Buffalo 65 Posted April 3, 2005 Posted April 3, 2005 Sometimes you find help in the unlikeliest of places: http://www.schlumberger.com/news/story.cfm?storyid=626387 Haven't these people yet learned that ANWAR drilling will solve all our problems?
Alaska Darin Posted April 3, 2005 Posted April 3, 2005 Sometimes you find help in the unlikeliest of places: http://www.schlumberger.com/news/story.cfm?storyid=626387 Haven't these people yet learned that ANWAR drilling will solve all our problems? 294409[/snapback] The oil companies of the West have long been working to develop alternative solutions because they understand the big picture. Not surprisingly, you and our politicians don't. It's ANWR, dufus. If you're going to be a whacko lefty, try not to show your ignorance so blatantly.
Pac_Man Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Clearly, more needs to be done to help the environment. Any time the government gets involved with spending money directly on a project, there is the possibility (certainty?) of massive waste and inefficiency. A better solution is to use free market incentives to encourage people to do what they should be doing anyway: - A tax credit of $500 or $2000 or whatever it's supposed to be for a hybrid vehicle is far too small. The tax credit should be $10,000 or more to force a fundamental industry change, instead of playing around at the margins like we are now. - Similarly powerful tax credits could be used for clean energy sources. - The present system of pollution licenses could be modified. At present, a pollution license (for a coal-burning plant) costs a fraction of what policy-makers had thought when the system was put in place. Why not start cutting back on the pollution allotment of each license? This would strongly encourage firms to either invest in pollution controls, or else find clean energy alternatives.
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Clearly, more needs to be done to help the environment. Any time the government gets involved with spending money directly on a project, there is the possibility (certainty?) of massive waste and inefficiency. A better solution is to use free market incentives to encourage people to do what they should be doing anyway: - A tax credit of $500 or $2000 or whatever it's supposed to be for a hybrid vehicle is far too small. The tax credit should be $10,000 or more to force a fundamental industry change, instead of playing around at the margins like we are now. - Similarly powerful tax credits could be used for clean energy sources. - The present system of pollution licenses could be modified. At present, a pollution license (for a coal-burning plant) costs a fraction of what policy-makers had thought when the system was put in place. Why not start cutting back on the pollution allotment of each license? This would strongly encourage firms to either invest in pollution controls, or else find clean energy alternatives. 296901[/snapback] Except they don't need a tax credit to get hybrids to sell - people are buying them at a pace that far outstrips the Hummers the hippies are so pissed about. Government could enforce "California Emissions" in every state and force the auto companies to raise MPG by 1 across the board and it would go a long way. But the populous doesn't rail for such things. Instead, they get spun up over Terry Schiavo and who got screwed on American Karaeoke. Move along.
todd Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 IBM's first computer chips cost in the tens of millions. As they got better at it, and it went into mass production, the price came down lots, yes? It's too bad that solar energy hasn't been used extensively, and I believe you no longer get a tax credit for the installation cost. Renewable energy that means we don't have to pony cash so terrorists can attack us? Not such a bad thing. 291493[/snapback] All real renewable energy initiatives went out the window when Bush was elected. Yes, he's supporting hydrogen fueled cars. But he cancelled many other viable methods of propulsion to do that. And why is he supporting hydrogen as a fuel? Here's a hint: there's only one efficient way to get hydrogen, and that is to extract it from water using .... you guessed it ... large amounts of petrolium products! Nah, but GW's connections to oil had nothing to do with that.
todd Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 The oil companies of the West have long been working to develop alternative solutions because they understand the big picture. Not surprisingly, you and our politicians don't. 294423[/snapback] Actually, American oil companies are running scared because they finally realize they've had their heads in the sand for years. I've done extensive consulting for a group that represents the American petrolium industry. The stuff I wish I could tell you. There's a reason hydrogen-based fuel is the choice of the current administration, and it ain't only because it's a promising technology.
UConn James Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Nah, but GW's connections to oil had nothing to do with that. 297127[/snapback] The oil industry has so many politicians in their pockets they walk with a limp. And to be fair, it includes both sides. But is slanted toward the right. The really sad thing, tho, (and I suggest you read an article that was in Field and Stream several months ago) is that Bush didn't even need to be bought.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 All real renewable energy initiatives went out the window when Bush was elected. Yes, he's supporting hydrogen fueled cars. But he cancelled many other viable methods of propulsion to do that. And why is he supporting hydrogen as a fuel? Here's a hint: there's only one efficient way to get hydrogen, and that is to extract it from water using .... you guessed it ... large amounts of petrolium products! Nah, but GW's connections to oil had nothing to do with that. 297127[/snapback] Petroleum even. And what other viable methods of propulsion were excluded? Steam power? Right, Clinton went REALLY far in his efforts to bring about alternatives to the I.C.E.
UConn James Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Petroleum even. And what other viable methods of propulsion were excluded? Steam power? Right, Clinton went REALLY far in his efforts to bring about alternatives to the I.C.E. 297315[/snapback] Clinton didn't exactly bend over backwards for the environment. And he's a DINO who picks and chooses his politics from the worst parts of both parties. Can you say NAFTA, which was pushed thru by him and the Republicans, which has since sold our country down the river? Canadian forests clearcut to build houses in America, American forests clearcut to build houses in Mexico. Nevermind the macroeconomic noose it is in its other effects.
rockpile Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Second in practicality only to tanning salons in Puerto Vallarta!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 6, 2005 Posted April 6, 2005 Clinton didn't exactly bend over backwards for the environment. And he's a DINO who picks and chooses his politics from the worst parts of both parties. Can you say NAFTA, which was pushed thru by him and the Republicans, which has since sold our country down the river? Canadian forests clearcut to build houses in America, American forests clearcut to build houses in Mexico. Nevermind the macroeconomic noose it is in its other effects. 297363[/snapback] I don't understand how free trade is a bad thing. It may be a bad thing for unskilled American labor, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Confused yet?
Recommended Posts