Originally posted by TranaGreg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Yeah so global warming huh...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nots View PostSo in June the administration green lights Shell to begin off shore drilling in the Arctic and in September, he returns with new climate change policy.
That takes some pretty big stones.....
---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
-
Granting Shell permission to drill in the Arctic Sea is a huge mistake IMO. Given the climate and the conditions, the chances are much greater of a disaster than they are in the Gulf, and we saw how that turned out. He administration should have at least tied the thing up in the courts for a few years.
Anyone who trumpets this guy as some sort of environmental saint obviously has a set of Pom poms and an agenda,
Comment
-
Here's a link from a huge Obama supporter who nonetheless feels the President is a little impotent on climate change. Perhaps he too is shallow and myopic and is just out to play gotcha with the president.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505Obama didn't grant Shell permission, he extended the permission that Dubya had already granted them. The only reason they haven't been drilling since they were approved nearly a decade ago is because of injunctive relief granted to environmental groups who filed suit against them. They finally fought through the mess and started efforts in 2012 but were thwarted by a combination of natural disasters (their flagship got run aground during gale force Arctic winds, for example) and the increased regulations put forth by the Obama administration following the Deepwater Horizon spill. The approval just given by the Obama administration, in the form of the Department of the Interior, was to allow Shell to drill deeper than their initial allowances. Obama's stance was and continues to be that prevention of fossil fuel drilling, generally speaking, is far less effective than advancing a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels. Personally, I agree somewhat with this tactic --- reducing fossil fuel demand is far more effective than playing a game of whack-a-mole where you ban one driller and another simply pops up elsewhere. It's a very difficult and complex issue - certainly moreso than it's being portrayed by those here - and requires a good deal of thoughtful planning. While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. Not to mention the fact that canceling leases legally purchased by Shell and issued under the Bush administration would have potentially severe legal consequences. We live in a nation of laws and the President is not an emperor who can cancel contracts as he sees fit, especially $2+ billion contracts like this one. Additionally, oil prices are so low right now that a free for all in the Arctic, given the massive costs associated with drilling in that area, is exceptionally unlikely until we see the price per barrel at least double and maybe more. That all said, I would favor a decision to attempt to restrict Shell's drilling efforts in the area. However, it is exceptionally complicated and just playing some gotcha game regarding Obama's environmental policies is shallow and myopic."Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505Obama didn't grant Shell permission, he extended the permission that Dubya had already granted them. The only reason they haven't been drilling since they were approved nearly a decade ago is because of injunctive relief granted to environmental groups who filed suit against them. They finally fought through the mess and started efforts in 2012 but were thwarted by a combination of natural disasters (their flagship got run aground during gale force Arctic winds, for example) and the increased regulations put forth by the Obama administration following the Deepwater Horizon spill. The approval just given by the Obama administration, in the form of the Department of the Interior, was to allow Shell to drill deeper than their initial allowances. Obama's stance was and continues to be that prevention of fossil fuel drilling, generally speaking, is far less effective than advancing a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels. Personally, I agree somewhat with this tactic --- reducing fossil fuel demand is far more effective than playing a game of whack-a-mole where you ban one driller and another simply pops up elsewhere. It's a very difficult and complex issue - certainly moreso than it's being portrayed by those here - and requires a good deal of thoughtful planning. While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. Not to mention the fact that canceling leases legally purchased by Shell and issued under the Bush administration would have potentially severe legal consequences. We live in a nation of laws and the President is not an emperor who can cancel contracts as he sees fit, especially $2+ billion contracts like this one. Additionally, oil prices are so low right now that a free for all in the Arctic, given the massive costs associated with drilling in that area, is exceptionally unlikely until we see the price per barrel at least double and maybe more. That all said, I would favor a decision to attempt to restrict Shell's drilling efforts in the area. However, it is exceptionally complicated and just playing some gotcha game regarding Obama's environmental policies is shallow and myopic."Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
"Your shitty future continues to offend me."
-Warren Ellis
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505While the transition to renewable fuels is well underway and is being aggressively pushed by the Obama Administration, the fact remains that we need fossil fuels in the interim. .
EDIT: I'd be curious what you and others think of the progress we are making---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505Kind of damning with faint praise, but thanks.
JAd Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
Comment
-
Those pesky "experts" are at it again with their science hokus pokus.
World will pass crucial 2C global warming limit, experts warn
Pledges by nations to cut carbon emissions will fall far short of those needed to prevent global temperatures rising by more than the crucial 2C by the end of the century. This is the stark conclusion of climate experts who have analysed submissions in the runup to the Paris climate talks later this year.
A rise of 2C is considered the most the Earth could tolerate without risking catastrophic changes to food production, sea levels, fishing, wildlife, deserts and water reserves. Even if rises are pegged at 2C, scientists say this will still destroy most coral reefs and glaciers and melt significant parts of the Greenland ice cap, bringing major rises in sea levels.
“We have had a global temperature rise of almost 1C since the industrial revolution and have already seen widespread impacts that have had real consequences for people,” said climate expert Professor Chris Field of Stanford University. “We should therefore be striving to limit warming to as far below 2C as possible. However, that will require a level of ambition that we have not yet seen.”
Comment
-
-
We're several hundred miles away and we have had a foot of rain in the last 36 hours. This after only five inches since 4th of July. Heaven help the coast when the run-off converges.
This thing went from a tropical storm to a grade 5 hurrican in a day.
JAd Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
Comment
-
---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
-
So the Paris climate conference is starting. Forgive the skeptic in me, but I expect a lot of back slapping and the celebration of a "ground breaking agreement" that will have precisely no effect on global warming ... like all the rest of them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostSo the Paris climate conference is starting. Forgive the skeptic in me, but I expect a lot of back slapping and the celebration of a "ground breaking agreement" that will have precisely no effect on global warming ... like all the rest of them.
JAd Astra per Aspera
Oh. In that case, never mind. - Wonderboy
GITH fails logic 101. - bryanbutler
Bah...OJH caught me. - Pogues
I don't know if you guys are being willfully ignorant, but... - Judge Jude
Comment
Comment