« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
They can't be this stupid
I don't believe that the Democrats can possibly believe what they say
publicly about oil exploration. They say that drilling for more oil
will only increase our 'addiction' to oil. We are addicted to oil in
the same way we are addicted to food and air, we need it to survive.
They prefer to view energy as something we must learn to live without,
something that we can give up as easily as that morning latte from
Starbucks. They can't be this stupid, so the only other possibility is
they are simply corrupt. Someone must be paying them to keep America's
oil reserves off the market. All of their policies are designed to make
us more dependent on foreign oil, from a windfall profits tax redux
that was demonstrated to reduce domestic production to blocking
offshore drilling, blocking ANWR drilling, and blocking development of
our huge oil shale reserves. Coupled with their campaign against our
nuclear industry (which totally crippled it), and their crusade against
coal, it is obvious that their goal is to leave America completely
devoid of domestic energy sources. They support wind and solar energy
of course, because they can't provide anywhere near the amount of
energy we need and are totally cost ineffective. This is simply to
give the illusion that they are not working to destroy our country for
the benefit of their Middle Eastern friends, that they have a plan.
They do of course have a plan, which is to transform America into a
third world country. Either that, or they are just the most inept,
ignorant, collection of morons the world has ever known.
Comments (89)
If you need oil to survive, you'd better start digging your grave right about now. Because oil is going to run out, regardless of whether you like it or not.
July 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is going to run out at some point, and we will need to develop alternatives. But that will take time and requires scientific breakthroughs (which can't be scheduled). We can greatly reduce our consumption (by moving to hybrids and plug in hybrids), but jets, trains, and trucks will still need oil to keep our economy alive. There is no sensible reason to not utilize the oil in ANWR or in the shale deposits. The shale deposits alone could provide all of our current oil needs for close to 350 years. (Based on the estimated 2.5T barrels deposited there)
July 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've confused tons and barrels. There are an estimated 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in shale deposits (in the whole world). The United States consumes 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. That does, however, come out to about 400 years, ignoring the consumption of the rest of the world, or about 100 years if you factor in the consumption of the rest of the world.
Not a drop in the bucket, but most definitely an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
July 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Ignore that tons vs. barrels thing. I just misread what you wrote.)
July 2, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure it's the polar bears. They're just plain evil.
July 2, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are pretty nasty bears, that's for sure. However, I am pretty sure that they don't care if we drill in ANWR or not, since the drilling footprint is about 2000 acres in a 2million acre reserve they won't even notice. We will notice however the sudden drop in oil prices as speculators flee the market when it is announced that 20 billion barrels are coming online.
July 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. The price should drop very quickly from $4.19/gal to about $4.15/gal.
The thing is, the polar bears are in on it with the Ay-rabs. I'm not sure how this unholy alliance got started, but it's well documented. Trust me.
July 2, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the oil in ANWR would DOUBLE US reserves, I think we would see a greater reaction than .05 per gallon. Fear of shortages is driving up the price, a sudden increase in supply (at least an indication that we are serious about increasing the supply) would do a lot to restore oil to it's previous price levels.
July 2, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, a recent study commissioned by Ted Stevens suggested it would take about 1 cent off per gallon. I was being generous.
July 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
first of all, its not exploration. Exploration is what Magellen did. what they wantto do is DRILL.
Secondly, GW Bush said himself that we are addicted to oil. He said it in one of his SOTU speeches.
So going on that premise, the way to treat an addiction is to feed it?
Would you give a heroin addict more heroin in order for him to beat his addiction? Of course not. that's absurd.
Thirdly, OIL is not the energy of the future. Its the energy of the past 150 years, not the next 150 years. Think ahead. Can you really see us continuing on this path of destruction and harm to our environment, not to mention our pocketbooks?
Oil is not the solution. Oil is the problem.
The solution is wind, solar, hydro and geothermic, and yes, maybe even nuclear if it can be done safely and we can figure out what to do with the waste.
July 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
When did they build a wind/solar/geothermal powered jet plane? Or train? Or tractor trailer? Face it, solar power works well only in a few areas, and costs way to much to be practical. It would cost me over 100k to generate enough energy to power my home, and I live in the sunshine state. Try doing it in Michigan! Oh, and those solar panels only last about 25 years, so my cost is 4k per year, plus the 5k per year I lost on the invested money, for a 9k yearly cost - not cost effective. Only nuclear power is cost effective for electricity, but it still cant replace all the uses for oil, which is also needed for plastics, fertilizers, and as mentioned fuel for jets, etc. Biodiesel helps some, but it would cause a drastic increase in food prices and starve millions, and still could not provide the amount needed. (Our entire soy crop would meet only 6% of diesel demand)
July 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes. because there hasn't been the investment or the will explore these areas and possible new sources of energy.
but i'm telling you, just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean we won't do it and it doesn't mean it can't be done.
that would be like the wright brothers not building an airplane because well, we don't have airplanes yet, so why build one?
and here's an idea, if we covered all the highways in america, especially the ones in the west, with solar panels, we'd have more than enough energy.
did you know that the sun powers all weather and all life on earth? its the only source of power the planet has. so i think its kind of naive and incredibly short-sighted to say that the sun doesn't generate enough power for us.
but in all likelihood, its going to be a collaboration of all sorts of new energy and new fuels that's going to get us out of this mess.
the one thing i absolutely know for sure, is that we cannot sustain ourselves on oil. its a finite resource, and one day its going to run out. it may be 50 years from now, it may be 150 years from now, but the sooner we get off of it the better off we'll all be. otherwise, we're just delaying the inevitibility of the day when we do run out of oil and we're completely screwed because we didn't have the forsight or the will to plan for that eventuality.
July 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is geothermal power as well, which is independent of solar. But yes, almost all life and weather is powered by solar energy.
July 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much geothermal power actually comes from nuclear fission. Not fusion mind you, but fission. Be afraid. Be very afraid. ;)
July 2, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. We're sitting on top a goddam nuclear reactor and the whole place is radioactive. Woe is us!
July 2, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or implement regulations to prevent the investors nouveaux from sinking their monies into oil commodities. Lot of bears on the commodities exchange lately, not sure if they are polar though.
July 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just some facts.
While the uninformed are pushing for new drilling US oil and gas companies currently have leases and permits on 68 million acres where they are free to drill and yet they are not. Translation
That would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75%. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than a third, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
So how about before we go drilling holes where they are not wanted, might cause environmental harm we insist they drill where they are allowed to before we go drilling new holes.
July 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are justifying their moronic obstruction of domestic oil and gas exploration by claiming that there are 68 million acres of leases that are currently idle, implying that the oil industry is intentionally not producing oil to keep prices up. As usual, they are either totally misinformed or simply lying to divert the blame that they deserve for America's energy crisis. To imply that a lease that is not producing is idle ignores the many permits and mountains of red-tape required to begin production, in addition to the lengthy exploration and verification process to determine if oil is actually present. Often after much effort and more than $100 million in expense they end up with a dry hole. Just because there is a lease does not imply there is oil, a lease is just the right to look for oil that may or may not be there. After a lease is obtained, the following permits are required: Geophysical and Geological Exploration Permits, EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits, Army Corps of Engineers permit, marine mammal/endangered species permits, in addition to the permits to drill. Then they must develop a deep water operations plan, an oil spill response plan, a hydrogen sulfide plan, and a development plan. It is more involved than just poking a hole in the ground and pumping oil, which is why it is important to open up more areas to explore NOW, and to streamline the process to keep America from running out of oil. Or we can blame the oil companies and keep sending our money overseas to pay those that want to kill us. Sadly, the democrats think the latter is the best option.
July 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both Dems and Reps have been opposed to offshore drilling in their home states. Many Reps still are opposed. McCain was opposed, but recently flip-flopped, as he has on so many energy issues. Rep Roscoe Bartlett, conservative Republican that he is, advocates saving any oil in ANWR for our grandchildren (he has quite a few). This as a convenient issue to obscure the reality that oil production is in decline, nothing more.
July 2, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see reasons for opposing offshore drilling (I think the safety concerns have been addressed by current technology), but not exploiting the oil shale deposits seems just stupid, as is the idea to ignore ANWR until we are in a total crisis, since it will take some time(even if the process is streamlined) to get to market.
July 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which oil shale do you mean?
There's some conventional petroleum deposits trapped among shale.
There's also a lot of oil shale, which is really smudges of kerogen, not petroleum, trapped in rock. Oil shale requires massive inputs of energy to mine and to convert to synthetic petroleum, and massive amounts of water. Perversely, deposits seem to be located where there is very little water. Despite industry claims of $75 - $95 per barrel, I don't think it will be financially viable to bring in the needed water until conventional oil goes a lot higher.
July 2, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bulldog, do you work for Exxon/Mobil?
I checked out your website and I see that you also deny the existence of global warming. That helps explain your views re: oil.
July 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
busted.
July 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I did work for Exxon/Mobil, they pay pretty well from what I hear. I deny global warming because there is no proof that it exists, and as a scientist I don't accept things on 'faith'. No scientific theory should be accepted without proof, and in this case there is more proof that the sun is responsible for warming than the increase in CO2 from .0350% to .0385% of the atmosphere.
July 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what industry or employer do you work for?
July 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am retired now (which is why I have time for posting), from the telecom industry. I live now on my investments and do pretty well. You should check out my portfolio on motleyfool, it is still beating the market quite handily (but has slumped lately)
July 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, that would explain a bit. Do you get the Oil and Gas Investment Newsletter? My dad gets quite a bit of disinformation from him. I'm constantly having to show him how the science contradicts the snake oil these guys are peddling.
July 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, the increase in CO2 is from the pre-industrial range of 0.018%-0.028% to the post-industrial current high of about 0.0385%. I'm not sure where you got your 0.035% from. Over the last 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations of about 0.018% have corresponded to ice ages, and those of 0.028% to what we have, for most of our history, considered to be normal temperatures. That CO2 absorbs infrared radiation has been known since the 19th century. It's hardly new science. That it only requires a small percentage of CO2 to influence our average temperature is also not new science.
What is new science is our ability to measure solar output directly (as opposed to sun spot proxies). We can definitively rule out solar output fluctuations as being responsible for global warming. We were still setting record highs during the most recent solar minimum.
What is your science degree in?
July 2, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Engineering. The .035% number is the level Dr. Hansen is crusading that we need to lower current levels to. It is certainly true CO2 absorbs infrared, but so does water vapor (in fact it completely covers the spectrum that CO2 absorbs and then some). As far as record temps during solar minimum, that is just not true. Solar output has been declining since 1998, and so have global temps. It is also true that NASA's newest satellite indicated that the expected positive fedback loop that GW theory is modeled on is in error.
July 2, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hansen's 0.035% is based on what he thinks is achievable and not on what is historic or ideal.
That water also absorbs infrared should concern you and not relieve you. Water is currently saturated in our atmosphere, in the sense that it frequently condenses out (a phenomenon known as rain). Hotter temperatures lead to more water in the atmosphere and a positive feedback. I've never understood why the fact that water also absorbs infrared radiation should make us feel better about carbon dioxide absorbing infrared radiation, but it is a common go-to defense in a certain crowd.
Most sources have 2005 as being hotter than 1998 (I believe there is 1 that disagrees with this), and the last 10 years (1998-2007) as being the 10 hottest on record.
Here you're absolutely right. We have underestimated the amount of feedback and the latest measurements are suggesting that it's happening faster than we anticipated. (One problem is that we don't properly understand ice rivers that can speed up the melting of glaciers.)
Again, I'm not sure how you find this comforting. The basic science has been understood since Arrhenius, and no one has ever seriously called that into doubt.
July 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does explain a lot. After doing a little research on what he's posted, it does seem possible that we could sustain our dependency on oil for another 100 years.
Frankly, it scares me. There are already reports that Santa's workshop will go to a watery grave this summer.
July 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's out.
tt slugged him pretty hard.
He was still talking as he left though.
July 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad, because the rebuttals were awesome. Thanks, guys. We need more of these great policy discussions. And less of this crappy tit for tat gossipy crap that goes on at EC.
July 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bulldog remains ready to debate energy policy or global warming anytime, anywhere! I am interested in the country developing a sane energy policy, which for quite a few more years will require oil and coal. I also try to allay some of the fears generated by the GW crowd that predict all sorts of dire consequences from an alleged slight increase in average temps.
July 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will say this for you. Other than your initial rant on stupidity, you've kept it above board. I've even learned something about the shale oil deposits from you. Of course, where you draw solace from it, it deeply bothers me.
July 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to be civil to those that are civil (I don't feel the need to be civil to politicians of either party who I feel are mostly morons). I don't know why more debate can't revolve around facts/ideas rather than personal attacks. I think people should relax a little on the GW issue as it is more hype than reality (I remember the fears of the coming ice age in the 70's!)
July 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fears of the coming ice age in the '70s were manufactured by Time and Newsweek. There were very few scientists who gave it any credence. Just like there are now very few scientists who give any credence to "debunking" of global warming theories.
July 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition debunking Global Warming, .vs. the 2100 that the IPCC claims in support of it. These 31,000 are risking grant money and employment by challenging the accepted religion of GW.
July 2, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so are you seriously comparing these 31,000 scientists (many of which have said they didn't sign it, and many others of which aren't really scientists) with the 2100 who actually know what they're talking about?
Anyone can claim to be a scientist.
July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case it's not clear, when I say the "2100 who know what they're talking about", I'm just pointing out that these people were chosen because they were considered experts. There are millions of scientists across the globe who will tell you they believe the science behind global warming is solid.
July 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
July 2, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
By calling global warming a religion you are ridiculing the millions of man hours and billions of dollars worth of research money that has been spent on an effort that may potentially save us from an existential threat.
You act like being an engineer for a telecom gives you the license to trash the work of people with multiple PhD's who've spent their lives studying the natural and physical sciences.
You've failed to present any convincing evidence to your cause that Mr. Hocking hasn't refuted cleanly.
The number of "scientists" who agree with you does not, in itself, supply your position with any more basis in reality.
Please post more evidence that you think "refutes" GW, so that this enlightening discussion will continue. I'll even rec your post just because it's a worthwhile talk to be having.
We should be figuring out CO2 sequestration and the zero-emissions coal-fired power plant right now if we intend to keep using coal.
I feel like it's better to leave domestic oil resources alone, while the willpower for two things remains high: (1) bipartisan opposition to drilling "in my state," and (2) bipartisan support for greener energy, conservation, fighting global warming, environmentalism, etc.
The price of oil is high enough that demand destruction is occurring; the people in countries that subsidize the price of diesel/gasoline don't feel this as much, but their governments are really feeling the pinch. Soon enough, petroleum fuel the world over will be market priced, and then we'll start to see the same demand destruction everywhere else that we've seen in America.
The direction we are headed is one in which petroleum fuel is one out of a portfolio of potential energy sources for transportation and other applications you've mentioned.
And biofuels don't have to result in starvation or food price fluctuations; the smart money is on biofuels made out of non-food crops that can be grown on marginal lands, and lands otherwise not appropriate for modern agriculture.
July 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call GW a religion because of the actions of it's proponents, who insist that we must accept their theory as fact regardless of their lack of proof, and their willingness to demonize as heretics any who would dare disagree, calling them 'deniers' and seeking punitive action against them. In Dr. Hansens case, he has advocated jailing oil executives for disputing his theories, clearly simplifying the scientific method to (1)propose a theory, (2) jail any who question it. I am not acting like I have the right to 'trash' (question) the work of those with multiple PhD's, I flat out assert that I do have that right. It is their job to provide proof that withstands critique, not to run from it crying like babies. As to evidence that refutes GW, here is a point to ponder. Where did all that carbon in fossil fuels come from? From the air, where it was absorbed by plants (just like the plants that are used to make ethanol) and stored in the ground for millenia. So how does releasing the carbon back into the air from where it came destroy the planet? Why is it ok to remove it and replace it immediately, like burning ethanol, but a disaster if it is allowed to sit for a few million years before releasing it? There are MANY very credible scientists who dispute GW, it is not a settled issue despite claims otherwise.
July 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is running crying from you. And these theories have plenty of basis in scientific fact. Your questioning is perfectly acceptable, but your calling it a religion is not. The scientists who you accuse of dogma are perfectly reasonable gentlemen who've subjected their methods to objective peer review for publication. And that's more than you can say for any of the so-called evidence you've presented.
Your rhetorical scenario can be answered with simple biogeochemistry. There are three important reservoirs to consider: the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the lithosphere (we'll leave out the oceans, since CO2 concentrations there fluctuate so slowly).
A lot of the carbon available to the biosphere and atmosphere reservoirs was originally in the earth's crust. Some of it, after passing through the biosphere, goes back to the atmosphere; some of it goes back to the crust.
It can be sequestered there also. The problem is that humans are digging it up and burning it and putting it back in the atmosphere.
We are digging up what would have otherwise remained sequestered and putting it into the atmosphere. That's why the idea of biofuels grown from last year's atmospheric CO2 and then burned the next year is preferable to digging up carbon that would've remained out of the cycle.
Meanwhile, volcanoes and other natural sources of lithospheric carbon continue to contribute significant amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, which the biosphere is responsible for uptaking in addition to all this anthropogenic sequestered carbon that's being released by humans. in other words, you have more carbon inputs to the atmosphere system than the other two reservoirs, the biosphere and the lithosphere, will recover.
July 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere. It is essentially carbon that was removed and became part of the biosphere, and then became trapped underground instead of cycling back into the atmosphere. Burning it now simply puts it back to where it was, and allows it to again be recaptured by plants in an endless cycle. Since we are not importing carbon from space, other than radioactive decay the amount of carbon is the same now as it ever was, all that changes is it's location and form. Burning oil is no different than burning ethanol a few million years after you produce it.
July 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that we're releasing in a hundred years what took millions of years to capture. There's a big difference between millions and hundreds.
July 2, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is still a closed system, right? If I take a bucket of water from a tub and pour it back in slowly, it will not overflow. If I pour it in quickly? It still will not overflow, since the tub originally contained the water. Just like burning fossil fuels. That CO2 was once in the air, putting it back quickly will have some short term effect, but the system will eventually stabilize. In reality, we are not putting it back that quickly, certainly not as quickly as Volcanoes and other natural sources do. Our CO2 emissions amount to just 2.5% of the yearly total.
July 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a huge difference between having the CO2 in the atmosphere and having it in minerals. If it were released as slowly into the atmosphere as it were absorbed, then the mineralization process would be able to keep up. It cannot keep up with the current pace of carbon release.
Yes, it will eventually stabilize, but it could take thousands of years, or longer.
July 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of it is absorbed by plants and plankton, they consume CO2 and release O2, when they decompose the captured C is released. It's a pretty neat cycle.
Don't get too hung up on the 'save the world' crusade, since the world is already doomed. Eventually the sun will grow to a red giant and cook everything, then shrink to a dwarf and freeze everything, then collapse into a black hole and crush whatever is left!
July 2, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, however, we're talking about differences of time-scales. I will probably die in another 60 years or so (assuming I inherit my grandparents' longevity). That does not mean I wouldn't fight a disease that could kill be in 6 days.
I think most of your confusion comes from a failure to grasp differences in scale.
July 2, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even know I was confused!!
July 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now you do.
July 2, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-) Wrong again.
I'm almost certain the sun would need to be several times heavier than it is to do that.
July 2, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who, prey tell, fed you this bucket of manure? Human emissions of CO2 dwarf volcanic emissions.
July 2, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specifically, man-made sources of carbon dioxide out-do volcanoes by 150 to 1.
July 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I never said volcanoes were the only source of natural CO2, only that the total of natural sources dwarf that of man.
July 2, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're wrong there, as well.
July 2, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
July 2, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
you tell me
July 2, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you didn't realize, there's a link there with the answers for you. I hope you already knew this and were just joking.
July 2, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any evidence to back up that claim? I have seen numerous studies that show 40 to 1 natural vs man on CO2.
July 2, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just provided a nice link (right above you) that shows it. Now, why don't you provide your numerous studies? I'd guess they come from the Cato Institute or the oh-so-aptly named "junk science" site.
July 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are a couple from pro-global warming sites/articles:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Global_Warming/Older/Emissions.html
Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tonnes of man-made emissions from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions
Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity,[14]
July 3, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thank you for the link, and I suppose the question boils down to whether one is talking about gross emissions or net emissions. Right now, nature has negative net emissions.
Of course, in the same link you provide is the answer to your fundamental question of why our emissions matter. I hope you read what you posted.
July 3, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your bucket analogy doesn't work because there are 3 buckets, all of which are different sizes and all of which release carbon at different rates. Inside one of those 3 buckets live the humans, who are actively picking up one of the buckets (the lithosphere) and pouring it into the 3rd (the atmosphere).
July 2, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forget about the lithosphere, and how much carbon it represents.
The carbon in the atmosphere in large part originally came from the lithosphere, from the earth's crust, from volcanoes and other natural processes.
It's still coming out of the lithosphere at a fairly steady rate.
After cycling through the atmosphere and the biosphere, the carbon can either return again to the atmosphere, or be sequestered back in the lithosphere as peat, coal, oil, gas, etc. Lithosphere to atmosphere to biosphere - and
when organisms die, the carbon can either go back to the atmosphere, OR be sequestered by the lithosphere, completing the cycle.
Except that we are digging it up and burning it, instead of leaving it where it was, where it had already completed its cycle. We are doing so at a rate of 20 odd million tonnes per day.
You're not going to trick anyone with 3 Card Monty, "where does the carbon go?" tricks in this argument. Don't make me get my biogeochemistry textbooks off the shelf.
July 2, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per your description: The carbon came from the earth's crust (lithosphere), went into the atmosphere, was then absorbed by plants/animals (biosphere), and then either returns to the atmosphere (to be once again absorbed by the biosphere) or is sequestered back into the lithosphere, as oil, coal, peat, etc.
All the carbon in oil/coal was once in the atmosphere - so again, what is the harm of returning it to the air to cycle once again? You say it has completed it's cycle, but that is not true, the cycle never completes.
July 2, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that not all of the carbon was in the atmosphere at the same time.
I'm sure I've lifted 10 pounds more than 10,000 times over the course of my life time.
However, and this might surprise you given what I just stated, I cannot lift 100,000 pounds.
July 3, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, at some point nearly all of the carbon WAS in the atmosphere, millions of years ago.
July 3, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean when it was much hotter, and humans were not yet on the Earth?
July 3, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, back before we 'ruined' the place.
July 3, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, back before there was any need to worry about conditions favorable to human life.
Obviously, the Earth will survive us. Heck, I even think we'll survive. I'd just like to see us survive with a minimum of pain and suffering. Things will get worse before they get better. The question is, how much worse are we willing to let them get? (The bad stuff hasn't really begun yet. We won't be able to prevent the bad stuff at this point, but we can mitigate it and hopefully prevent it from being really, really bad stuff.)
You're an engineer by training, right? (What kind?) Surely you understand about equilibrium conditions, then. We're currently out of equilibrium on at least two fronts: (1) The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium with the temperature it corresponds to. If we just maintained the current CO2 concentrations, temperatures would continue to rise. (2) The atmospheric temperatures are not at equilibrium with oceanic temperatures. As the oceans warm up, they will expand. (Water expands as it heats for temperatures greater than 4 degrees C.)
Meanwhile, we're continuing to push things further out of equilibrium. (By equilibrium, I'm referring to quasistatic equilibrium.)
July 3, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anyone in the industry claiming that oil companies are in the process of getting permits to drill on those idle 68 million acres. And oil companies don't want to give back the leases either. I doubt they'd trade them for the right to drill ANWR. There are much easier existing leases to develop; ones that require no new pipeline or long shipping distances to get the oil to a refinery. There's no guarantee that ANWR would be developed. It too could be inactive for decades. Plus, in all likelihood, the oil from there would be sold to Asia, not the USA. And the assertion that oil speculators would flee the market as soon as ANWR is opened makes no sense. That oil wouldn't be online for a dozen years best case. No one leaves a market position because things could change in a dozen years.
This is just a political blame game in which the GOP attempts to blame a shortfall in gasoline supply on Dems and environmentalists. Anyone think the oil industry is OK with HR 6251? http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1
If it's truly too much trouble to develop their existing leases, or the industry no longer thinks the oil there is worth it, let them give up those leases. BTW, the undeveloped leases are 3 TIMES what the industry is currently developing.
As for climate change science, the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of human-influenced climate disruptions. Bush has admitted it. Exxon Mobile has admitted it. I'm not saying it's "settled science" but clearly there is a problem and there's no question that reducing our output of pollution will help the environment.
July 2, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, CO2 is not pollution, it is essential for life. Without it no plants would live, and shortly thereafter neither would any animals.
If it is so unlikely that ANWR would be drilled, why then do you oppose it? Sounds like free money to the gov't from the stupid oil companies that pay fees to not produce oil.
As to being sold to Asia, it does not matter, it still lowers our price since oil is a global commodity. Any increase in supply reduces price. As far as speculation in the market, it will have immediate effect. If WalMart announces they are building on some rural piece of property, the adjacent land IMMEDIATELY climbs in price. It doesn't take the store actually opening for others to adjust the price of nearby land. This happens in the oil market too, if new supply is coming, price drops now as people close out their positions.
As far as blaming environmentalists and democrats, since they oppose any effort to increase domestic supplies of energies, they should be blamed.
July 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arsenic is also essential to life. That doesn't make it any less poisonous.
July 2, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In what way is Arsenic essential? CO2 is released when we breathe, and when we die. It is released when all plants and animals die. It is a natural part of the cycle of life, I don't think the same can be said of arsenic.
July 2, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arsenic is a component of methylarsonic and dimethylarsinic acid, both of which are necessary dietary ingredients for pigs, goats and chickens, and which might be necessary dietary ingredients for humans, as well.
July 2, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog, I can't possibly keep up with you on the ins and outs of recovery policy, but I do have a major problem with your apparent central premise:
the US has a right to (and/or just *will*) keep producing goods and consuming resources at present rates (or higher), and our energy policy needs to be directed toward maintaining those production levels, rather than using our new understanding of the limitations of oil and gas supply to remake the US economy and prudently redirect recovery and energy production efforts with a view to the next hundred years. Why do we we *need* to maintain these oil production levels rather than reducing use to the extent that alt. energy becomes more viable?
Also, I think your analysis of how much some AE solutions cost is skewed because you assume an individual with no tax support or community initiative support will be paying all the costs. Just because that's how it works doesn't mean we can't solve those problems.
Finally, your pegging the problem to "the Democrats" doesn't sit well with me. This is partly because I'm a partisan Dem, but there are lots of people of a lot of minds who work in a lot of industries including politics that influence this sort of thing. I hesitate to blame just Dems for the wide ranging problems you describe, esp. when 68 million acres apparently aren't being ramped up.
July 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with assuming that AE solutions can be made cheaper by tax rebates is that it works fine for a few people adopting the solutions, but how do you rebate the cost to EVERY taxpayer putting in solar panels? Having the Gov't pay (with our money) does not lower the cost, it only spreads out the cost, which won't work if everybody is doing it. As far as the so-called idle 68 million acres, this is a flawed argument, in that most of the leases are not idle, they are being studied or permitted. Oil companies pay big money for leases, and then pay a yearly rental fee, and must turn them over after 10 years if they are not productive. They want to produce oil, it's how they make money. Dems are arguing that oil companies won't drill on land they lease, and then say they can't lease ANWR because it will be ruined by the driling that they claim the oil companies won't do.
July 2, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you ever heard of the economics of mass production?
July 2, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solar panels are in mass production now, they are still expensive, just like cars are in mass production yet remain expensive. Plus they are inefficient, requiring a lot of area and a lot of sunlight to produce about 50% of a households needs. Plus they have a limited lifespan that further increases their cost. Plus they won't work well in many areas, they require bright sunlight that many areas do not get. They don't work if covered with snow. And they don't work at night.
July 2, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're becoming both cheaper and more efficient every year.
July 2, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great! In a few decades they may be ready for widespread use! Until then we better have another plan. I drive a hybrid, I have looked into putting BP Solar panels on my house but can't justify the expense. If everyone did their part we would not need near as much oil as we do. I will by a plug in when I can find a decent one (coolgreencars.net has some electric Porsches that are cool). I just don't see the reason for not using the resources we have available, and I reject the idea we should live like a third world country.
July 2, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only ones suggesting we should live like a 3rd world country are Republican alarmists.
July 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to clarify that. The only ones suggesting that we need to live in 3rd world conditions in order to reduce our carbon output are Republican alarmists.
July 2, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We are addicted to oil in the same way we are addicted to food and air, we need it to survive. They prefer to view energy as something we must learn to live without, something that we can give up as easily as that morning latte from Starbucks."
Oil: any of a large class of substances typically unctuous, viscous, combustible, liquid at ordinary temperatures, and soluble in ether or alcohol but not in water: used for anointing, perfuming, lubricating, illuminating, heating, etc.
Energy: any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation
We can't live without energy. But we can (and in fact, will have to) learn to live without oil.
We keep having the same arguments we've been having for 30 years while we make incremental progress, at best, on developing technologies that will power the future.
Drilling in Anwar is a smokescreen. It allows supporters of the drilling to pretend like they have an actual idea while we get further and further behind in forging any meaningful solutions.
And as for the estimates of how much oil is available if only we'd stop hugging trees and let the oil companies go crazy, don't make me laugh. Republican estimates of anything are true insofar as they are what the republicans want you to believe. Case in point: how much was Iraq supposed to cost? And how long was it supposed to last?
July 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The estimates on oil in ANWR are from the USGS, not from 'republicans'. Oil companies will not spend hundreds of millions to drill for oil where there is not solid evidence it exists in great quantities, they will not believe 'republican' estimates. They do not want to lose money, they are looking to make money by producing as much oil as they can. Had we allowed drilling in ANWR 10 years ago, that oil would be on the market NOW, as opposed to being years away from helping. Unfortunately scientific progress can't be legislated. For now, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas are the only sources that will meet our needs, and we are competing with the world for these resources. If supply does not increase, price will, and we will suffer.
July 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ten years ago, when talk of drilling in ANWR was floating by the Clinton administration, the studies all showed exactly what they show today.
They showed that it would take 10 to 20 years to get the oil on line, and that the production from ANWR would increase global oil output by about 1% or so.
An extra million barrels a day is what might be coming out of ANWR, if everything had gone perfectly from the late 1990's till now.
That's not enough oil to dent the world price of oil. The world consumes like 80 odd million barrels a day. The cost reduction on a barrel of oil might be a couple dollars; the cost reduction on a gallon of gas might be a few pennies.
That's not relief, that's a band-aid.
July 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, bulldogs totally can be this stupid. 20,000 scientists signed a petition saying so.
July 2, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment