In a year where the campaign mantra is “change,” we should look for it close to home.
This year we have the opportunity to elect someone to replace Jim Inhofe. He’s one of our two U.S. Senators. You may have heard about his crazy, nonsensical rants in front of the Senate.
According to his senate voting record, Inhofe isn’t the right man for the job.
Are you a student? Inhofe is not your friend. He consistently votes against giving money to schools and higher education. Recently, he voted against cutting interest rates on student loans.
Are you gay or supportive of gay rights? Inhofe still isn’t your friend. He always votes for banning gay marriage. He thinks that it is OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation and that it is not a hate crime.
Are you against torture? Inhofe was one of nine senators who voted against the “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.” The act passed and provided for better treatment of those that American soldiers captured.
Do you like the environment? Inhofe doesn’t. He’s for drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and doesn’t believe that polar bears are in danger. Back in 2003 he told the Senate, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science” and that it is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Even though he’s head of the Committee for Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has received more than a $1 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry since taking office.
During a statewide burn ban in Oklahoma, he decided to burn grass and brush on his land. It got out of control, and the fire department had to be called. Taking into consideration how dangerous wildfires can be in our state, www.layoffinhofe.com asks, “If Senator Inhofe can’t follow laws, even when human lives are at stake, should he really be making them?”
I could go on and on about his atrocious beliefs and dismal voting record. I cannot fathom why people have voted for this career politician in many elections. Well, I can. It’s probably because there has not been a strong enough candidate.
Luckily for us, Andrew Rice is running. As a general rule, Oklahomans like to vote for politicians who are very religious and are not ‘elitist’. Rice fits this bill. He earned his undergraduate from Colby College in Religious Studies and his masters from Harvard Divinity School in Theological Studies. In between schools he worked with AIDS patients and did other missionary work in India.
On his Web site, http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com, he talks about how he never wanted to be in politics. His inspiration came from a need to serve after his brother was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Gov. Brad Henry has endorsed Rice, as has the Sierra Club. So far, Rice has worked on several bills to help Oklahomans. Some of his best projects include a bill to help hungry children in Oklahoma and tax cuts for those caring for their elderly relatives. Rice has been gaining momentum.
Overall, Rice is Nice.
Loading ...
All Articles
Senator Inhofe always stands up for what is right. Unfortunately, you have made some very one-sided and factually inaccurate claims here. Look for a letter to the editor soon.
We should drill in ANWR. Polar bears aren’t in danger. And global warming is a hoax. I may not always agree with Inhofe, but at least he has the courage and sense to stand up to the global warming fanatics. For that reason alone I would vote for him.
Inhofe burned some brush on his land? Oh dear, that’s simply appalling.
This column basically boils down to, “Inhofe isn’t a liberal Democrat so you shouldn’t vote for him.”
I’m not sure why people still insist on claiming that global warming is a hoax. The only people that disagree are contrarian scientists that choose to ignore the evidence. But that’s really beside the point. If the other readers want to have people that don’t only present one side of the issue, they should vote for someone besides Inhofe because he only presents his side and refuses to address the other. You should check out the Barbara Boxer smack down that Inhofe recieved during a Senate hearing on global warming. That will show just how one sided Inhofe is himself.
Also, about burning brush on his land…There was a burn ban- meaning it was illegal for ANYONE to light outside fires. I would think a law maker would understand that.
Meh, you’re a moron Ms. Daitch, Inhofe has been our Senator for over 20 years, Rice doesn’t have a chance. You can take yourself and your pro-socialist, anti-American ideas to some Obama orgy.
Shayna Daitch - are you from Oklahoma? My guess is that your not. If you were, you would know better than to write a silly biased piece like this one. Oklahoma is a conservative state and conservatives- both Republican and Democrat - love Jim Inhofe. I would hope that your paper can do better in the future.
People, guess what it’s called? An OPINION page. Ergo, a page on which to state one’s opinions. So by all means express your retorts, but don’t call someone a moron for expressing their own. That’s shallow and it makes you look like one yourself.
“If you were, you would know better than to write a silly biased piece like this one.”
Hence, her title is Opinion Editor, because here’s a shocker, this article is opinion.
Let me tell you why Jim Inhofe is in trouble. In 2006, multiple Senators had an approval rating right around 50% and a high disapproval rating. Luck for Jim Inhofe, he wasn’t up for election. Every Senator like Inhofe, however, is now called FORMER Senator from the State of __________. (See George Allen, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Mike Dewine, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee.) These pickups were bolstered by high Democratic turnout and anger directed at the GOP. Dems will turn out in record number in every state, because the GOP has taken America in such a poor direction that only 16% think we’re on the right track. Couple that with the failing housing market, $4 gas (which will not be solved by off shore drilling or a gas tax holiday), a war that will cost us $1 trillion, and that spells bad news for Jim Inhofe.
Inhofe is an embarrassment to this state. He is so heavily against the environment that he made a list of 400 scientists that he said denied global warming and supported his views. Sadly however, he forgot to to check if all of the scientists were credible and that they actually supported his views, and thus the list of scientists turned out to be a work of fiction.
It is time for change, and Inhofe is a good start.
P.S. I love it when an opinion column spawns name calling like “anti-american” and references to orgies.
Natural global warming might not be a hoax, but man-made global warming is a fiction of Al Gore’s imagination used to pad his pockets with vast sums of money. I wonder what his carbon emissions are. It’s not just a hanful of scientists who thin global warming does’t exist. It’s tens of thousands. Probably more than say that is does exist. Of those doubters are the chief meteorologist for accuweather and the owner of the weather channel.
Just wait until Obamessiah dictates when you can use your AC, what level your thermostat can be set at and how many cars you can own.
As for drilling, we need to drill now in ANWAR. It is not a beautiful nature reserve. It is barren. Drilling poses no risk to nature and the warm pipelines actually attract wildlife.
Liberals including Obama are against nuclear power, coal, drilling for oil, and oil. What in God’s name do they propose for power? The hot air Obama spews? Or Pelosi’s suggestion of tapping the strategic reserves?
If I still lived in Oklahoma you better believe I would vote for Inhofe in a heart beat.
But Sean, all those scientists who don’t believe in man-made global warming are against the environment-every day when they wake up they go outside and punch the ground and kick the air because they hate the environment so much. Meanies.
“The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models.”
–Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist, mathematician, and meanie who is against the environment and often goes outside to punch the grass and kick the air
“But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case”
-Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicist
“the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
-Claude Allègre, French geochemicist
“Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.”
-Augie Auer, atmospheric scientist and meteorologist, New Zealand
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
-Reid Bryson, atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison, director of the Institute for Environmental Studies
“I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true.”
-John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
“That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.”
-Ian Clark, professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa
“it is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”
-William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at the Colorado State University
“There is evidence of global warming. The climate has warmed about 0.6C in the past 100 years, but most of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the post World War II industrialisation that led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming.”
-Chris de Freitas, Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
“There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible this connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.”
-David Deming, Ph.D in geophysics, professor at university of Oklahoma
“If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5° C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 ° C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6° C (4-11° F) predicted by the IPCC.”
-Don Easterbrook, retired geology professor at Western Washington University
“They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”
-William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
“One of the big problems with trying to determine long-term temperature changes, is that weather records only go back to about 1860. By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium.”
-Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of physical geography and quaternary geology at Stockholm University, Sweden
“By far, most of the IPCC members can be considered, indeed, as members of a Church of Global Warming. They are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models”
-Grhard Kramm, atmospheric scientist, Ph.D. in meteorology at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth”
-David Legates, Delaware State Climatologist, and an associate professor at the University of Delaware
“The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, with climatic consequences slowed by the inertial effect of glacial accumulations; solar activity, thought by some to be responsible for half of the 0.6°C rise in temperature, and by others to be responsible for all of it, which situation certainly calls for further analysis; volcanism and its associated aerosols (and especially sulphates), whose (short-term) effects are indubitable; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”
-Marcel Leroux, French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France
“lthough warming at Earth’s surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.”
-Richard Lindzen, Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“he biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities.”
-Tad Murty, Indian-Canadian oceanographer, PhD degree in oceanography and meteorology from the University of Chicago
“The late 20th century sea level rise rate lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10±10 cm (or +5±15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”
-Niles-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University
“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years… On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
-Tim Patterson, professor of geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University as well as Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
“A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ’science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ‘experts.’ I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.”
-Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France
“The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.”
-Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia
“The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don’t. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models.”
-Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville
“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: ‘Is climate changing and in what direction?’ ‘Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?’ And: ‘Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?’ The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.”
-Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
“First of all, I didn’t want to be on this panel. Second of all, I am a skeptic. Third of all, if I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993. “
-Ivan Giaever (Norway), the 1973 Nobel prize winner for superconductivity
Justin,
That’s an interesting collection of quotes, but it needs to be said that random quotes from scientists—especially out of context—does not make a scientific argument.
I wonder, for as justified of an attitude you present when denying anthropogenic global warming, what scientific evidence do you have to contrary? Where are the studies, the academic papers, the peer reviewed journal articles that conclude mankind isn’t responsible for the warming trend? Where are they?
From my research and reading, I’ve learned that every study that has sought to find the impetus for global warming has placed that responsibility firmly on mankind. Although I can understand not liking the political side of the issue, the science is real. There is a consensus, and a consensus is very important in scientific philosophy. And commentary from people—even scientists—that haven’t been involved in the research is really meaningless when it comes to science. They do make for good sound bites in the media, though.
Sean,
Have you taken a look at Pickens Plan? Boone is arguing for the need to get off foreign oil for practical purposes. He’s investing his own money in wind in the belief that the U.S. needs to start using compressed natural gas as a substitute for gasoline. When a man like Boone Pickens starts investing in wind power, I think that’s definitely an avenue worth looking into.
Although ANWR would have an effect in reducing the trade deficit, it wouldn’t have much of an impact in reducing global oil prices. However, I think an renewed emphasis on domestic production while also implementing a plan like Pickens has introduced would go a long way to creating more wealth in this country. More drilling alone is a proper solution in my mind.
Also, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel around and nuclear energy is not cost effective. Both should be phased out, and the market already seems to be doing that for nuclear in the United States.
*More drilling alone is NOT a proper solution in my mind.
McVey,
With the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, The US is offering subsidizing to those that build nuclear power plants. It’s hard to say if nuclear power is cost effective because most of the reports that say otherwise don’t factor in elements like capacity factor and use data from older model nuclear plant facilities as part of their cost estimate.
The front-side costs of a nuclear power plant are higher than other power facilities, but the cost of fuel is significantly cheaper than coal and natural gas, and the % output is significantly higher than any other power supply.
As such, permit applications for new facilities have already come in for nuclear power. The first such application since the 70s.
I do however agree with you that random quotes by random scientists do not an argument for or against global warming make. Peer reviewed published articles about global warming and its causes would be the real support for a point either way. The problem with global warming is that it has become too political, and the mix of science of political sway has produced ridiculous assertions on both sides of the issue.
B McVey - Please at least be accurate in your information.
1. Mr Pickens isn’t after “saving” the country from the big bad oil companies, he’s not any better than Mr Gore in wanting the get richer from enviromental causes. Mr. Pickens is striving for an extension of the tax credits for wind power so he can make ROI of at least 25%. Maybe I’m just pissed that I don’t have the required >$500 million in capital and political pull to make that happen for me.
2. Nuclear power is VERY cost competitive. Generation cost is $.02/kwh and capital cost over a 30 year lifespan is $.035-$.04/kwh. Nuclear power makes an excellent baseload power since the plants run best running at 100%. Wind on other hand is a poor provider of power, you need an equal amount of power for backup for when the wind suddenly dies.
Justin - While out of context quotes are a poor example they do indicate the hoax that AGW advocates are pulling. In 10 years AWG will be in the same idea dumpster as SARS, global cooling and Eugenics.
I’d ask you to review your information, because I can source mine. The only way nuclear can made be cost competitive is through massive government subsidies. Nuclear energy (both fission and fusion) has received more government research and development funds since 1948 than any other fuel source. I don’t think they should receive more. The free market itself had withdrawn its support for nuclear energy since the 1970s. Why should more taxpayer money be thrown at the idea?
The costs aren’t just massive front side and they generally overrun. There’s also maintenance, disposal of nuclear waste (which is a major issue in itself as places like Yucca mountain have become questionable in their ability to safely store the material in the future), and then of course decommissioning the plants. Moreover, the net energy yield for the nuclear fuel cycle is low. The cost /benefit analysis for nuclear has simply kept it out of the loop. If it were as competitive as you’re arguing, private investment in nuclear wouldn’t have slowed to a trickle, even while under the aegis of taxpayer subsidies.
And what’s wrong with Pickens wanting government support to create a better return for furthering a sustainable energy source? Modern wind turbines reach to higher, stronger, and more consistent air flows. Although storage is always an issue, as money flows into the idea, the more progress can be made in the development of technology to reduce costs. Wind hasn’t received trillions in taxpayer money over the last sixty years like nuclear, yet the cost per kWh has dropped tremendously since the 1980s. I think it’s time to face the facts and invest in a new vision, even if it means people make money.
McVey,
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides for a lot of the subsidies that you say are needed for Nuclear Power
http://www.doi.gov/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf
Also, a good report on the cost of different power supplies is this:
http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report2.pdf
The downside is it’s about the UK, so obviously there would be some changes in prices and the like; however, the cost comparisons include a ton of information about a ton of different power choices and includes many of the costs associated with the different power options (including nuclear decomissioning and even the effects of a carbon tax)
Shayna,
I always enjoy your columns for one reason or another, but I must comment on one part because I’m kind of placed in the middle of it.
Drilling for oil/natural gas in Alaska is not hurting the environment. In fact, modern day campers do more to hurt the environment than modern day oil businesses.
I recently took a trip to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, as it was part of my work. I was able to see a vast majority of Alaskan oil production that was started in the 1960s…and boy has technology improved things! Some ‘projects’ and platforms used to be about 20 acres large…now they’re 10-11. There are no roads to most of the sites, everything has to be flown in or is driven in on ice during the winter months. The land, minus some 10-11 acres, literally goes untouched. Wildlife (grizzlies, caribou, birds, etc) are literally flourishing. The polar bear population has actually doubled in the last 30 years. And to beat all odds, oil companies (COP, BP, etc) are contracted to clean up everything once they’re done.
So when it comes to not liking Inhofe for his stances on ANWR and other drilling operations in Alaska…search for the facts. And if anything else, fly up to Alaska and see how everything is very well cared for.
I think that the biggest reason for not supporting Inhofe should be his strong tendency to use religious references and reasonings to back up political claims.
As a former alum, and previous 15 year state resident, I was glad to see that OK finally outlawed cockfighting after much embarrassing “debate”. Fine, small steps toward this century — better late than never.
Now that the clown Inhofe has been easily re-elected, I once again cannot admit to any association with OK.
Jesus, people. I thought Georgia rednecks were backward…PLZ get rid of this idiot.
Laurie, so did our founding fathers. What it comes down to is do you want a value-less society or one based on traditional values. That is where the line has been drawn and for the moment, Oklahoma is still choosing traditional values.
Heather,
I believe your meaning of ‘traditional values’ is a soft way of saying that you believe in government officials having every right to force their particular Christian views on the public as if this is how government should work.
To propose that a government that is impartial to religous influence represents a value-less society is ludicrous. There is not some fence that says choose between Chrisitian, Bible pushing politicans or a corrupt, evil politician. In fact, I think most politicians understand that to truly represent their people, they must keep an unbiased face regardless of their personal beliefs. The principle behind removing the Ten Commandments from judicial buildings was done strictly for the sake of representing a true, unbiased system. This in no way made us valueless or an amoral country.
Question: Is it possible for an atheist to be just as moral and ethical as a Christian?
If you think oil is the solution to our energy crisis, you are part of the problem. Fossil fuels are a precious resource, and running out of them is only a matter of time at the moment. Based on a simple model of supply/demand, high energy prices are inevitable so long as we continue to burn fossil fuels.
The most likely result of this situation is that any other energy options, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, or otherwise, will always be cheaper in the long run. And considering current energy prices, ‘long run’ isn’t as long as it was before. And that doesn’t even factor in technology advancements that are already improving this technology.
And what is funny about this is that it is a simple economic reason which doesn’t include the greatest benefit, being energy independent. The sooner we have the option of not supporting oil heavy governments the better.
(The hawks will be disappointed. And I didn’t even mention plastics.)
Amie, I don’t think anyone is proposing that drilling for more oil is going to magically solve all our energy problems. But, if the oil is there, why not drill it? Drilling for more oil would not only bring down prices in the long-run, but in the short-run as well–oil prices don’t just respond to immediate increases in oil production, the market also responds to the possibility of increased production in the future, hence the recent drop in oil prices.
You say that supply and demand dictates that “high energy prices are inevitable so long as we continue to burn fossil fuels,” but wind and solar power are very limited. Unless Boone Pickens can mount a windmill on top of everyone’s car, then our need for oil is not going to go away anytime soon; and energy independence, while it sounds nice, is completely impossible for the United States. It might work for Iceland, but that’s about it.
As for nuclear power, I think it’s a great idea. Someone should try to convince Al Gore to support more nuclear power. At the moment, it’s next to impossible to open a new nuclear power plant in the U.S., largely due to the misguided concerns of the Left over nuclear power.
The point is, there is going to be a need for oil, and lots of it, for a long time to come, and it’s about time we started drilling for more of it here. It’s not a magic solution, and certainly alternative energy sources will need to be used as well. But it’s a start.
We’ve long kept resources on drilling and exploration when we could be spending resources building up alternative sources. (Look at the record quarterly profits announced last week and the low percentage spent on alternative energy.)
The point of focusing on alternative sources is that we begin the transition now. It isn’t something that happens over night, but the longer we worry about finding oil the longer it will take to get off of it.
The 12 step program requires that you give up your addiction. :) Fortunately this economic shift won’t happen overnight, but it won’t happen at all if we don’t change our mindset.
As far as nuclear goes, there have been many research advancements in the last several years that go along way to a safer and cleaner nuclear program. Not all problems have been solved, but it’s definitely worth thinking about.
But I wouldn’t consider most concerns over nuclear power, like mass irradiation, to be misguided. And it is more likely that the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents had more to do with our current stance on nuclear energy than anything.
Amie, upon mentioning the 12 step program, you have to appreciate the fact that step one is acknowledging your addiction. I think Americans are on the right track to completing step one.
I also think its intersting to note that we are now at a crossroads to how we must address alternative fuel demands. The scenario is:
1) Buy gas with up to 10% ethanol (e90) and pay less but with a decrease in mpg (due to less energy in ethanol but decreased emissions) or
2)Pay more for ethanol-free gas
The point is that most people in America are a long way from going beyond the ‘what is best for ME’ mentality and so in the mean time we must make it worth their while by providing them with an economic alternative fuel that tailors to their pockets. It is a good way of easing people in to the idea of alternatice fuel while also cutting down on emissions
“Worrying” about finding oil isn’t the issue–we know there is oil available to be drilled, we’re just not drilling it.
Alternative energy sources currently provide about 7% of our energy. Energy demand is expected to increase by 20% over the next couple decades. No matter how much we invest in alternative energy sources, it is simply impossible for alternative energy sources to replace carbon-based energy–we need oil, and we are going to need it for a long time to come. This is just a simple fact, even if politicians often deny the fact in the interest of getting votes.
Wind power currently provides 1% of our energy needs. It would cost trillions of dollars, and require windmills all across the plains, to even bump that 1% up to 10 or 20%. Not only that, but wind isn’t 100% reliable–the wind doesn’t always blow.
Solar energy currently provides 1/100th of 1% of our energy needs. And like wind, solar energy isn’t 100% reliable, the sun doesn’t always shine.
Ethanol has no shortage of problems either. Putting aside the fact that the ethanol fiasco has caused global food prices to rise, causing a lot of suffering around the world, there is also the fact that it requires land and ENERGY to grow the crops to make ethanol.
And electric cars–when they are not running on gas, they have to be plugged-in, and what happens when they’re plugged in and re-charged? They use ENERGY!
So it’s very easy to say that we’re addicted to oil and we have to give it up–that is a nice slogan. But slogans are not plans. Slogans are rhetoric. We need oil, lots of oil. We’re going to need lots of oil for a long time to come. There is oil available that is not being drilled. We should drill for it.
just relaying words from a friend…
Gas Prices – Fact vs.
Fiction
The United States burns 24 percent of the world’s oil, yet we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Even if we drilled every drop of oil the U.S. has on shore or off its coasts, we will never be able to drill our way to lower oil prices or energy security. We simply burn more than we could ever drill.
Offshore oil drilling is not a short-term fix. It would take at least a decade to bring new leases into production. And, it will be years before exploration could begin and years after that before production would start. If any effect were to be felt on gas prices (most likely only a few pennies per gallon), that effect is decades away.
Offering up more of our coastline for drilling won’t lower gas prices. Since President Bush took office in 2000, the number of wells in federally leased areas has increased exponentially, yet gas prices have doubled during that same time. Yet, this type of evidence is never mentioned in the media or by proponents for offshore drilling.
Another reason that drilling for more oil in the U.S. won’t result in lower gas prices is because oil prices are set on the global oil market. What this means is that all oil produced around the world is sold all at the same price. There is no guarantee that we would even be using the oil that was drilled here in the U.S. And, we certainly wouldn’t get a discount just because we drilled for it on U.S. soil. We would pay the same rate as the rest of the world.
Real Solutions
Drilling for more oil is not the answer. If we are to truly gain energy independence we have to start tapping into our future by investing and developing renewable energy sources. We also have to conserve energy and cut back where we can to reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.
By requiring all automobiles in the U.S. to achieve 35 mpg by 2020 we will save 1 million barrels of oil per day—far more than we will get from new offshore oil leases being proposed by President Bush.
Wind power is the world’s fastest growing energy source. Today, a wind farm can generate the same amount of power as some conventional power plants, but they don’t dump mercury, sulfur dioxide, and global warming pollution into the air. And while wind power is still growing here in the U.S., Denmark received 22 percent of its electricity from wind in 2007. Every 30 minutes, the sun sends more energy to our planet than is consumed in a whole year. In fact, the energy generated by the sun in just 20 days is equal to the energy of all the coal, oil, and natural gas buried underground. And just like wind power, solar energy is already being harnessed in many parts of the world.
Now isn’t the time for following leaders who promise quick fixes to high gas prices. It’s the time to end our dependence on oil and fossil fuels and begin a meaningful transition toward a future where we utilize renewable energy sources that will be able to sustain generations to come.
Justin,
First it is untrue that alternative sources cannot provide for our needs. There are already plans created, and they resolve the problems you have mentioned. Plus, you just provided several compelling reasons why we need to be focusing on alternative sources for both research and implementation.
Second the advantage of electric cars, since you brought them up, is that the energy source can vary. This means that we could be setting up solar complexes or tidal generators that would fuel our new cars. And with the price of oil continuing to rise and a national goal of energy independence, a cheaper electric car will begin to look attractive.
Again, a transition is not an overnight deal. Our need for oil will not be reduced significantly enough without committing to that transition, however. That is why it is important to move beyond drilling. Besides, we need to save some oil for our very precious plastics and other synthetic materials.
Think about it. Consider the long term benefits of clean power and energy independence. We can start moving beyond oil now and let the drop in demand influence oil prices (and opec) for a change.
Sure, let’s consider our nuclear options and combine them with the clean alternative methods that need to be built out, as you have so clearly shown. It is very doable.
New Slogan: Drilling is procrastinating.
Besides, none of this is going to prevent drilling in the future. The oil isn’t going anywhere if it isn’t being drilled, as you say. We can consider it a long term investment in the space age materials of the future. Or we can just wait for other reserves to run dry, and then it will really be worth a fortune.
Who is going to pay for these plans you say have been created? I haven’t seen any plans that resolve the problem that it would take trillions upon trillions of dollars and require government intervention in the economy on a massive scale to implement these plans. You seem to be advocating a shock therapy plan for the American economy, presumably engineered by the government. Sounds a bit too totalitarian for my tastes, and for most Americans’ tastes.
On the one hand, you are ideologically opposed to the fact that our economy is driven on carbon-based fuels, so you won’t allow for the possibility that it might make economic sense to drill offshore. On the other hand, you keep insisting that this is going to be a gradual process, and that it won’t happen overnight. What I can’t figure out is why you won’t allow that offshore drilling could be reasonably combined with a gradual, long-term transition to greater reliance on non-carbon-based fuels.
Electric cars are great, and if people want to buy them that’s great. But I don’t think the government should force them down people’s throats as part of the shock therapy.
Who is going to pay for your solar complexes and tidal generators? If the government pays, then that means trillions of tax dollars will have to be forked over.
Presidents have been touting the benefits of “energy independence” since Nixon. Not only is it an impossible goal, I’m not even sure it’s a desirable goal. We live in a globalized world, and the U.S. has the world’s largest economy–we need to purchase energy from other countries, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Should we be automobile independent and food independent as well? There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with purchasing food, cars, oil, or any other product from another country.
You still haven’t made a practical argument for why we shouldn’t be drilling for more oil. Our market economy is perfectly capable of making a gradual, free, un-coerced transition to a greater use of renewable energy sources, and I think it’s a noble goal. But I also think it makes sense to make use of the 86 billions barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is sitting in the outer continental shelf, and the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
Frazier, not sure who your friend is, Boone Pickens perhaps? In any case, there’s a few problems with his rhetoric.
1) The fact that drilling offshore won’t solve all our problems and create paradise on earth is not a valid reason for not drilling more. Producing another 10 million iPhones isn’t going to create paradise on earth either, but that doesn’t mean the government should ban apple from producing more iPhones.
2) It’s simply not true that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would not lower prices. In fact, the recent drop in oil prices was a result of the recent lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling. Global oil prices can go down as a result of expected future increases in oil production, even if it is years away.
3) The “real solutions” your friend proposes are nothing more than a call
for the federal government to use its coercive powers to force consumers into complying.
Your friend’s plan is not a plan at all, it’s just rhetoric. To actually implement such a plan would require trillions of dollars, massive government interference in the economy, and coercion of consumers.
Boone happens to be wrong on this one. He’s getting senile.
The reasons to not allow drilling are many. First, we don’t need to, there is lots of oil still out there that we already have access to. (That includes untapped leases already issued to oil companies.) Second, the current issue with gas prices is not just a simple issue of supply/demand. Third, it ultimately encourages the energy industry to invest in alternative energy resources due to a lower long term supply potential. And fourth (but not last) I’m simply not in favor of burning every last drop of oil we have before we learn our lesson.
We’ve had a gas crisis in this country before, and the response was a strong move toward conservation efforts. (Thus you discussing Nixon.) But when those problems eased up, we started getting vehicles like the Hummer. The reason that president’s aren’t achieving energy independence is because the nation is still depending on oil.
Energy independence can only be achieved if we are using the resources here. We do not have enough oil to pull that off (based off known reserves and estimates for sure), but using other resources that we have discussed it is possible. And if you think about it, even if energy independence cannot be achieved, we still know oil is destined to fail and we still know that burning it in such large amounts isn’t good for our environment.
But it seems that the most important test comes when you ask what effect will drilling have on gas prices and when. Unfortunately, the economists say the effect will be fairly negligible and take 10 - 20 years to be realized. (3.5 cent discount by 2027 if we opened up ANWR. I’m not impressed) In that time we could make a partial infrastructure transition that would likely have the same effect or better considering the experience we will gain and research advances between now and then.
On the other hand, expanding our oil capacity will likely require new refineries to be built as well as expensive offshore drilling platforms and other equipment, deepening our investment into the inevitable crash.
Besides, less things for people to fight over is always a good thing, and that is a large benefit of energy independence. And I consider that to be worth quite a lot economically and otherwise.
So yes, I will reiterate, there are no magic easy buttons for this, no workable “shock therapy plans”, and any steps we take should bear in mind the amount of time it takes for any of these solutions to take effect. These are obviously not 4 year presidential feel good plans which is why I say that this is a gradual transition (there is no way to do it otherwise, it just won’t happen), but we do need to start now. Where were gas prices 10 years ago? (I remember.) Where do you think they will be in 10 years when drilling will start to have an effect?
Of course, if you have oil stock or are working in the oil industry, that is a massive potential profit. So I could see the interest in keeping oil on the table. But in reality, if you don’t want the government to pay for it when drilling didn’t fix the problem, you better give the industry a reason to do so now. 3% of the world’s oil supply won’t do it though, and that is all we have to play with.
Funny enough Justin, you say that “Global oil prices can go down as a result of expected future increases in oil production, even if it is years away.” But you fail to acknowledge that reducing demand could have the same effect.
Alternative energy resources would reduce demand of gasoline and have the same downward price effect, benefiting people still using oil when the demand fell. A transition with benefits. :) And by extension, knowing when and to what extent we were buying in to alternative energy, we could have lower gas prices now based on long term futures.
From an article by Ronald Bailey at reason.com:
“According to the Energy Information Administration, the existing capacity of U.S. coal, gas, and oil generating plants totals around 850,000 megawatts. So how much would it cost to replace those facilities with solar electric power? Let’s use the recent announcement of a 280-megawatt thermal solar power plant in Arizona for $1 billion as the starting point for an admittedly rough calculation. Combined with a molten salt heat storage systems, solar thermal might be able to provide base load power. Crunching the numbers (850,000 megawatts/280 megawatts x $1 billion) produces a total capital cost of just over $3 trillion over the next ten years.”
“What about wind power? Oilman T. Boone Pickens is building the world’s biggest wind energy project with an installed capacity of 4,000 megawatts at a cost of $10 billion, or about $2.5 billion per 1,000 megawatts. For purposes of illustration, this implies a total cost of around $2.1 trillion over the next ten years to replace current carbon-emitting electricity generation capacity with wind power. That’s assuming that the wind projects generate electricity at their rated capacity at or near 100 percent of the time. Making the heroic assumption that in fact wind projects will generate power at about one-third of their rated capacity (due to wind variability), this would imply tripling the number of wind power generators. This boosts the total overall cost to more than $6 trillion over the next ten years.”
“What’s the potential for geothermal electricity generation? Geothermal power taps the heat of the Earth itself to make steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. For instance, superhot water erupting from the Geysers in northern California fuel power plants with a generation capacity of 725 megawatts. But such geothermal sites are relatively rare. However, an unconventional geothermal source—hot dry rocks—might supply us with no-carbon electricity. In lots of places, rocks several kilometers down are quite hot. To get at this heat, engineers drill at least two boreholes and inject cool water in one. The injected water flows around fractured hot rocks and rises through the other borehole as steam to drive a turbine to generate electricity. Some very preliminary figures suggest that it would cost around $3 billion for build a 1000 megawatt geothermal plant. Replacing 850 gigawatts of carbon-emitting power generation capacity with geothermal electricity would cost around $2.5 trillion over ten years.”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127793.html
Just to put some perspective on the hypothetical costs mentioned above: the entire 2008 Federal budget is 2.9 trillion. In other words, switching to renewable energy would be a bit pricey (and those figures above don’t include transportation–which is what most oil is used for anyway). Who is going to pay for this “plan”? Show me the money.
I’ve already explained it. And if you think about it, the cost of doing nothing is far greater than any of this. And that assumes that we go by the priciest of estimates to convert, disregard the potential for conflicts or other costly scenarios, and forget about the continued environmental impact. (And forget about the price of oil over the next 20 years too.) Oil (or fossil fuels) is a bad plan for energy. Period.
Lol … I’m a little tired this morning. Don’t forget about the price of oil, that was the ultimate point. Despite having many many reasons to do something other than drilling, one truth remains. Oil will continue to rise in price, and it will almost certainly continue to beat inflation. (Unless of course we weren’t using as much…)
Ooh, one last thing pointed out to me by a friend: You can’t predict the cost decrease or the efficiency increase associated with building out alternative energy industries and research. And a quick read shows that Ronald Baily’s hypothetical situation required that we immediately switch to one single form of alternative energy and all at the same time. Who is arguing to do that? Only the straw man.
After reading these comments, i’m so glad that I don’t live in Oklahoma. No wonder the rest of the nation laughs at you and thinks you’re a bunch of dumb hicks, they’re mostly right.
Especially you ignorant wonks who start throwing “family values” and “socialist” labels around. Go back to your Fox “News” with the rest of the sheep. This country has enough of your stupidity and is through with you.
I believe Bailey’s point was to show how expensive it would be to replace coal-oil-gas power plants with solar/wind/geothermal. The costs are prohibitive. He’s not arguing against a straw man, he’s arguing against Al Gore.
Maybe the best “plan” is no plan at all. Let the marketplace determine the best course of action. Real people investing with their own money the best approach to energy production instead of political insiders deciding. If solar is such a great idea, then the marketplace will reward those who put some skin in the game, if not they go bust. Same with all the other proposals on the table. In a nutshell you can’t “plan” the market, the market will seek the greatest return possible.
The market may be ugly, seems unpredictable and inefficient but it has given us an ever increasing higher standard of living. The market only fails us when we allow it to be manipulated by the use of subsidies, tax credits, quotas, etc…
BTW - Mr Inhofe should be remain in office, he’s the only politican that’s speaking out over the bullgore warming BS.
Right Justin, except that Al Gore isn’t saying that we have to go all one direction. He just said carbon-free, did he not? Even McCain is touting carbon free plans like nuclear.
And Bailey still isn’t taking into account any of the positive benefits such a move provides, the cost of oil over time, or that drilling is pointless. He even quoted the Energy Information Administration which is the same agency that says drilling will have no significant effect on oil prices. And though he wasn’t arguing against that (you were), he sure isn’t providing solutions.
It’s good to be concerned about the cost, but this is a move we need to make. If the discussion were on that level, we would be much better off.
Grad 83, I understand the sentiment, but the status quo is what has brought us to our current situation. Furthermore, since we only hold 3% of the world’s petroleum market, any effect we could have on the market could easily be countered by OPEC. We don’t have the power here.
Also, you are right and wrong about the market. It will seek the greatest return, but it will do so within whatever bounds it is given. If it is not allowed to build more coal plants or more gas burning vehicles, it will respond accordingly.
I will note, however, that while I do favor an immediate ban on new fossil fuel burning power stations, the automotive industry needs more time to implement alternate solutions, and the power industry needs more time to accommodate the likely increase in usage a transition will make. Besides, our automotive industry is already hurting due to their investment in low efficiency vehicles.
Regarding comments for drilling in ANWAR, I agree with Boone Pickens from his interview in the January 2007 issue of Playboy: it’s up to the people of Alaska to decide whether we open up more drilling in Alaska, not the U.S. Congress.
While values are important to me, I don’t believe that you should vote for someone just because they believe in God. I think that you should look at a elected official’s body of work. In this regard, I won’t vote for Inhofe, while i agree that he has taken moral stands on issues like gay marriage. I’m in total disagreement with his voting record on the war, education, torture and rights for veterans. Oklahoma as a state ranks among the lowest in healthcare, poverty, education. In terms of healthcare millions of Oklahomans mostly children are uninsured, to say that its not a problem one would only have to go to any emergency room in the state. Jim Inhofe has not spoken to that issue once. With regard to poverty, again Oklahoma is at the top of the list. It is widely held that education is the great equilizer when it comes to those individuals that live below the poverty level to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and access the American dream. Jim Inhofe has not supported this effort and in fact blocked this effort by voting against education initiatives that would help Oklahomans. Oklahoma spends roughly three times the amount for each prisoner than it does for each student 17,850 to 6,200. Finally, I am amazed how a government can vote to send it’s citizens to war and not uphold its committment to them when they return, with that being said Jim Inhofe has consistently voted against funding the Veteran’s Adminstration in its request for money to support returning troops who need it. He also voted against the new GI Bill recently passed that increases funding for veterans for education, home ownership,and small business loans. This is why I won’t be voting for Jim Inhofe. I believe that an elected official should support the interest of the people who elected them, not the party they are a member of. These are the facts, you can look them up. I respect the Senator as a person and his religious beliefs, I just don’t think they should prohibit him from supporting the working families of Oklahoma
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Beau,
Ouch. I may or may not be a “moron.” I’m not quite sure how one would
tell if one were a moron. That goes along with the argument of whether
crazy people know that they are in fact, crazy.
As far as your remark that I can take my “pro-socialist, anti-American
ideas to some Obama orgy”, let me assure you that I am not a
socialist, that I am more American than apple pie (especially if you
take into consideration the fact that both of my parents were in the
military and worked for the federal government, just as I plan to do)
and I am not enamored with Obama.
Asher,
I have not been to Alaska, but I really want to visit. The danger to
polar bears isn’t necessarily oil production, but global warming.
Thank you for the insight on how clean are the operations.
My problem with drilling in the ANWR is that it is not a feasible,
long term solution. Since the Carter administration, the U.S. has been
putting off the creation of renewable sources of energy. If we were to
drill in ANWR today and hit a ‘gusher’, gas prices would still not be
affected for years, if at all. Several news articles suspect that OPEC
would simply cut its exports in order to offset any price drop that
would result from additional Alaskan oil. Essentially, we need to
focus on alternative energy.
With all due respect to you and your parents, and I know this wasn’t necessarily your point–but serving in the military or working for the federal government does not make someone more “American,” nor does it rule out possible anti-American sensibilities. Alger Hiss worked for the federal government, and Timothy McVeigh served in the military.
Oh, and polar bears aren’t threatened by global warming, because global warming is a man-made hoax.
You know what? There probably is some truth in what all of you have said for and against Inhofe. Perhaps you can go to the congressional website and check on his voting record to make an informed decision regarding your vote in November. You all are registered to vote on November 4th, right? Because if you’re not registered to vote, all of your verbiage means nothing. The Payne County Election Board has voter registration cards, as does both the Young Democrats and Young Republican organizations on campus. Check them out if you haven’t already. See you at the polls . . . .
No, I don’t vote, Trish. If that makes me a second-class citizen, so be it, I guess. But, perhaps, someday, if you’re lucky, you’ll have the opportunity to vote for an amendment that requires non-voters to never, ever, voice their opinions. That would be divinely Orwellian for you, wouldn’t it? To hell with voting.
Global warming is all a big hoax, Justin Akers. You’re right for once. The fact that a stiff, cold block of worthless ice like you exists on this “melting Earth” proves that there’s no such thing as global warming. Have a nice, crisp day, Jus! Oh, and don’t forget to comment. Your cute little quips and rebuttals always make my heart do cartwheels.
Cute little quip. Rebuttal.
I think the global warming argument has faded away to an even better one: sustainability. Our population increase coupled with the amount of raw goods each person consumes cannot sustain our existence. Also consider Affluenza. Most of us are preoccupied by whims of affluence because our economy is designed around it. Also consider that there exists Permaculture and The Global Ecovillage Network. Google it.
Also, gay marriage is not a moral issue. Homosexuality is not a choice (as I can attest), and I’m not hurting anyone by simply “existing.”
Aaron, you’re absolutely right that you’re not hurting anyone by existing. But I do believe gay marriage is a moral issue–I think it is immoral to prevent a large segment of the population from marrying. It’s not morally good for America if large portions of the population are prevented from forming lasting, legal unions.
As for your comment on sustainability, it’s important to keep in mind that people have been saying we can’t sustain increasing populations for centuries (Malthus, back in the early 1800s, for example), yet the population has kept growing and continues to be sustained, mainly due to unforseen, unpredictable advances in technology–agricultural advances and medical advances, being two of the most important ones. Perhaps an unforseen advance in energy technology is next on the horizon.
I think the problem with these advancements is that they come with a toll on the individual health. The technology does exist to sustain a large population of people, but the chemicals produced to keep these foods from going bad is what’s causing long-term health problems. The more people there are to feed, the less carefully grown are the foods. Then there’s factory farming, which I don’t feel like getting into.
I think it’s more of the lifestyle than anything else. This lifestyle of trading time for money - I believe - is wholly crippling because we displace our sense of responsibility on someone else. We’ve created thrills and false dangers to keep things interesting.
And that is why I again mention Permaculture.