to let them operate?
---The oil is out there. I think someone is going to get it if we don't. It is better, in my opinion, to have companies with legal responsibilities to the US extract this resource. Imagine the "help" we'd be getting from Venzuela or Cuba/China if this was their spill.
---Finally, what do we do if after every setback we just quit? Are we reduced to hoping that the wind will blow today so we'll have power? I do not concede that that is progress.
WW
05-04-2010, 05:48 AM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: electron wrangler
Posts: 372
Re: Earth Day
As it turns out, BP wasn't even good capitalists because it would have only cost them pennies on the dollar to put the proper acoustic blow out valves on that rig vs what it will cost to "clean it up." Nobody wins from this decision to save $500,000 on a safety valve: shareholders, consumers, or the public. "Clean it up," by the way, is in quotation marks because as we learned in Prince William Sound 20 years after the Exxon-Valdez spill, some places are "nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill," according to the council overseeing restoration efforts.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobol, the private sector no longer makes building loans for these power plants so any nuclear that gets built here is funded by the government. Also, the private sector will not insure these plants (that ought to be a red flag) so your government ends up providing the insurance. And I thought you guys despised that kind of socialism.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
In 1979, a structurally similar mishap effectively stopped the expansion of the nuclear power industry in the US. Are we better off now without the dozens, perhaps 100s, of new plants that never went on line? A reasonable person could disagree, but I think not.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
Last edited by N2264J; 05-04-2010 at 07:36 AM.
05-04-2010, 08:42 AM
#18
With The Resistance
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
As it turns out, BP wasn't even good capitalists because it would have only cost them pennies on the dollar to put the proper acoustic blow out valves on that rig vs what it will cost to "clean it up." Nobody wins from this decision to save $500,000 on a safety valve: shareholders, consumers, or the public. "Clean it up," by the way, is in quotation marks because as we learned in Prince William Sound 20 years after the Exxon-Valdez spill, some places are "nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill," according to the council overseeing restoration efforts.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobol, the private sector no longer makes building loans for these power plants so any nuclear that gets built here is funded by the government. Also, the private sector will not insure these plants (that ought to be a red flag) so your government ends up providing the insurance. And I thought you guys despised that kind of socialism.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobol, the private sector no longer makes building loans for these power plants so any nuclear that gets built here is funded by the government. Also, the private sector will not insure these plants (that ought to be a red flag) so your government ends up providing the insurance. And I thought you guys despised that kind of socialism.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
Environmental activism and shortsighted government intervention have priced new nuclear plants out of the market, at least in this country, although a sizeable percentage of our electricity is nuclear generated. Modern nuclear plants are nothing like Chernobel in design or operation. Take a look at France to see what current technology could do for us.
Why don't you tell us about these clean renewables you are so fond of, but can never name or show how they would replace oil as a prime energy source. Show us the numbers, not just a whispy fantasy.
You have fallen on your own logic when you propose that the same group of people who "failed" to properly regulate a single industry can now suddenly transform our world to a magical place of wind and solar power despite hard science that proves otherwise.
"We stick to Charles Krauthammer’s maxim on this one: “In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.”
A brief look at the proposed "Cap and Trade" scheme, the major players and the path of money in this giant swindle will clarify this if you have any doubts. This is an interesting story in itself.
Finally I must point out that in your 60 odd posts on this subject you have failed to provide any conclusive scientific evidence to support your case, but you are operating under a very dangerous premise. That premise is that we are too stupid to do the rational thing and must yield to an imaginary all-knowing power to set our thinking straight. That premise has always proven wrong, yet your agenda is to correct our thinking and action by the use of political and economic force, regardless of the outcome. You are free to buy all the windmills and solar panels you wish, you are free to not burn fossil fuels, but that isn't enough is it? Your aim is to force people to do the same despite proof that it makes no sense at all. If the market was actually viable people would be all over it without any urging at all.
I operate under the premise that we are best left to make our own judgement and act as we see fit. But quite clearly, this makes us much less vulnerable to forced participation in con games run by those you consider infallible. There lies the rub.
Last edited by jungle; 05-04-2010 at 10:31 PM.
05-05-2010, 06:20 AM
#19
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
As it turns out, BP wasn't even good capitalists because it would have only cost them pennies on the dollar to put the proper acoustic blow out valves on that rig vs what it will cost to "clean it up." Nobody wins from this decision to save $500,000 on a safety valve: shareholders, consumers, or the public. "Clean it up," by the way, is in quotation marks because as we learned in Prince William Sound 20 years after the Exxon-Valdez spill, some places are "nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill," according to the council overseeing restoration efforts.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobol, the private sector no longer makes building loans for these power plants so any nuclear that gets built here is funded by the government. Also, the private sector will not insure these plants (that ought to be a red flag) so your government ends up providing the insurance. And I thought you guys despised that kind of socialism.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
But the anti regulatory types want to get government off the backs of industry. So there you go. No meaningful oversight on faulty equipment that puts the public commons at risk. That can only be a function of government. Large corporations simply can not be trusted to be good tenants of the public domain.
As a result of Three Mile Island and Chernobol, the private sector no longer makes building loans for these power plants so any nuclear that gets built here is funded by the government. Also, the private sector will not insure these plants (that ought to be a red flag) so your government ends up providing the insurance. And I thought you guys despised that kind of socialism.
Nuclear has been an over-the-top expensive white elephant. It sounds to me like the market has spoken so why not put government resources into incentives for clean renewables?
"Conservation" is the root word for conservative. I don't understand why conservatives are fighting this transition.
For now, I will concede that no new offshore drilling will be done by the United States in the foreseeable future. I think that is a mistake, but it is a political reality. What would you do with the rigs that we have now?
For what it's worth, I am not a conservative I am a libertarian. Put simply, that means that I know that what you do at your doctor's office is none of my damn business--including when it is time to pay.
More later.
WW
05-05-2010, 06:50 AM
#20
Retired
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
As it has since the beginning of time this earth will find a way of healing itself irregardless of what mankind does to it .
BTW where are all the environmental protests in relation to the drilling that will begin in the Caribbean waters off Cuba by the Russians and I beleive that the Chinese are also getting in on that act ?
Ally
BTW where are all the environmental protests in relation to the drilling that will begin in the Caribbean waters off Cuba by the Russians and I beleive that the Chinese are also getting in on that act ?
Ally
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JetJock16
Regional
63
04-08-2016 05:05 PM
