posted on April 21, 2005 05:19:01 AM new
What price are you willing to pay to save nickels on gasoline? Or, might I say, what price should the wildlife have to pay? For all of you who support this drilling while at the same time run around with a Bible under your arm:
"The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land." Lev 25:23-24
"I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable." Jer. 2:7
"The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the profits and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth." Revelations 11:18.
WASHINGTON - The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill that Democrats said would funnel billions of dollars to highly profitable energy companies while doing little to promote conservation or ease gasoline prices.
The bill’s sponsors said oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as much as a million barrels a day, will be needed to help curtail the country’s growing dependence on oil imports. Opponents argued the oil wouldn’t be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.
The bill calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas energy industries.
Development of the Alaska refuge has been a contentious issue for nearly a decade. Environmentalists fear a spider web of drilling platforms and pipelines would harm the area’s polar bears, caribou, migrating birds and other wildlife.
Senate Democrats have pledged to filibuster any energy bill that would open the refuge to oil companies. An amendment to strip the Alaska refuge provision from the energy bill failed Wednesday night 231-200.
posted on April 21, 2005 06:24:40 AM new
Next, environmentally controversial projects such as drilling off Florida and California will be targets of the oil industry. The state of the environment is of absolutely no concern to this administration with the worst environmental protection record in modern history.
posted on April 21, 2005 01:36:52 PM new
Cheryl, You are so right even if the oil guys drill in Alaska our friends in the Middle East will just raise the price by cutting production. Drilling for more oil at this point in time makes no sense unless your from an oil family.
posted on April 21, 2005 01:49:58 PM new
::even if the oil guys drill in Alaska our friends in the Middle East will just raise the price by cutting production.::
So how does this theory fit in with the reality of the fact that the Saudis continue to increase production in order to bring prices down and their optimal price is in the $35 per barrel range.
At this point, manufacturing has little to do with controling oil prices. It's time for the buyers to regain their sanity and bring the bidding back down to earth.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 21, 2005 03:38:30 PM new
FENIX03 AND DESQUIRREL, as you both know there are lots of ways to produce energy. This White House and others have dropped the ball on alternative energy sources. 35 dollars a barrel ha ha ha. Don't hold your breath. Keep an eye on auto sales, didn't G.M. lose a bunch of money recently or am I wrong about that. Watch the automakers the next couple quarters for more losses and layoffs.
posted on April 21, 2005 04:05:15 PM new
Peepa - yes - GM did suffer major losses but that is as much for being behind the time design wise as fuel prices. Their Pontiac and Buick lines are sucking wind (except in China where Buick is the car to own).
The whole reason OPEC nations are trying to keep the price down is they want to protect their long term market. They know that people are basicaly oblivious and don't seek alternatives until they have no other choice.
As for blaming the White House. You can't blame a entity or a government. Clinton didn't do it either. Individuals are the ones that have to change their ways. Alternative sources exist but people are not using them. How long have solar choices been around? How many utilize it? There are nearly a dozen models of hybrid cars out now, how many do you see on the road? If the people in this country want things to change they have to take an active roll in changing them, afterall it's the people that are using this energy. The technology is there, the incentives are there, people just are not utilizing them.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 21, 2005 05:17:07 PM new
Allowing for drilling in protective preserves will do nothing to force people to change their ways. It will create yet another reason not to.
posted on April 21, 2005 08:03:50 PM new
FENIX03, its funny you should mention Bill Clinton's name. I was thinking about his years as President myself to-day. I remember that just a few years ago under Clinton I was buying gas for around a buck a gallon. Yes, several Presidents have dropped the ball on alternative energy sources. I think as far back as the 1980s Jimmy Carter was saying if we didn't find alternative energy sources soon. We would be fighting a WAR in the middle east over oil.
BTW on to-nights news I did see G.M. lost around a Billion Dollars last quarter. Plus G.M. is closing a New Jersey plant down. I have got to feel very bad for the workers that will be loosing those jobs.
I sure hope that the other automakers do much better the next few business quarters. I sure don't want to see more Americans loose their jobs. I am sure many of us will be watching.
Cheryl, I agree drilling for oil in Alaska won't solve the problem. We need something called leadership in Government to solve the energy problem. I noticed this government is spending millions in ads and 60 day speaking tours for what they want like a risky S.S. program. I don't remember seeing any ads or 60 day tours about working together for new alternative energy sources or conservation.
posted on April 21, 2005 08:57:22 PM new
A couple of thousand acres out of millions wouldn't even be bad IF THEY WERE DAMAGED, never mind the THREAT of possible damage.
You know, out of the wackos out there, the greenies are perhaps the stupidest. They fire off theories based on something that sounds good in their head.
Remember Borillar's rant about how the gummit should DECREE we all get electric cars and then force the industry to develop better technology? A real dim bulb. I merely posed the question: "Where are you going to get the electricity to charge these cars, stupid?"
Then comes the "conspiracies", "George Bush", etc, etc.
posted on April 21, 2005 09:00:51 PM newAllowing for drilling in protective preserves will do nothing to force people to change their ways. It will create yet another reason not to.
You're exactly right cheryl. Americans believe they have a god given right to cheap fuel, as much as they want. As long as they believe that, nothing will change.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on April 22, 2005 05:23:23 AM new
I could be mistaken, but I believe we still have some of the cheapest gas in the world.
I don't mind the drilling for oil in Alaska, need to keep Americans working. If done properly there is no reason this can't happen with little or no damage to the environment.
I do believe alternatives need to continued to be looked at. We sorely lag behind public transportation in many many large cities.
posted on April 22, 2005 07:28:55 AM new "I could be mistaken, but I believe we still have some of the cheapest gas in the world."
Right...you are usually mistaken...
GEORGIA TBILISI $2.31
LAOS VIENTIANE $1.66
THAILAND BANGKOK $1.60
CHINA TIANJIN $1.54
CHINA SHANGHAI $1.48
RUSSIA MOSCOW $1.45
KAZAKHSTAN ALMATY $1.36
KAZAKHSTAN ATYRAU $1.35
TAJIKISTAN DUSHANBE $1.32
AZERBAIJAN BAKU $1.15
VENEZUELA CARACAS $0.14
And to say that drilling for oil in Alaska will not harm the environment displays more ignorance...even when you hedge your statement with..."if done properly".
posted on April 22, 2005 08:35:26 AM new
"And to say that drilling for oil in Alaska will not harm the environment displays more ignorance...even when you hedge your statement with..."if done properly"."
Whereas Helen, who usually knows nothing about a given subject, is always quick with the solution based on the "sounds good" principal.
One wonders how the enviornment ever survived before man. What with oil bubbling out of the seabed and beach rock formations off CA, volcanos, those awful forest fires every couple of years.
When the Exxon Valdez happened, they cleaned the beaches with tweezers, and then the wackos protested and took to the streets to get the gov to have Exxon STEAM CLEAN the icky oil off those beaches. Somehow I'll bet Helen would have been in those galant leagues.
Funny thing happened along the way to the protest. In an oil spill, bacteria thrives that consumes oil. In 2-3 years even that large spill was taken care of. The couple of beaches they were forced to steam clean were damaged for decades because they were essentially sterilized. Sounded good though.
Tell me Helen, when the Dept of the Interior went to clean out the low lying brush and trees in national forests, were you one of the ones carrying the signs to "save the forests" and decry the "Bush sellout to the loggers?" I know you probably thought all those forestry people were lying or part of the conspiracy because of your vast knowledge of forestry.
posted on April 22, 2005 09:30:39 AM new
And as usual, your replies never refer to the question.
Being ignorant is not a crime or even a fault. But persistance in a path proven to be incorrect is stupid. And stupid AND arrogant is a lethal combination.
posted on April 22, 2005 09:51:31 AM new
Thanks for the beautiful pictures in your first post, Cheryl. And thanks also for the link to the slide shows which have some awesome pics but also some disturbing views of what mankind is doing to this planet.
This is a worldwide problem and it should be of concern to everyone. It may not seem like much when there is only a bit of destruction here and there but look at what has been done to the global environment in just the last few years and think about the impact on the generations to come.
And all for what? So we can be even greedier consumers just to satisfy our own interests? All the material goods don't seem to be making the population any happier, the pollution is adding to health costs and everyone seems more wacked out than ever before.
posted on April 22, 2005 10:25:44 AM newSo we can be even greedier consumers just to satisfy our own interests? All the material goods don't seem to be making the population any happier, the pollution is adding to health costs and everyone seems more wacked out than ever before
For once I agree Kiara and aren't we doing that to ourselves. Fast Food Places, smoking, driving cars to go 2 blocks instead of walking.
Buying SUV's that get very little gas mileage. It isn't going to stop. Our lakes are filled with motor boats that leak gas and destroy the water life.
I don't think there is anything going to stop that. Our natural resourses are greatly deminishing and the population of the world is responsible for it, not just the Americans. Our gas prices in the US are high because supply and demand of the entire world population is higher.
posted on April 22, 2005 11:47:35 AM new The state of the environment is of absolutely no concern to this administration with the worst environmental protection record in modern history
I couldn't agree more with this statement. Bush's energy policy is a joke. Drilling for oil in Alaska will not help America's dependency on foreign oil. It will only destroy one of the few remaining prestine places of wilderness.
If Bush wants to help reduce our need on foreign oil why is he not pushing the automakers to produce more fuel efficient cars? What did he let the tax break on hybrid cars laps while allowing the tax break for huge SUV's to continue? This makes no sense.
Bush is in favor of the Alaskan oil drilling because it will mean big time profit for his buddies in the oil companies.
So we can be even greedier consumers just to satisfy our own interests?
More like politicians satifying the need of oil companies so they can increase their profits.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on April 22, 2005 12:16:56 PM new
And of course, the "administration" did not pass the break for large SUVS, Congress did. They wanted small businesses and farmer's not to be penalized buying vehicles > 6000lbs to transport their goods, etc.
You're all in favor of helping the farmers aren't you???
Of course, all the tax accountants saw this as a way for clients to get Escalades and Hummers as well as the more utilitarian Suburbans.
Last October, the President signed a bill phasing it out.
SUVs sell well because the gov classes them as trucks instead of the cars most people use them as. They meet truck requirements, not car regulations. The power to decrease the numbers, lies with the states. No 98lb woman hauling 1 baby needs an Expedition, but it is her right to have it. Just require a heavy vehicle operator's license and commercial plates.
posted on April 22, 2005 01:59:59 PM new
We own an SUV. However, we don't do much driving. I use it mostly and live about 2 miles from work. Winters here are horrible and even worse are the street clean-ups. How I managed with a regular car is beyond me. I feel safer in the Jeep during the winter months and it really doesn't get bad mileage. In the summer we do what we can to either walk or ride our bikes and we're looking into getting a small car for the spring, summer and fall months. We recycle what we can. In fact, a great site is http:www.freecycle.org. Things we may have thrown into the trash are now offered for free on this site. We even recycled the branches we cut from the tree out back. The larger ones we used to line the end of the driveway. Since we removed the garage, people have a tendancy to pull up too far and end up on the grass. The rest we gave to our neighbor who has an outdoor fire pit. It doesn't take much to conserve. I'm the house "light flipper offer" and we keep our heat at 68 in the winter. Sure, it's cold in here but that's what sweaters are for.
You can't rely on the government to do much about the environment. We've seen a lot of that lately. The people have to start caring and have to start doing their part. As long as there are those who say, "Well, as long as it's done correctly it won't hurt anything", nothing will change. I don't know about anyone else, but I think that's sad.
I'd love my granddaughter and her children and their children to know what an elephant is or a spotted owl or a leopard. Or, know that they exist places other than a zoo. I love for them to have a rain forest to take a trip to one day if they so choose. The list of plants and animals making it onto the endangered species list is growing all the time. There's no reason for that.
posted on April 22, 2005 04:04:18 PM new
"Right...you are usually mistaken...
I am curious as to your need to be insulting? You have nothing better to say? "
lol washington-you think thats bad-you should have been in here with crowfarm-Helens a pansy ass compared to her
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on April 22, 2005 04:17:09 PM new
LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on April 22, 2005 04:42:51 PM newLast October, the President signed a bill phasing it out.
Much has been made about the “SUV Tax Deduction” that allowed purchasers of SUVs over 6,000 pounds to immediately deduct up to $100,000 of the cost. Many mistakenly believe that the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 eliminated this deduction. It did not. Instead, it reduced the deduction to $25,000 with the remaining amount allocated to depreciation. This is still a significant immediate deduction. If you purchased a non-SUV truck that weighed over 6,000 pounds in 2004, you are not restricted to a “mere” $25,000 deduction.
SUVs sell well because the gov classes them as trucks instead of the cars most people use them as. They meet truck requirements, not car regulations. The power to decrease the numbers, lies with the states. No 98lb woman hauling 1 baby needs an Expedition, but it is her right to have it. Just require a heavy vehicle operator's license and commercial plates.
This must vary by state because where I live SUV's are considered cars because they do not have a flatbed nor do you need a heavy vehicle operator's licenese or commercial plates to own one. A 16 year old new driver or a 99 year old could operate an SVU as long as they meet the requirements to operate a car.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on April 22, 2005 05:26:16 PM new
The Federal government classifies them as trucks for FEDERAL safety and emission regulations, which are less stringent than passenger cars.
I said they SHOULD be classified to require commercial plates and heavy vehicle operator licenses in state REGISTRATIONS.
