Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #27  
Old 01-24-2012, 10:32 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: SOPA, Keystone XL and NDAA

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, plus this thread is hardly one that should be encouraged. Thus, why am I posting? Jon has a knack, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
Nothing is going to stop us from using oil for transportation until we have a real alternative.
Agree.

Quote:
The only thing gained from this was the loss of added jobs.
Disagree. If they are going to do it, it's better to change the route. I bet it ends up happening. Also, of course, the idea that any significant number of jobs would result is basically fictional.

Quote:
Because if we put less money into it, we'll use less, or we'll have an impact on using less oil. No, wrong, fantastically wrong.
Basic economics says that the price of something affects use. The supply affects price. If the effect is de minimis (as I expect), that simply indicates that the amount from greater production in the US RIGHT NOW (as with the drilling arguments) or from other forms of energy like this one aren't any kind of meaningful solution.

Note that the economic argument is also why there should be a carbon tax or the like, to address negative externalities. It has nothing to do with wanting to make us all live off the grid.

Quote:
It smacks of the old style of malthusian disaster myths that Ehrlich types tried to resurrect, and never let die no matter how many times they were shown to be wrong.
I think this is nonsense. What's more Mathusian? Low on food, so let's all feast and use it up as fast as possible? Or let's preserve sources and let the price rise somewhat now so it lasts longer, while we are working to produce more? I'd say the former. But that's what you seem to be arguing for, not the opponents to this or to "drill baby drill."

Quote:
Overpopulation leads to mass starvation and loss of quality of life, ergo, what we need is fewer people.
This is not the Dem argument. But I suppose if we make up an argument and ignore the real problem it's a lot easier to address.

Quote:
The contrast of course was the work of Norman Borlaug and his green revolution. Instead of focusing on limiting populations, he focused on increasing the food supply so that people could live and be well, prosper, and not starve.
This is not a longterm solution for oil, obviously. Oil is not a renewable resource. If we don't drill it, it's still there for later. If we do, it's gone. (Yes, I know the original debate wasn't about oil, but for some reason that's where you went so that's what I'm talking about too.)
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.