4 ms·

I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become energy

by sh1mmer 18y ago

I disagree that drilling will help. The key point of the article is that it was a cultural rather than a resource based shift that helped Denmark become energy independent. I read a recent estimation that America has enough oil for 3 years at it's current rate of consumption. Unless consumption is dramatically reduced drilling is just going to tap out a resource that would be best saved for a real emergency. Europe has been coping with smaller more efficient cars, and driving habits for decades. American can too.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Your comment has the feeling of a moral judgment or a best-guess seat-of-pants decision, ie, that since Europe has been coping with smaller and more efficient cars, we can too. I've always found myself too ill-equipped to make decisions on how markets can or should operate (that is, unless the market is obviously broken, in which case somebody must do something) So I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s? That we continue to _not_ reprocess spent nuclear fuel? That due to these policies our oil output now is the same as it was in the 1940s? I'm trying not to badger you, but are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark? Couldn't you just picket or something? Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking. And please don't argue that the culture must change because energy is so scarce -- it's a circular argument.
- natrius 18y ago
  "Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking." He clearly said that the goal was energy independence, not a change in culture. The change in culture is a means to that end. Drilling offshore now isn't worth the potential environmental damage or the sacrifice of the future value of that oil when it becomes more scarce. I don't think that oil is enough to tide us over until we don't need oil anymore, especially since the oil will be sold on the global market. It will barely lower oil prices in a decade. Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so. With or without new offshore drilling, we will lower our energy consumption by necessity from now until we're off of oil. It will be too expensive to continue on our current course. The current focus should be on solutions that will make that transition period less painful, not on solutions that will make us use more oil and further our dependency on it. I agree with you on all the nuclear stuff.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    "Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so." What sacrifices? I won't use the term "straw man" but I'd at least like to humbly suggest you've made a whole slew of assumptions about what might or might not happen. Most of these I take issue with. I'm not crazy about oil. Personally, I'll be happy when we're off it. But, like I said, I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them. Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away. Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of. Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where the limits of your argument lie. Would you agree with the statement above? Or would we immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion?
    - jacobolus 18y ago
      > Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of possible dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away. The environmental dangers of oil drilling are more than possibilities, and your dismissive tone doesn’t aid your argument. The current supporters of increased off-shore drilling are spinning up its positives and spinning down its negatives as a craven political ploy in an election year which coincides with oil prices higher than they were a few years ago, and general economic instability. Off-shore drilling is not going to solve our current economic crisis, nor is it going to bring down oil prices to any substantial degree—maybe the price will dip a few percent in 10 years when the oil starts flowing. > Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. Your implication is that off-shore oil-drilling in America is the best way to help the third-world poor. That is absurd. (And hyperbolically casting natrius as some kind of heartless first-world imperialist doesn’t help your argument either. It makes your comments seem like trolling.)
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Look at the trends in electricity consumption per capita in California since the '70s versus the rest of the country. California has been about flat, the rest of the country has increased substantially. Energy efficiency is a hell of a lot cheaper than drilling or nuclear, and there's still a hell of a lot of low-hanging fruit.

by sh1mmer 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Your comment has the feeling of a moral judgment or a best-guess seat-of-pants decision, ie, that since Europe has been coping with smaller and more efficient cars, we can too. I've always found myself too ill-equipped to make decisions on how markets can or should operate (that is, unless the market is obviously broken, in which case somebody must do something) So I take it you're happy we haven't drilled any of our resources, haven't built a refinery in decades, and haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s? That we continue to _not_ reprocess spent nuclear fuel? That due to these policies our oil output now is the same as it was in the 1940s? I'm trying not to badger you, but are you saying that because we've basically forbidden the energy markets to work efficiently inside our country, energy prices are going high, and it's a good thing because maybe the culture will shift like Denmark? Couldn't you just picket or something? Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking. And please don't argue that the culture must change because energy is so scarce -- it's a circular argument.

natrius 18y ago
"Seems like a terrible waste of American's lives just in order to make the culture more to your liking." He clearly said that the goal was energy independence, not a change in culture. The change in culture is a means to that end. Drilling offshore now isn't worth the potential environmental damage or the sacrifice of the future value of that oil when it becomes more scarce. I don't think that oil is enough to tide us over until we don't need oil anymore, especially since the oil will be sold on the global market. It will barely lower oil prices in a decade. Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so. With or without new offshore drilling, we will lower our energy consumption by necessity from now until we're off of oil. It will be too expensive to continue on our current course. The current focus should be on solutions that will make that transition period less painful, not on solutions that will make us use more oil and further our dependency on it. I agree with you on all the nuclear stuff.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  "Are those sacrifices worth it? I don't think so." What sacrifices? I won't use the term "straw man" but I'd at least like to humbly suggest you've made a whole slew of assumptions about what might or might not happen. Most of these I take issue with. I'm not crazy about oil. Personally, I'll be happy when we're off it. But, like I said, I don't sit around taking my personal feelings and try to control world markets with them. Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of _possible_ dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away. Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. I would think that "screwing the poor to make the world a more pretty place for me" wouldn't be much of anything to be proud of. Note that I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to figure out where the limits of your argument lie. Would you agree with the statement above? Or would we immediately move into a wealth redistribution discussion?
  - jacobolus 18y ago
    > Seems kind of, well, presumptuous. If we can drill for oil offshore, and it's there, and we need it, I say have at it. There are all sorts of possible dangers and warnings, but the markets indicate that there is a real, tangible need that's not going away. The environmental dangers of oil drilling are more than possibilities, and your dismissive tone doesn’t aid your argument. The current supporters of increased off-shore drilling are spinning up its positives and spinning down its negatives as a craven political ploy in an election year which coincides with oil prices higher than they were a few years ago, and general economic instability. Off-shore drilling is not going to solve our current economic crisis, nor is it going to bring down oil prices to any substantial degree—maybe the price will dip a few percent in 10 years when the oil starts flowing. > Hey. I can pay for gas at 20 bucks a gallon. Not crazy about it, but I'm not letting it change my behavior. The people impacted are third world countries -- mostly the poor. Your implication is that off-shore oil-drilling in America is the best way to help the third-world poor. That is absurd. (And hyperbolically casting natrius as some kind of heartless first-world imperialist doesn’t help your argument either. It makes your comments seem like trolling.)
MaysonL 18y ago
Look at the trends in electricity consumption per capita in California since the '70s versus the rest of the country. California has been about flat, the rest of the country has increased substantially. Energy efficiency is a hell of a lot cheaper than drilling or nuclear, and there's still a hell of a lot of low-hanging fruit.