Crude Fountains, Conservitards, and Gaia Worship

[spunktina]

I really hope the gulf oil leak will finally quiet the consevatives who accuse environmentalists of earth worship. While they ranted and raved about environmental paranoia and regulations being too "fined grained," we pointed to the numerous messes above ground that clearly showed regulation could never be too stringent given the risks.

When Obama approved more limited off-shore drilling months ago, liberals and environmentalists were galled that, of all things, he compromised with the conservatives on poorly regulated drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Small though his compromise was (even conservatives complained it wasn't enough), NOTHING had changed in the science to warrant it. The reserves were so small as to not be worth the risk. I'm glad I voted for Obama, as McCain/Palin with their Drill Baby Drill noise would obviously have been worse offenders, but that doesn't lessen my outrage. It was his worst mistake and history will judge him very poorly for it.

The ultraliberal "earth worshippers" were right, though. That's gotta sting conservitards.

***

Okay, now for the geeky science bit to upset the science haters here. Crude oil is a fascinating geochemical. Yes, it's a myth it is made from dead dinos. There weren't enough dinosaurs dying in such conditions to create so much crude. There are some animals in it, but it's mostly cooked vegatable matter from earth's hot swampy past. We know this because we can determine ancient climates in a variety of reliable ways. There's good science behind our understanding of fossil fuels like crude oil and bituminous coal.

Perhaps if more people understood the make-up of the substance, we'd comprehend the extreme finitude of it.

[rogue06]

On the opposite side if the environmentalists hadn't forced the rigs to be so far off shore we would be talking about capping a well in 500' of water rather than in nearly a mile deep of water. The former is far easier to do and almost certainly would be accomplished almost immediately after any accident. Moreover, many experts acknowledge that the risk of an accident is much less likely in shallower waters. IOW, this issue is far more complex than you want to make it.

Still, this might finally get some conservatives who agree in principle with the need to find alternative sources of energy to get off their duffs and actually start getting involved

[spunktina]

On the opposite side if the environmentalists hadn't forced the rigs to be so far off shore we would be talking about capping a well in 500' of water rather than in nearly a mile deep of water.

No environmentalist ever said they should go out further but stop drilling altogether. The volume of those reserves barely makes a dent in oil availability in the long run. We're actually better mathemeticians, too. We can like add and stuff.



The former is far easier to do and almost certainly would be accomplished almost immediately after any accident. Moreover, many experts acknowledge that the risk of an accident is much less likely in shallower waters.

And that justifies going further out to derive a scant amount of crude relative to US demand? Yes, blame reasonable scientists with legit concerns about toxic fountains in fragile ecologies rather than the idiots who defended the safety of drilling 50 miles away from shore...because the further out the slick, the less likelihood it'll touch shores. You do realize that's part of their justification for going further out. You do realize that reason played a role in securing their permits.


IOW, this issue is far more complex than you want to make it.

Well duh. It's an OP, not a book.


Still, this might finally get some conservatives who agree in principle with the need to find alternative sources of energy to get off their duffs and actually start getting involved

And it took a disaster that "Gaia worshippers" warned them repeatedly could happen before they took action...if they ever do.

[NeilUnreal]

Much of the pressure against drilling near shore comes not from environmentalists but from property owners - individual and commercial - who fear oil rigs nearby will hurt property values. Other pressure comes from tourism boards who fear nearby oil rigs will reduce tourism.

-Neil

[rogue06]

Much of the pressure against drilling near shore comes not from environmentalists but from property owners -- individual and commercial -- who fear oil rigs nearby will hurt property values.

-Neil
True enough. Florida doesn't want them visible from the shores primarily because of tourism. But the point I was trying to impress was that this situation is far more complex than the cut and dried presentation in the OP.

[NeilUnreal]

But the point I was trying to impress was that this situation is far more complex...

I agree. One of the problems with the popular environmental movement is that its media-driven nature sometimes keeps it from dealing rationally with the trade-offs necessary in living in the world. Serious and academic environmentalists recognize this problem and write and speak about it, but it doesn't make for good headlines.

-Neil

[spunktina]

Much of the pressure against drilling near shore comes not from environmentalists but from property owners - individual and commercial - who fear oil rigs nearby will hurt property values. Other pressure comes from tourism boards who fear nearby oil rigs will reduce tourism.

-Neil

Much more important and not mentioned is the effect on tourism from oil touching shore. That is not just an environmental concern but an economic one. Oil touching shore, as we can see, stops tourism altogether. BP specifically mentioned their great distance from shore as preventing the slick from hitting it not just to appease regulators, but to extinguish civic and environmental concern.

The galling part is that it really isn't such an ambigious issue. Drilling in water is bad and not worth the paltry reserves contained in the crust. Apply that money to science and R&D. At it's core, it is very simple, and we've been saying it loudly and long enough so that such a plan could be implemented and in full gear by now. Instead, conservitards like McCain and Palin buddied up with the oil companies who prefer short-term profit over long-term sustanaible innovation.

In a very real way, the oil companies are as impediments to real science as creationists. Both devalue human innovation. The oil companies do it because it threatens their huge short-term profits. The creationists do it by spreading the idea that science is governed by evil men who shred incriminating documents late at night.

[spunktina]

True enough. Florida doesn't want them visible from the shores primarily because of tourism. But the point I was trying to impress was that this situation is far more complex than the cut and dried presentation in the OP.

Nope. Florida's civic communities had concerns far beyond the sight of the rigs. The sight of the rigs was bad enough to warrant the drilling not take place at all. Why? Because the logistics of deep water drilling make safe extraction impossible. "Earth-worshipping" and "extremist" environmentalists were right long ago. More stringent legislation should have been passed to R&D an alternative fuel source. Non-visionaries like Bush and Cheney opted to stay the course burning the Carboniferous Age instead.

You can now see the desperation in the conservatives' eyes as they now look to environmentalists for answers. It's revolting but also funny.

It's complex, yes, just like protology issue is complex. Does that give creationists the license to behave the way they do? No. The complexity of this issue in no way excuses the petroleum industry's role in handicapping sustainable resource science, nor the politicians who accepted Big Oil's money for favors. There's evidence that's what happened with Obama. We definately know the Republicans are in bed with them. More like an orgy.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Thread moved to Political Science 301.