What's new

The oil spill...

Many posting in this thread are in for a rude awakening. If we are going to learn anything from this accident it will be the need to address our dependency on fossil fuels. America is already late to the party, and it's going to hurt. Core countries all over the world are starting to switch to alternative energy plans, we are not. We account for 4% of the population of the earth, we own 3% of the worlds oil reserves and we consume 35% of the worlds energy. If you think this kind of consumption is economically and environmentally sustainable you're kidding yourselves.

Oil is going to go up in price regardless. Some say we have already passed the oil peak (see Hubbert peak theory) and prices are going to rise due to cost of extraction alone. Once gas is $6 - $7 a gallon the proverbial **** will hit the fan and America will flounder. Oil will only be available to the wealthy, the poor will get shafted, angry, and violent. Our entire infrastructure is oil dependent, this will have to change whether we like it or not. Who will have access to this technology required once oil is too expensive. Yes, the wealthy. Leaving the poor still shafted, angry, and violent. Change doesn't look likely either. Exxon Mobile has a death grip on our government and economy and they are going to just give that up anytime soon. We are taking steps towards sustainability, but it's slow going.

The fact that the longest war in U.S. history is a resource war says a lot about where we are right now. America's demand for cheap and abundant energy is so great it will require force to secure future energy sources. The discovery of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan just guaranteed the continuation of this war, we not going anywhere. We will continue to see these types of conflicts. China has jumped us as the largest consumer of energy in the world, and they will demand these resources as well. China has domesticated their economy, while we have outsourced ours, in fact China is making all our stuff. Who do think is going to end up on top here?

My guess is most Americans and our federal government will continue to bow to oil interests and once this spill is no longer on the cable new channels it will be forgotten, or dismissed as no longer an immediate threat. We won't see the storm hit for another 10-20 years, but if we don't take huge steps in the meantime we're screwed.

I'm only concerned because this also means no more Utah Jazz basketball, and I don't think I can handle that.
 
Many posting in this thread are in for a rude awakening. If we are going to learn anything from this accident it will be the need to address our dependency on fossil fuels. America is already late to the party, and it's going to hurt. Core countries all over the world are starting to switch to alternative energy plans, we are not. We account for 4% of the population of the earth, we own 3% of the worlds oil reserves and we consume 35% of the worlds energy. If you think this kind of consumption is economically and environmentally sustainable you're kidding yourselves.

Oil is going to go up in price regardless. Some say we have already passed the oil peak (see Hubbert peak theory) and prices are going to rise due to cost of extraction alone. Once gas is $6 - $7 a gallon the proverbial **** will hit the fan and America will flounder. Oil will only be available to the wealthy, the poor will get shafted, angry, and violent. Our entire infrastructure is oil dependent, this will have to change whether we like it or not. Who will have access to this technology required once oil is too expensive. Yes, the wealthy. Leaving the poor still shafted, angry, and violent. Change doesn't look likely either. Exxon Mobile has a death grip on our government and economy and they are going to just give that up anytime soon. We are taking steps towards sustainability, but it's slow going.

The fact that the longest war in U.S. history is a resource war says a lot about where we are right now. America's demand for cheap and abundant energy is so great it will require force to secure future energy sources. The discovery of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan just guaranteed the continuation of this war, we not going anywhere. We will continue to see these types of conflicts. China has jumped us as the largest consumer of energy in the world, and they will demand these resources as well. China has domesticated their economy, while we have outsourced ours, in fact China is making all our stuff. Who do think is going to end up on top here?

My guess is most Americans and our federal government will continue to bow to oil interests and once this spill is no longer on the cable new channels it will be forgotten, or dismissed as no longer an immediate threat. We won't see the storm hit for another 10-20 years, but if we don't take huge steps in the meantime we're screwed.

I'm only concerned because this also means no more Utah Jazz basketball, and I don't think I can handle that.

The longest war in American history was the Vietnam War. The Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars combined still aren't as long as the Vietnam War.

The rest of your post I agree with.
 
What countries are you under the impression have great alternative energy plans?

Many countries are making the switch to nuclear, hydro and natural gas plans, while developing solar and wind. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Costa Rica just to name a few. While I don't think that nuke, hydro, natural gas are solutions, they are steps in the right direction. Moving to fully renewable energy sources will be the money maker and the most sustainable option.

I misspoke when I mentioned these being "core countries", more like semi-core countries. The super powers are definitely in the unsustainable boat.

Here is a great example of what we should be working towards. I don't mean to paint such a dismal picture, but stories like these can give you hope.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127985314
 

From the use of combat troops, perhaps. But the Vietnam War wasn't just a, "Boom, ok, you fired upon the Maddox now we're going to really get involved by sending in the troops." The very fact that a US destroyer was so close to North Vietnam and performing DESOTO patrols proves that we were indeed at war without ever actually declaring war. In fact, even after the Gulf of Tonkin war wasn't declared. It wasn't the Pearl Harbor that some may want to make it out to be.

"By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent US$1 billion in support of the French military effort and was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war"

This was 10 years before the Gulf of Tonkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

The Vietnam War was the longest "involvement" in US History since Congress never officially declared war on Vietnam. It was 20 years from 1955-1975. Much longer than the Afghanistian nation building experiment.

I guess the definition of war can vary. Is it from the point that Congress actually declares war? Like on Dec 8, 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Or is it from the time that we become involved in any capacity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many countries are making the switch to nuclear, hydro and natural gas plans, while developing solar and wind. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Costa Rica just to name a few. While I don't think that nuke, hydro, natural gas are solutions, they are steps in the right direction. Moving to fully renewable energy sources will be the money maker and the most sustainable option.

I misspoke when I mentioned these being "core countries", more like semi-core countries. The super powers are definitely in the unsustainable boat.

Here is a great example of what we should be working towards. I don't mean to paint such a dismal picture, but stories like these can give you hope.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127985314

Brazil gets nearly 50% of their energy from altnerative sources.

Amazing.

We could be developing more hydroelectric, nuclear, and bio-diesel sources right now. However, big oil who has bought off Congress will have none of that.

They would have us argue who's a true american.
 
Brazil gets nearly 50% of their energy from altnerative sources.

Amazing.

We could be developing more hydroelectric, nuclear, and bio-diesel sources right now. However, big oil who has bought off Congress will have none of that.

They would have us argue who's a true american.

Brazil is doing great things. If you like, check out the policies employed in Curitiba, Brazil. Very impressive for such a poor country.
 
Many countries are making the switch to nuclear, hydro and natural gas plans, while developing solar and wind. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Costa Rica just to name a few. While I don't think that nuke, hydro, natural gas are solutions, they are steps in the right direction. Moving to fully renewable energy sources will be the money maker and the most sustainable option.

I misspoke when I mentioned these being "core countries", more like semi-core countries. The super powers are definitely in the unsustainable boat.

Here is a great example of what we should be working towards. I don't mean to paint such a dismal picture, but stories like these can give you hope.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127985314

Alright, that seems pretty sensible. I wasn't sure if you were a idealist or what, but I can agree with that view even though my view on oil dependency isn't really similar.
 
Nuclear is a great option for obvious reasons. The drawback is obviously the waste created. But there is a sure fire way to get rid of it without worries. The possibility it could be shot into space is a very interesting one. France uses 70% or so of nuclear for their total energy but they are very stupid about dealing with waste. Anyway, solar and wind are nice ideas but until the cost goes down a lot they are pipe dreams. Natural Gas is a great source and would be huge for Utah in general considering we have a nice supply of it. Hydrogen is another pipe dream as of now.
 
Back
Top