4 ms·

"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,

by 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.)
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    First, I did not dismiss the environmental impact of drilling offshore. We did not discuss it at length. There were some sweeping statements made about my position and I pointed out I do not support those statements. Glad to have that discussion. Second, I made no comment about helping the poor. My comment was about the use of personal opinion to control markets. I used the poor as an example of those who could be impacted by our policies. I made no personal attack and posited no question that was supposed to inflame or outrage. I tried to the best of my ability to ask simple questions and make simple statements that I honestly support. As far as the poor comment, I used the statement as a way of advancing the conversation without it having to take another 50 posts. I obviously do not believe he would support that, and am interested in his reply as to where he thinks the limits of market control should be. You're welcome to join in, by the way. I don't mind the critique of my style, but discussing the substance of the matter might be more interesting for all concerned.

by natrius 18y ago

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.)
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  First, I did not dismiss the environmental impact of drilling offshore. We did not discuss it at length. There were some sweeping statements made about my position and I pointed out I do not support those statements. Glad to have that discussion. Second, I made no comment about helping the poor. My comment was about the use of personal opinion to control markets. I used the poor as an example of those who could be impacted by our policies. I made no personal attack and posited no question that was supposed to inflame or outrage. I tried to the best of my ability to ask simple questions and make simple statements that I honestly support. As far as the poor comment, I used the statement as a way of advancing the conversation without it having to take another 50 posts. I obviously do not believe he would support that, and am interested in his reply as to where he thinks the limits of market control should be. You're welcome to join in, by the way. I don't mind the critique of my style, but discussing the substance of the matter might be more interesting for all concerned.