Why aren't liberal environmentalists happy about expensive oil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matt1985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matt1985

Guest
I didn’t understand why the democratic Senators were so angry at the oil executives during the last hearing. These people all claim to want to reduce the use of oil in order to save the environment. It seems to me that one effective way to reduce the use of a given commodity is to raise the price.

It shows a lot of hypocrisy to claim to want 2 $ per gallon oil and reduce the use of oil simultaneously. That really can’t be done.
 
matt1985 said:
I didn’t understand why the democratic Senators were so angry at the oil executives during the last hearing. These people all claim to want to reduce the use of oil in order to save the environment. It seems to me that one effective way to reduce the use of a given commodity is to raise the price.

It shows a lot of hypocrisy to claim to want 2 $ per gallon oil and reduce the use of oil simultaneously. That really can’t be done.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I think Gore mentioned in his book (*Earth in the Balance *?) that prices would need to rise to $2 (remember when that sounded like a lot :eek: 😦 ) for anything to be done about alternative fuels. While he was correct, he did join the chorus of complaining and blaming the Bush Administration when prices reached that level…and beyond.

I don’t applaud high prices, but it is true that they will force us to be more aggressive about alternatives. It is called the Free Market. For those who believe in conspiracies and/or that think that we have missed the research boat all these years though, they will have to explain Europe to me. They’ve had high prices for a long time. What do most of their cars run on? Yep, that’s right…gas. 🤷

Hybrids are a good start, but they aren’t enough. Hopefully, some good battery technology will help us make a transition away from gas and keep transportation costs (and the trickle down to everything else we buy) from getting much worse. (and yes “much” is subjective…)
 
matt1985 said:
I didn’t understand why the democratic Senators were so angry at the oil executives during the last hearing. These people all claim to want to reduce the use of oil in order to save the environment. It seems to me that one effective way to reduce the use of a given commodity is to raise the price.

It shows a lot of hypocrisy to claim to want 2 $ per gallon oil and reduce the use of oil simultaneously. That really can’t be done.
Click to expand...
I believe that is called grandstanding and posturing. The Congress has done absolutely nothing to encourage alternative fuels. Look at France and how much of their energy is generated by nuclear plants. Our Congress is opposed to that. They are opposed to building new refineries, to drilling in various places in the country while other nations drill ten miles off the coast of Miami. It’s politics pure and simple. And it is disgraceful.
 
Liberals are upset because:
  1. It costs more to truck milk, so their Latte’s are now even more expensive
  2. It should be the government that gets the extra money via high gas taxs, not stockholders via corp profits.
 
I am somewhat happy… it might help divert more research into algae oil and maybe a methanol economy. Also, electric cars might become vogue,
 
Exactly how are “electric” cars supposed to be cleaner - or better - than gasoline powered cars?
Where does the electricity come from?

Burning coal? Enviornmentalists hate that.
Hydroelectric? Envionmentalists hate that.
Nuclear? Envionmentalists hate that.
Burning natural gas (methane)? That requires drilling wells for methane and envionmentalists hate that.
Wind power? That requires a lot of windmills and animal rights activists hate that because birds can fly into windmill blades.
Solar? If solar panels were built and used in the desert, enviornmentalists would hate that too.

What to do with the batteries from electric cars when they are worn out?

Landfills? Envionmentalists hate that.
Recycling? Recycling a Toyota Prius battery isn’t possible, and again, where does the electricity come from to charge the battery?
 
matt1985 said:
I didn’t understand why the democratic Senators were so angry at the oil executives during the last hearing. These people all claim to want to reduce the use of oil in order to save the environment. It seems to me that one effective way to reduce the use of a given commodity is to raise the price.

It shows a lot of hypocrisy to claim to want 2 $ per gallon oil and reduce the use of oil simultaneously. That really can’t be done.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
1.) I am quite happy with gas rising the way it is. I am content with my 42mpg saturn sl 🙂 It’d have to go up to about $10 a gallon before commuting by bus would be cheaper for me.

2.) Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy we have, if we use breeder reactors.
 
matt1985 said:
I didn’t understand why the democratic Senators were so angry at the oil executives during the last hearing. These people all claim to want to reduce the use of oil in order to save the environment. It seems to me that one effective way to reduce the use of a given commodity is to raise the price.

It shows a lot of hypocrisy to claim to want 2 $ per gallon oil and reduce the use of oil simultaneously. That really can’t be done.
Click to expand...
Consumption of oil (or gasoline) can be lowered by lowering the speed limit on highways. Driving at 60 mph instead of 65 mph saves 8% on average. Driving at 55mph would have an even greater savings compared to 65 or 70 mph. Why the US ever went away from the 55 mph limit, I don’t know, but concern over oil consumption apparently wasn’t a factor.

As for hypocrisy, politicians often serve multiple constituencies. Everyone is suffering from high fuel prices. And politicians are sensitive to that. But yes, persons (including politicians) who support alternative energy sources have reason to be mollified - as a nation the high price of oil will help wean us off of our addiction to it. But the transition will have its growing pains.
 
it’s called “what do the folks and home and the lobbyists want to hear”
 
pathia said:
commuting by bus would be cheaper for me.

2.) Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy we have, if we use breeder reactors.
Click to expand...
Yes, but environmentalists are vehemently opposed to nuclear, and it won’t help with automotive fuel consumption. Not until we have those handy, dandy Mr. Fusion units that run on garbage. 🙂

(that would be a movie reference btw…for those that are scratching their heads right now)
 
Consumption of oil (or gasoline) can be lowered by lowering the speed limit on highways. Driving at 60 mph instead of 65 mph saves 8% on average. Driving at 55mph would have an even greater savings compared to 65 or 70 mph. Why the US ever went away from the 55 mph limit, I don’t know, but concern over oil consumption apparently wasn’t a factor.
Click to expand...
Man I hope this never comes back. I ride my motorcycles 30k miles per year, including at least one 7-8000 mile cross country ride.

They deliver 50 mpg at 85 mph, and in my eye, the only way to see this country up close and personal. I can’t imagine riding across West Texas, U.S. 50 in Nevada, the Colorado Front Range, or the vastness of East Montana at 55mph?? My annual 2week trip will take 3! Been my experience some places out there they don’t really care how fast ya drive, I-10 across West Texas the posted speed limit is 80, which really means you can do about 95 before they raise a eyebrow LOL.

Ya gotta love Texas, the posted speed limit on secondary roads is 75! Yeeeha!

I’m not gonna ride 55 mph to save about 75 cent on a tank a gas, I’ll pay it to get where I’m goin. At 55 mph I can ride to San Diego in 3rd gear!

I say as long as you can afford the gas lets go. When it reaches a point you can’t do it, then slow down or stay home. Don’t punish the rest us.

But please don’t put me in some kind of match box car, that is wicked out at 80 mph and if ya go up a long hill in it ya gotta cut the AC off to get over the top LOL.
 
Some are happy about it. Some just can’t afford to commute anymore, like anyone else. Some are afraid of coal becoming the replacement. Coal is so poisonous and there are whole mountain ranges being sliced out of the landscape for it.
 
strngrnrth said:
Some are happy about it. Some just can’t afford to commute anymore, like anyone else. Some are afraid of coal becoming the replacement. Coal is so poisonous and there are whole mountain ranges being sliced out of the landscape for it.
Click to expand...
There is also a fear that policy will be focused not on alternative energy but on finding and extracting different reserves, regardless of the negative consequences on the environment, such as drillin in ANWR. Or putting all the energ into the oil sands and shale that consume more energy in production than they actually provide. And, of course, most environmentalists are liberals (I am one so I know) and we are concerned with the burdens the high cost of gas is adding to the live of the poorer among us, people who are barely making it now. Yet at the same time the oil companies are getting richer and richer. IMO, that is a sin. :mad:
 
regardless of the negative consequences on the environment, such as drillin in ANWR
Click to expand...
there is little environmental effects from oil/gas drilling. most oil spills on the north slope are a result of poor maintainence and corrosion on existing pipes.

the truth is there probably isn’t much oil in ANWR anyway. the geology is different from prudoe bay and we are only talking about a small part of the of ANWR that would be opened up for drilling. there is one discovery called sourdough, i believe it is estimated around 100 million barrels.

most of the support for drilling ANWR is from politicans and oil service companies who make money no matter what. plus if they did open up ANWR, the enviromental groups would make money by fighting against it. the whole thing is silly.
 
Some liberal environmentalists are happy about oil being expensive. On another forum I visit, you’ll periodically run across people who think that it is a good thing that oil is expensive. Personally, I disagree. It makes it much harder for those of us in the low income part of society to live life. For example, it makes it more expensive to drive to work, thereby leaving you with less money for the needs that you have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top