Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks  (Read 3986 times)

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2159
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2017, 04:28:07 PM »

I'm mainly concerned about what drilling will do to underground aquifers considering all the earthquakes in Oklahoma from frac-ing.

Texas has a large amount of springs spread across the state. A massive oil reserve has been found out in the west Texas desert area of Balmorhea which isn't a national park but I think it should be.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/the-future-of-balmorhea/
Logged

capital

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
    • Website
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2017, 04:10:28 PM »

Speaking to the issue of oil companies creating surface contamination:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Chemical-Leak-at-Livermore-Oil-Field-May-Have-Contaminated-Some-Alameda-County-Water-Supplies-353092171.html

The land owner who only has surface rights indicated on TV yesterday that the issue of clean up is still not resolved, and it is now 2017.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2566
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2017, 04:45:05 PM »

Curious of you're getting a tax subsidy to put in solar panels?

Too early to say if one will be offered, and it won't make any difference anyway.

But, again, what I will or won't do isn't the issue. What companies are/aren't doing also isn't the issue. What is the outlook of government policymakers? What are their policies intended to accomplish? And I don't mean rhetorical blather but rather nitty-gritty detail. That is the issue.

-Dave-
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2017, 02:01:23 AM »

Curious of you're getting a tax subsidy to put in solar panels?  If you are, then other tax payers like me are paying for your panels so you can save money.  How is that fair?

It's fair because it helps you and your children and their children and everyone else's children breathe unpolluted air on a stable planet.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1652
    • Flicker photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2017, 01:29:20 AM »

It's fair because it helps you and your children and their children and everyone else's children breathe unpolluted air on a stable planet.
That's just baloney.  The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet.  Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use.  No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs.  Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't?  Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour.  On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas.  With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours. 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 01:32:42 AM by Alan Klein »
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2330
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2017, 04:35:27 AM »

That's just baloney.  The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet.  Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use.  No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs.  Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't?  Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour.  On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas.  With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours.

Because that's how taxes work.  The government wants to change behaviour, so they use cash.  If you're missing out on the subsidy, you're not doing what they want.  If you don't drive on roads as much as someone else, they're getting more benefit from taxes that go into roads than you.  What's more, by not using the grid (or using less) people with solar are reducing demand for the grid which helps to reduce the price that you pay.

This whole "I don't get any benefit from THAT tax" thing is the real baloney.  It's like over here where if you don't vaccinate your kids you don't get the "Child vaccination bonus" from the government, and people complain because they're being "forced" to vaccinate.  No, they're being encourage, even coerced, because in the long run it's cheaper for the government and better of the community.

If it affects you so much, get solar...
Logged
Phil Brown

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2017, 05:34:20 AM »

That's just baloney.  The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet.  Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use.  No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs.  Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't?  Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour.  On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas.  With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours.

Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6713
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2017, 06:26:19 AM »

Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.

And what's more, without the additional solar/and other alternatives to burning fossil fuel, people may not be able to use their Air Conditioning on the hottest days anymore (according to this article), thanks to global warming trends which cause (not only higher but also) larger fluctuations in temperature.

The future seems to be heading in the direction of more local/home produced energy (and conservation which never hurts), rather than large scale production/pollution. Solar and wind farms may be large scale, but they still face the challenge of fluctuating supply. So also the demand side needs to be addressed, and the losses and vulnerabilities (and sabotage) of energy transportation.

Denial of the need for a multi-faceted approach is naive, at best. Subsidies, while never a good long term solution, can help kick-start something that would otherwise never get off the ground.

While at the same time:
Areas of California sank almost 2 feet in under 2 years amid drought
and
Leading candidate for Trumpís science advisor calls climate change a cult.

What a mess ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1652
    • Flicker photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2017, 04:29:44 PM »

Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.

I understand perfectly well how economics and technology work.  I use to sell and install  energy management systems since the 1973 oil crisis.  The buyers had to see that there was a good enough return on investment to make the investment in the first place.  When the government gets involved with subsidies, it thinks it knows the best way of doing these things.  The savings purported are BS because it's really coming from the subsidy that others are paying, not from the reduction of energy and associate utility costs. All it does is distort the marketplace creating imbalances.  People invest in companies that were subsidized like Solyendra that went bust.   

You probably don't know this but years ago the oil industry had a tax subsidy called the oil depletion allowance for oil that is not left in the ground because they're drilling and removing it.  They finally got rid of it.  But it sounds pretty stupid now, doesn't it.

Look at the subsidy for gasoline.  10% has to be methanol that comes from corn. So farmers grow corn for the gas companies and the price of food goes up because there's less corn for beef and other animal feed.  Another stupid boondoggle.

You make it seem that only with government involvement, things won't be developed.  That's just not true.  The free-market and people making decisions in their own interest will help all these things if just the government would stay out of it and stop playing favorites who contribute to their election campaign funds. .
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2017, 02:56:14 AM »

You make it seem that only with government involvement, things won't be developed.  That's just not true.  The free-market and people making decisions in their own interest will help all these things if just the government would stay out of it and stop playing favorites who contribute to their election campaign funds. .

Typical Libertard BS. The "free market" can only adjust to a local optimum, not a global one (the text book example is Betamax and VHS). People on their own make short term decisions that suit them - even if a better solution would be arrived at by concerted action. Like here - obviously it would be better on the whole if a non-polluting technology replaced fossil fuels, but for now the economics are such that individuals will not foot the bill - why should I pay out of my pocket to make the planet a better place for your kids?
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2566
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2017, 04:41:49 PM »

The "free market" can only adjust to a local optimum, not a global one (the text book example is Betamax and VHS).

You can see this in play in the pharmaceutical industry as well. Why invest in developing potential cures for diseases when meds to manage or at least alleviate symptoms of those diseases have already been developed and are not just lucrative but also (to varying degrees) effective?

I do wonder how many of today's self-proclaimed free marketeers have read Smith's The Theory Of Moral Sentiments? His thinking is worlds away from the current fundamentalism.

-Dave-
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1652
    • Flicker photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2017, 05:05:48 PM »

You can see this in play in the pharmaceutical industry as well. Why invest in developing potential cures for diseases when meds to manage or at least alleviate symptoms of those diseases have already been developed and are not just lucrative but also (to varying degrees) effective?

I do wonder how many of today's self-proclaimed free marketeers have read Smith's The Theory Of Moral Sentiments? His thinking is worlds away from the current fundamentalism.

-Dave-
  I don't understand your point.  Samsung developed the Galaxy cellphone.  Why did they bother when the iPhone was available, lucrative and effective?  All products have competition.  There's always someone who wants to make a better mousetrap.   How are pharmaceuticals different? 
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2330
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2017, 05:33:43 PM »

Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions trying to find the next big cure because it will make them trillions.  It's simple.  Patents aren't forever and commoditisation of products reduces prices.  Yes, there are notable exceptions that pop up where attempts are made to extort unreasonable returns, but they rarely last for long.

Mainly, though, if you aren't one of the pharmaceutical companies with a patent for a treatment on a major disease, then finding a cure is the only real way to get that market share and revenue.  The companies that do have those patents don't want to be beaten to the punch (and since they have treatments may already have more advanced research) and so they all keep doing the research, the trials, and so on to try to deliver the next big cure.

The conspiracy theory nonsense about the industry is just that - nonsense.  It doesn't make business or economic sense (let alone being nearly impossible to actually maintain and prevent from being leaked).
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1652
    • Flicker photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2017, 06:28:33 PM »

Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions trying to find the next big cure because it will make them trillions.  It's simple.  Patents aren't forever and commoditisation of products reduces prices.  Yes, there are notable exceptions that pop up where attempts are made to extort unreasonable returns, but they rarely last for long.

Mainly, though, if you aren't one of the pharmaceutical companies with a patent for a treatment on a major disease, then finding a cure is the only real way to get that market share and revenue.  The companies that do have those patents don't want to be beaten to the punch (and since they have treatments may already have more advanced research) and so they all keep doing the research, the trials, and so on to try to deliver the next big cure.

The conspiracy theory nonsense about the industry is just that - nonsense.  It doesn't make business or economic sense (let alone being nearly impossible to actually maintain and prevent from being leaked).
  What conspiracy?  I don't understand the points you and Dave are making.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2330
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2017, 07:41:25 PM »

There is conspiracy - that's my point.

Others often suggest that cures aren't made available because there is a pharmaceutical industry conspiracy to stop them because they apparently make more money when people are sick, but as I said, it doesn't add up on any level.
Logged
Phil Brown

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2566
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2017, 05:36:09 PM »

My point has zilch to do with any imagined conspiracy. It's simply that humans can benefit from corporations being nudged or pushed or even forced to do things by other institutions with a broader ethical/societal view than the corporations themselves naturally possess. Company Uzemgablah, Inc. doesn't have to intrinsically care about the bigger picture as long as it pays attention to individuals/groups/organizations who do care.

-Dave-
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1652
    • Flicker photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2017, 02:05:07 AM »

Needs are fulfilled by companies and people who feel they make a profit from fulfilling those needs.  Whether its a drug company, a metal supplier, a doctor, or the guy who opens a grocery store on the corner.  That's the essence of free markets.  Additionally, the government spends billions for research in combating diseases, new drugs and scientific research.   There's also a huge offset in new stuff from military, environmental and other government departments that use their funding to pay private companies to develop new things.   
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2285
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2017, 03:21:51 PM »

why should I pay out of my pocket to make the planet a better place for your kids?

Uh, because it'll make the planet a better place?
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
    • Robert's Photos
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2017, 12:04:14 PM »

I have a simpler view of this kind of action. Opening up national parks seems like a bizarre thing to do when you think of it. The National Parks DO NOT represent a great land mass, so how much more oil and copper or whatever can you dig out of them? Itís a symbolic action only. Itís saying, weíre rich and we can destroy the country if we want, so youíd better do what we say or else.

That is, if we can do this to national parks, think what we can do to your backyard.

I see this in much the same way as I see those photo ops from G20 meetings. All the discussions that take place at trade talks occur behind closed doors for years before the actual meeting. So what is the real purpose behind the meetings, the security, the baiting of protesters. IMO, the real purpose is to show "our leaders" behind fences and barriers, surrounded by swat teams, supposedly in danger from a few protesters throwing bottles. It is saying to us, "Look how important we are. Look what we are protecting you from?" And all the political leaders attending these things are the ones currently in power, so the re-election aspects are obvious. I see these things as a TV show, nothing more.

If they want or need more oil, do they really have to dig up the national parks, of all places? Do you really believe that that is necessary? It's a con, set up to create false debates in places like this forum. Where some people can say that nature is important and others more hard-headed and "realistic" can contradict and pretend that they're clear thinkers, unlike those wooly-headed ones who like birds and camping.

Stop it, it's silly. Do you really not believe that keeping the air and water clean is important? How would you feel if it was your daughter getting sick at the next Love Canal? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes. Black lung disease is making a comeback in West Virginia, do you think that's a good "compromise" to make for "jobs". Really?
Logged
--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 615
Re: US House Moves to Encourage Drilling in National Parks
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2017, 04:46:04 AM »

Needs are fulfilled by companies and people who feel they make a profit from fulfilling those needs. 
Some needs are, some needs aren't - obviously. What exactly are you trying to say?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up