-
The latest oil spill shows..
...that we need an alternative energy plan, pronto. If we are not destroying earth by exhaust fumes, we are definitely destroying it by spilling oil in marine life.
Blackened seas:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1274/...5ce8f97793.jpg
-
I am sure this thread will tilt in a political direction at some point but those issues aside I think what this episode highlights is our hubris regarding technology. It is clear that no one even considered the possiblity of those cut-off valves not working and so no back up plan was ever developed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
I am sure this thread will tilt in a political direction at some point but those issues aside I think what this episode highlights is our hubris regarding technology.
I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.
Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
..can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.
Unfortunately, I think we may be too late for that.
That picture sickens me.
-
What's the current news about it? Have they sorted something out?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio amateur
What's the current news about it? Have they sorted something out?
They really have not. It is a shame that things have come to this, but I say this is good for us.
I was discussing this very topic with another audio engineer while at work. My perspective on this is that we deserve exactly what we got. Because the American public has chosen to drive inefficient cars, we have to look for oil in some very dangerous places, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Nigera. We got into bed with people who are not out for our best interest, and we have funded terrorism against us with our own money all so we could drive our SUV and trucks(even when we didn't really need it). We have alternatives, but we deem them too hard to implement so here we are, up to our kisters in oil, fouling up our oceans, and sending us into war.
We need to move away from oil as our primary fuel, and turn to electricity, wind, and any other alternative we can discover. We need to put the full force of our resources to get this accomplished ASAP!!
America(it's people) have nobody to blame for this but themselves.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
They really have not. It is a shame that things have come to this, but I say this is good for us.
I was discussing this very topic with another audio engineer while at work. My perspective on this is that we deserve exactly what we got. Because the American public has chosen to drive inefficient cars, we have to look for oil in some very dangerous places, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Nigera. We got into bed with people who are not out for our best interest, and we have funded terrorism against us with our own money all so we could drive our SUV and trucks(even when we didn't really need it). We have alternatives, but we deem them too hard to implement so here we are, up to our kisters in oil, fouling up our oceans, and sending us into war.
Now do you see?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.
Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.
Everything is ultimately political, Smokey, at least when it comes to doing something about it.
As I understand, some US administrations have been pretty quick to grant environment exemptions to oil companies. This has got to stop. The present goverment has got to see that BP picks up every last dime of the cost of the spill for everybody affected; this will tend to make the oil companies take possible future costs of the this sort into consideration before they drill.
Also -- more generally -- the full cost of energy including future environmental damage and global warming needs to be reflected at the pump. After all, it is between the purveyers and users of energy to pay the true cost. A stiff carbon tax is in order and the sooner (and higher) the better to straighten the populace out about energy use..
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I really don't see any reason for this issue to be political in any way.
Some might argue that oil companies need a lesson by paying and cleaning this disaster as would be payback time from all the profit they made. But the counter argument would be....can we teach them a lesson without DESTROYING THE EARTH.
Or...without the price of gas going thru the roof to cover the cost of the cleanup and allowing them not to really spend any of their profits.
This is the ugly side of capitalism, where the greedy just don't care about the consequences. It's my understanding that for a half a million, they could have had a failsafe in place from the start but they followed regulations, not personal responsibility. Now it will cost way more than that and it will NEVER be cleaned up 100%.
One has to wonder if it was a terrorist act. I haven't heard anything as to what the explosion cause was or may have been.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
Now do you see?
I really didn't mean for that to be political, I meant for it to be totally non-political. Americans from all political affiliations drives an inefficient car, no one side is free from blame on this one. It is strictly from an individual based perspective.
-
Before it becomes a National Disaster, I think the government should shut BP down until it's fixed. The same way they shut down the coal mines.
Issuing BP a fine is a farce. They will merely pass it along to you and I, thru gas prices.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvtolisten
Before it becomes a National Disaster, I think the government should shut BP down until it's fixed. The same way they shut down the coal mines.
Issuing BP a fine is a farce. They will merely pass it along to you and I, thru gas prices.
The clean ought to be paid by BP out of past profits, of course. But nobody ought to complain if gasoline prices go up: they will only be bearing the truer cost of oil-based energy. Presently pump prices don't reflect the full cost including the environment and global weather consequences; until they do, consumers will not be sufficiently motivated to find and use less energy from more responsible sources.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
The clean ought to be paid by BP out of past profits, of course. But nobody ought to complain if gasoline prices go up: they will only be bearing the truer cost of oil-based energy. Presently pump prices don't reflect the full cost including the environment and global weather consequences; until they do, consumers will not be sufficiently motivated to find and use less energy from more responsible sources.
Sadly, what you say is all too true.
-
Thanks Everybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
Now do you see?
I do now :)
But Sir TT does have a point. We might only have ourselves to blame with driving inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs (now I am getting political :D). I used to work for Falcon Jets company which mean most of their employees are male and mst drive a big trucks or SUVs that could barley fit into parking spot. One have to ask if they need such a gas guzzler to get to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feanor
Also -- more generally -- the full cost of energy including future environmental damage and global warming needs to be reflected at the pump. After all, it is between the purveyers and users of energy to pay the true cost. A stiff carbon tax is in order and the sooner (and higher) the better to straighten the populace out about energy use.
Rather than more taxes at pump, I think there should be an incentive program where more efficient cars one drive, the less taxes one have to pay at the pump. And ever more incentives if riding public trasportation to work.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Everything is ultimately political, Smokey, at least when it comes to doing something about it
That was the point of my original comment. For us to significantly wean ourselves off oil it will require political action. Look how the expansion of healthcare lit the anti-government fuse in so many people. Add in the segment of the population who doesn't even see our current energy situation as a real problem (remember last Fall's chants of "Drill Baby Drill") and you can see solutions being drawn along political lines.
If any good should come out of this current crisis it is that we need to get serious about alternative sources of fuel. As has been mentioned the true cost of an oil based energy policy is much higher than the $3.00 a gallon price we pay at the pump. Unfortunately to see that problem and solve it requires long term thinking and long term solutions. The pessimist in me does not see our political leaders or a majority of the public capable of either.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I do now :)
But Sir TT does have a point. We might only have ourselves to blame with driving inefficient cars, trucks and SUVs (now I am getting political :D). I used to work for Falcon Jets company which mean most of their employees are male and mst drive a big trucks or SUVs that could barley fit into parking spot. One have to ask if they need such a gas guzzler to get to work.
Can someone clue me in on how pointing out the choice of cars we drive as being political? Have I missed something?
-
I don’t know how to fix our current problems, but clearly, something needs to be done. It seems to me that when the oil lines were put in, it would have made sense to have valves at the entrance as well as every few miles the thwart such a disaster. BP should be made to pick up the tab as it was their mistake. They have had huge profits.
As far as alternate sources of energy, I’m all for it. What’s it take? (sorry, politics ahead) Politicians taking campaign funds from oil companies seems like a big roadblock there. Will a public outcry for alternate sources help?
As far as raising the cost at the pump, not sure how that helps. The people who drive those monster SUV’s don’t give a rats-ass about the cost. They can afford it. It’s the rest of us who will feel the crunch. (maybe that will add to the public outcry?)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
I don’t know how to fix our current problems, but clearly, something needs to be done. It seems to me that when the oil lines were put in, it would have made sense to have valves at the entrance as well as every few miles the thwart such a disaster. BP should be made to pick up the tab as it was their mistake. They have had huge profits.
As far as alternate sources of energy, I’m all for it. What’s it take? (sorry, politics ahead) Politicians taking campaign funds from oil companies seems like a big roadblock there. Will a public outcry for alternate sources help?
As far as raising the cost at the pump, not sure how that helps. The people who drive those monster SUV’s don’t give a rats-ass about the cost. They can afford it. It’s the rest of us who will feel the crunch. (maybe that will add to the public outcry?)
I don't know Mike type individual carbon unit, but when the prices of gas spike near $4.00, people drove less, hence why the price eventually went down. Personally I think the next logical step to transcend away from oil comes in the form of hybrid cars, of which the American public has yet to embrace on a large scale. I have two hybrids(with a third on the way), and I have watched my monthly gas bills go way down after purchasing them. They next step after that would be all electric cars. You would need to build a large infrastructure of charging stations, and upgrade our country's electrical grid(something that is badly needed anyway) which will promote more jobs.
Another step would be to remove every house from the electrical grid, and use localized power generation instead. This is far more efficient than utilizing the power grid to transport energy to the home. This would involve solar, wind and hydrogen power combined in a small box that interacts with the solar panels and a small windmill like device to harness the wind. This technology exists NOW, but with no push to get it to the market, it just languishes in space right now thanks to the squelching of the oil and energy companies.
Our problem is that we have inefficient energy concerns working to fight against more efficient ways of generating energy just to protect its profits. This kind of attitude is the real danger to this country.
-
Suggesting Americans drive smaller, more efficient automobiles, or carpooling, or using public transportation where possible, shouldn't be 'politically charged' notions, but conspicuous consumption is the mantra of certain political pundants. But the desire to obtain and project status isn't religated to any one political party. I tell my friends who drive Ford F250 and F350 pickups every day to work, the only reason some guys aren't driving school bus sized pickups is because manufacturors don't make them...yet. Women are just bad with SUVs. We've seen a rise in cars which feature high output V8 engines, with only a high output V6 option. Every manufacturor that sells in the US touts their cars' horsepower over fuel economy. If manufacturors can develope 4 cylinder engines that are cracking the 200hp barrier w/o a turbo, then why not develope engines for hyper gas economy. Remember the 50mpg Chevy Sprint, in 1988?
Our oil, natural resource, and food consumption in this country shouldn't be a political issue but a moral one, though there are those political pundants who claim franchise on those too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I don't know Mike type individual carbon unit, but when the prices of gas spike near $4.00, people drove less, hence why the price eventually went down. Personally I think the next logical step to transcend away from oil comes in the form of hybrid cars, of which the American public has yet to embrace on a large scale. I have two hybrids(with a third on the way), and I have watched my monthly gas bills go way down after purchasing them. They next step after that would be all electric cars. You would need to build a large infrastructure of charging stations, and upgrade our country's electrical grid(something that is badly needed anyway) which will promote more jobs.
Another step would be to remove every house from the electrical grid, and use localized power generation instead. This is far more efficient than utilizing the power grid to transport energy to the home. This would involve solar, wind and hydrogen power combined in a small box that interacts with the solar panels and a small windmill like device to harness the wind. This technology exists NOW, but with no push to get it to the market, it just languishes in space right now thanks to the squelching of the oil and energy companies.
Our problem is that we have inefficient energy concerns working to fight against more efficient ways of generating energy just to protect its profits. This kind of attitude is the real danger to this country.
I’m silicone based. (just saying)
I think we all agree that something must be done and alternative energy is the answer. How to get that to come about gets a little fuzzy. Many good ideas here for sure. Now, how do we get capitalism to work for us, and get this done? Somehow, we have to make it more profitable to save the planet. And long term goals don't work. It has to pay off now or they'll never go for it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Can someone clue me in on how pointing out the choice of cars we drive as being political? Have I missed something?
Idon't think what is being said that the type of car you drive is a political stement though for some it probably is. But having the government decide what type of car we drive which is what would need to happen makes your car choice a political issue.
Anything that people won't do willingly can only be enforced legally which means laws have to be passed which means it becomes by default a political issue. Fuel efficient cars have been widely available for over 25 years yet they do not dominate the car market so the market has "voted" what type of car people want to drive.
-
Haven't heard much of this in the national media yet, but the local media here on the Gulf Coast are reporting that a team of University of South Florida scientists have discovered a plume of oil just beneath the surface approximately 6 miles wide and 22 miles long stretching from the well-head towards Mobile Bay. They suspect that the large amounts of dispersants have kept or settled the oil below the surface. This news has spawned rumors of a plan to "hide" or cover up the enormity of the problem.
Fishing, shrimping and tourist industries are taking a huge hit at the worst possible time. If you saw Forest Gump you know he became a shrimper in Bayou la Batre which is a real community on the Alabama coast that depends on shrimping for its survival. The gulf coast's white sand beaches actually begin in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, AL a/k/a the Red Neck Riveara which depend on vacationers starting Memorial Day Weekend. Hotels, condos and rentals are booked months in advance and cancellations are piling up daily.
BP has openly committed to paying claims but the word is getting out from shrimpers, hotel owners, seafood wholesalers, etc. that the proof requirements are impossible to meet.
I'm not qualified to say much about the wetlands of Louisiana, but I'm sure large amounts of oil can't be good for them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
Idon't think what is being said that the type of car you drive is a political stement though for some it probably is. But having the government decide what type of car we drive which is what would need to happen makes your car choice a political issue.
So we are clear on this, and don't get things twisted. I am not advocating that the government decide anything, I am mandating that the "American people" become more responsible and aware of the environment around them, and choose to drive more efficient cars, and be smart and embrace every means of efficient alternative fuels(and not necessarily corn) which in turn will save the environment, and cut us lose from having to make compromises to foreign states(Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran..and Venezuela for that matter). This is not political, it is personal. Taking personal responsibility for the plight of your own country does not have to be political.
Quote:
Anything that people won't do willingly can only be enforced legally which means laws have to be passed which means it becomes by default a political issue. Fuel efficient cars have been widely available for over 25 years yet they do not dominate the car market so the market has "voted" what type of car people want to drive.
And now you have the biggest mess in energy history, wars that have been fought unnecessarily, massive transfers of wealth(and the complaints and economic harm it has brought) and a whole so addicted to a product, that it threatens its own national security.
Maybe it is time to take a pause and really rethink that vote.
-
Sir T-
I agree with all of your points. My main point is that the majority of people despite the overwhelming evidence that we need to change our energy policies and practicies have not and will not unless compelled to. That will mean someone has to have the forthought to develop a meaningful energy policy, the ability to convey it the masses and the political will to execute it.
|