Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    Right, and what surprises me is that BHO and other dems are blocking union jobs by blocking oil drilling.
    Thats because you see the democrats and unions as a single entity and that is not the case. Democrats are no longer the union's best friend but at the end of the day they are still much better to the unions than the GOP. When you look at what has happened politically the last few decades you will find that while both parties have, "reached out" to the middle class, but the legislation has clearly been driven by corporate interests and the very rich. If you work for a living or even own a small business you have been bent over and sold out to Wall Street, and it took both sides of the isle to accomplish that.
    Last edited by bonehead; 12 Jul 11,, 04:27.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
      Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for a campaign to educate the people they should use more environmental friendly products and impose eco-tax on those that don't comply, rather then to feed EPA?
      Sure, but who levies, collects, and administers these programs?

      Everything has a cost. What we humans do is to minimize that cost.

      There is a campaign to teach people to conserve fuel. A lot of people buy hybrid cars. Some buy smaller cars. The problem with hybrid cars is the capitcal cost. There is a price premium of several thousand dollars on hybrids because of new and complex technology compared to gas engine alone. Some who can afford to pay this price and view this extra cost as "good" compared to using more gasoline will buy cars like this. Not all of us can afford that. Some can't afford the extra money and some need bigger cars for the same cost. We need that choice provided by the market.

      A tax or fine on people who don't buy into the eco-friendly crap punishes shifts capital from production into non-production. We get less overall utility out of the same amount of work. The added benefit of "saving the planet" is dubious at best.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #48
        The Canadian oil in question is unconventional and low quality both facts which need to be factored into this debate.

        The oil sands project and the pipeline proposal in question would make much more economic and environmental sense if there was a nuclear power plant at one end or both ends.

        William
        Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

        Comment


        • #49
          Doktor,

          Much of the unconventional petroleum business in the U.S. is extremely water intensive some new, large finds like the Eagle Ford are going to have to overcome water supply issues if they are to be exploited.

          Regards,

          William
          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
            Sure, but who levies, collects, and administers these programs?

            Everything has a cost. What we humans do is to minimize that cost.

            There is a campaign to teach people to conserve fuel. A lot of people buy hybrid cars. Some buy smaller cars. The problem with hybrid cars is the capitcal cost. There is a price premium of several thousand dollars on hybrids because of new and complex technology compared to gas engine alone. Some who can afford to pay this price and view this extra cost as "good" compared to using more gasoline will buy cars like this. Not all of us can afford that. Some can't afford the extra money and some need bigger cars for the same cost. We need that choice provided by the market.

            A tax or fine on people who don't buy into the eco-friendly crap punishes shifts capital from production into non-production. We get less overall utility out of the same amount of work. The added benefit of "saving the planet" is dubious at best.
            gunnut you are masters of creating NGOs for a purpose.
            In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.

            My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              gunnut you are masters of creating NGOs for a purpose.
              In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.

              My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?
              In the U.S. we have paid hundreds of billions to clean up polluted sites and are continuing to spend more. If not for the EPA, that cost would be much more. The associated increase in healthcare cost from the increased pollution would be astronomical. Therefore the cost of running the EPA is justified but that does not mean to say the EPA budget can't have some fat trimmed off.
              Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

              Comment


              • #52
                I am mixed on the effectiveness of the EPA on a cost/benefit ratio. Somewhat like OSHA.

                For non-U.S. folk, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is an arm of the government that oversees labor safety and health issues.

                Fundamentally, OSHA in some form is needed. Workers should be protected from issues like Black Lung to Asbestos. But over the years it has turned into a gigantic, bloated entity that drives manufacturers insane and raises costs for everybody.

                In the same way, without the EPA, the Great Lakes would probably still be dead, the Ohio River would still catch on fire occasionally, and the quality of life would decrease for citizens. Somewhere between NO EPA and what we have today - say, 35% - would be appropriate. There is absolutely room for trimming and increases in efficiency.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  gunnut you are masters of creating NGOs for a purpose.
                  In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.

                  My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?
                  EPA should be abolished.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    gunnut,

                    then who should act as a public goods regulator? free market theory dictates that private entities do a remarkably poor job at protection of the commons.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      You have to cut gunnut some slack here. Thanks to the EPA. EVERYTHING causes cancer in the state of California.
                      Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Julie View Post
                        Not only is the hand of the US invisible, it is non-existent, which is why Canada is looking to China as a new customer.
                        In that case, you have a big problem and so do we. I always said that you need a comprehensive reform on all levels if you as a nation want to go trough this with less losses as possible. There are no quick solutions and easy fixes, you need to roll up your sleeves and get down to business. Everything needs to be changed, since the living arrangement in the US revolves around cheap energy and that is no longer the case. Which means no more suburbia and no more excessive commuting as it was done before. You need to re arrange the human habitats first. Make them higher density with public transit, well planned with thought and care. I don't know if you remember from before, I was talking about Iraq, how important is to bring greenery as a part of psychological measure to stabilize the situation. Same thing works here too. People need beauty in order to live, they need pleasant and functional communities to live in. If they all live in a detached homes, far away from the activity (city) and within that setting they are even more atomized and isolated from neighbors, people have a tendency to become depressed and anxious. From that point those feelings grow, further atomizing the society and ultimately lead to the state of alienation, where everyone thinks of himself and society as a whole ceases to exist. It looks like society from the outside but actually it is just a tightly packed group of individuals which have very little in common . Yes I am talking about common interest and common goods. With them weak, you have a very little chance of succeeding in the times ahead, since in order to overcome the hardships that lie in front, you need to work together collectively. And by that I don't mean communism or anything like that, yet I am thinking about forming the wide consensus that is based on real facts, rather on projections, speculations, plans and so on.

                        To put it more simply, I think that US needs to bring down the scale of human living to a level which will be sustainable and in a way where living in such habitats will be pleasurable and rewarding.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X