imported_weekendwarrior
New member
Scottwax said:
I don't think the oil companies really care what they pay for oil...they are just going to pass on the cost to the end user anyways.
This has got to be the most biased headline I've ever seen
- Thread starter Scottwax
- Start date
I don't think the oil companies really care what they pay for oil...they are just going to pass on the cost to the end user anyways.
Scottwax said:
Harvesting our own reserves doesn't help us at all. That's right. It's not as if we get a discount on the price of oil because it comes to us domestically. Furthermore, decreasing our demand 1% does much more to lessen our dependence on foreign oil than increasing our production 1%.
By opting out of Kyoto we buoyed up our fossil fuel economy while the rest of the post-industrial world developed the green technologies that the whole world will one day be dependent on.
As for high fuel costs, I couldn't agree more. That's another reason the rest of the world has been developing green technologies faster than we have.
[quote name='kerrinjeff']The Kyoto treaty was a bunch of bull. The US (read: taxpayers) get to foot the bill for the rest of the world, and the leading polluters (China, India) are not subject to it! All for the imagined Global Warming (it isn't) which has morphed into "Climate Change" (as was predicted when global warming didn't panout).
Nearly all scientist agree that global warming is a fact. Even George Bush, who railed against the evidence of global warming during his initial campain for President, has conceded that our carbon footprint has contributed to climate change. Why climate change? It's not just the effects of warming that harm us. Delicate balances in the ecosystem have huge effects on us, little things like rain patterns that lead to desertification.
Nearly all scientist agree that global warming is a fact. Even George Bush, who railed against the evidence of global warming during his initial campain for President, has conceded that our carbon footprint has contributed to climate change. Why climate change? It's not just the effects of warming that harm us. Delicate balances in the ecosystem have huge effects on us, little things like rain patterns that lead to desertification.
Bunky
Detailing Gnosis
Scottwax said:
I am serious and stop calling me Shirley.:chuckle:
Bunky
Detailing Gnosis
jhakken said:
I do believe we are experiencing global warming/climate change. We just do not know how much man is affecting. Man is probably accelerating it but who knows and who cares. The emissions from most of these has problems beyond just the warming (acid rain, etc) so in the end we still need to pollute less. In the end, we need to change our economy to use alternate cleaner energies. This is where we need to invest unfortunately the current energy leaders (oil companies) have little interest to wean us off oil so this is where the government must get involved. The free market works but slowly and often inequitably (rich get richer and everyone else pays and suffers).
jhakken said:
That is absolutely not true that nearly all scientist agree that global warming is a fact. George Bush is wrong on the issue as well.
Two points I have yet to hear the sky is falling global warming crowd address:
1. The absolute certainty that somewhat higher temperatures are overall bad for the planet. Warmer temperatures would mean shorter winter and less fossil fuels being burned to keep people warm. It would also make for a longer growing season which could help world hunger. I know I sure don't want it to get colder.
2. What is their plan to lock in temperatures for the rest of mankind's existance? How will they cope with increased or decreased heat from the sun?
Charlies02GLS
New member
I was watching Squawk Box this morning and they did a brief interview with Robert Hirsch regarding oil prices on his prediction that oil could reach upwards of $500.00/barrel in the next 3-5 years. Frankly, I think its predictions like this that are really cutting into consumer confidence and feeding the fires for market speculation along with the intense media coverage (at least in the US) of crude oil price. I participated in a seminar on alternative energy with a particular focus on the feasibility of coal liquefaction in the spring and the when this process was being explored by some major corporations the estimated cost was approximately $65.00/barrel IIRC. During the time this R&D was ongoing however the price of crude was hovering around $40.00/barrel so the system never ended up being implemented besides production costs in the Middle East are under $2.00/barrel. I tend to think what's holding companies back from committing to it now is that there really is NO correlation between the price of crude on the open market, production costs and demand. Even with China's 25% increase in crude oil imports they still only import about %40 of what the U.S. does on a day to day basis. A particularly interesting figure that I found is that the IEA is predicting that on average for 2008 the demand for oil is only 1million barrels per day higher than a year ago or just over 1%. How can the additional demand for 1 million barrels of oil per day possibly justify a jump of 96% over the price of crude last year? Does anyone have a logical, supported answer to this question?
Something to consider regarding warmer temperatures is that while there are fewer fossil fuels being burned to keep people warm the electricity used to power air-conditioners/fans comes from various sources such as coal or natural gas power plants. Also, if a longer growing season occurs there is going to be more strain on fresh water supplies. Also, more fossil fuels are going to be burned as a result of people driving more during warmer weather.
If you're wondering, I'm not really a believer in the entire global warming phenomena at all. In my opinion there's not enough reliable data to definitively say whether or not there are catastrophic consequences to global warming or even if it's going on in the first place. I will however state that I am a fan of renewable energy sources, proper forest management (see logging in Brazil, and no I'm not joking about that), and that people should use the finite resources we have *responsibly*.
Something to consider regarding warmer temperatures is that while there are fewer fossil fuels being burned to keep people warm the electricity used to power air-conditioners/fans comes from various sources such as coal or natural gas power plants. Also, if a longer growing season occurs there is going to be more strain on fresh water supplies. Also, more fossil fuels are going to be burned as a result of people driving more during warmer weather.
If you're wondering, I'm not really a believer in the entire global warming phenomena at all. In my opinion there's not enough reliable data to definitively say whether or not there are catastrophic consequences to global warming or even if it's going on in the first place. I will however state that I am a fan of renewable energy sources, proper forest management (see logging in Brazil, and no I'm not joking about that), and that people should use the finite resources we have *responsibly*.
Bunky
Detailing Gnosis
Since the price of oil affects the world economies, you will see a lot more government intervention to manage it. This has already started happening.
This is a classic case where the free market does not work consistently since it is not really a free market (can be influenced by speculators, etc) that warrants government intervention.
This is a classic case where the free market does not work consistently since it is not really a free market (can be influenced by speculators, etc) that warrants government intervention.
imported_themightytimmah
New member
Charlies02GLS said:
It has a lot more to do with financial markets than the realities of oil. The Fed has been printing on the heavy side since the late 1990s, in order to offset the internet crash and prevent a recession.
This "fake money" was plowed into housing, which is why a crappy 2br house was over $500k in many parts of the country. Eventually, the bottom dropped out on the housing market, and funds pulled trillions of dollars out of housing and into commodities.
This, combined with emerging global economies and a war (commodities always bubble during a war), plus the fact that a good chunk of the world's oil is owned by unsavory governments, created a perfect storm that drove oil up to many times what it actually costs to produce and deliver.
The best proof of this came 2 weeks ago when oil had an 11.00 jump in one day. If you look at the other news announcements that day, about a trillion dollars worth of financial assets just got downgraded, and funds jumped ship into the only sure game these days, oil.
A big, big crash is coming, it will just take time. 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years, no one knows. The housing and internet bubbles lasted for a *long* time and those were more unhinged from supply and demand than this bubble is.
imported_Aurora40
New member
Scottwax said:
I'm pretty sure those Kyoto guys said we weren't allowed to unless we signed. And when the rest of the world comes up with amazing alternative fuels, they probably won't tell us about it now.
The thing I found the most interesting about that article was again how it seems to pit "environmentalists" against Fish and Wildlife employees. This seems to happen a lot. On the one hand you have people who have focused their education and their career on preservation and conservation of animals and plants in the wild. On the other hand, people who have done little other than complain. It's a tough call...
Holden_C04
New member
Scottwax said:
You want to f*** with the environment?
From what I understand, global warming does NOT lead to a warmer environment, it leads to an ice age. This is because the melting ice will cool the world's oceans. The ocean's basically guide the rest of the weather patterns.
Bunky
Detailing Gnosis
Let's just agree that we are using up the earth's resources and trashing the environment faster than mother nature has can recover. It is not good for us or the planet.
imported_Picus
New member
I've never heard anyone argue for global warming. I've heard people deny it exists (which may be true), but saying warmer average temperatures en masse are a good thing? That's a first. 
Charlies02GLS
New member
Aurora40 said:
The DOE spends roughly twice of what the entire EU does on alternative energy research.
imported_Aurora40
New member
Bunky said:
Whatever your stance is on global warming, conservation, the personal choices you make, etc, this statement is pretty silly. You are trying to say the common ground where we should draw a line also happens to be your argument. You may as well say "Let's just agree that you are wrong".
As an aside, and out of curiosity, what is the ideal state of the environment? "Mother nature" has changed the environment long before man was doing anything. So are you suggesting mother nature finally hit the sweet spot at some point in the past, and now we are all jacking it up? When exactly was that pinnacle of existence?
Hey, that might be a detailing trend. Maybe I have some old car waxes made from that time, knowing they were made during the universe's peak might really raise their value. Or put some carnauba wax from way inside the tree into a can. From the rings of the tree that were made whenever that sweet spot was. Forget "Pinnacle Car Wax", how about "Pinnacle of Existence Car Wax"! It could be refillable like Zymol Vintage, but you wouldn't need to make it bequeathable, because anyone who would buy it is banking on the world ending pretty soon (especially if a Republican wins the next prez election)
imported_shine
New member
ramtough said:
Real scientists or Greenpeace loonies?
Charlies02GLS said:
In Macro Economics, there is a concept called Price Elasticity of Demand when looking at the Supply Demand Curves. Oil is a product with very very high inelasticity due to that fact we have to have it. And products with very high inelasticy have drastic effects on price with even moderate increases on demand. If you were to graph the supply and demand curves of oil, the supply curve would be almost straight up and down.
imported_hockeyplaya13
New member
The headline in my local newspaper read something similar, but it was: "Oil companies get OK to kill polar bears." No joke. too bad we threw it away, or I'd post it.