|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 28, 2010 6:54:02 GMT -5
As the oil well that was connected to the now sunk rig continues to pump 42,000 gallons into the Gulf of Mexico each day I have to ask, why a are we thinking about more drilling? The oil slick on the surface of the gulf is now approximately 80 miles wide. The Coast Guard plans to start burning off some of the oil on the surface in hopes of keeping it from making land fall. It will most likely take weeks to shut the well down unless the valve on the sea floor can be activated. So with all of this how many people think it is a good idea to open more areas for drilling instead of investing in cleaner energies? www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/28/louisiana.oil.rig.fire/index.html?hpt=T2 |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 28, 2010 6:59:30 GMT -5
I can understand these people. The change from oil is going to be a bitch. But it's going to happen sometime in the next quarter of a century, and it may as well happen gradually, in a planned way, rather than chaotically in a shock.
|
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Apr 28, 2010 6:59:44 GMT -5
Fuck drilling. Fuck greedy oil companies. Fuck non-sustainable energy.
Where are the windmills? Where are the solar panels? Where is the water power?
|
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Apr 28, 2010 9:09:03 GMT -5
Still doesn't solve the problem that nearly everything we use requires petroleum in some way, shape or form, from our plastics to our fertilizers. Even producing windmills and solar panels requires oil. We may be able to develop sustainable energy sources, but that's only one of the problems we're faced with by this dwindling oil supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by katz on Apr 28, 2010 9:43:25 GMT -5
Moar nuclear power.
Windmills and solar panels can't sustain current energy use at their current efficiency. Nuclear is the best option until they can. We're always going to need petroleum for plastic products, but that's why there needs to be a focus on recycling it specifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 28, 2010 10:07:25 GMT -5
Still doesn't solve the problem that nearly everything we use requires petroleum in some way, shape or form, from our plastics to our fertilizers. Even producing windmills and solar panels requires oil. We may be able to develop sustainable energy sources, but that's only one of the problems we're faced with by this dwindling oil supply. That is correct, but if less oil was going to energy use we would have more for other products. |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Apr 28, 2010 11:12:05 GMT -5
That is correct, but if less oil was going to energy use we would have more for other products. Not to mention recycling could reduce the need for raw materials. |
|
dew927
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by dew927 on Apr 28, 2010 11:57:47 GMT -5
Moar nuclear power. Windmills and solar panels can't sustain current energy use at their current efficiency. Nuclear is the best option until they can. We're always going to need petroleum for plastic products, but that's why there needs to be a focus on recycling it specifically. But them tree-huggers hate Nuclear enegy too. They don't like these radioactive cement blocks that's being dumped into Nevada. They're still gonna dress up as dolphins and blame Obama for ruining the planet. Well, but who cares about them? |
|
dew927
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by dew927 on Apr 28, 2010 12:30:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Apr 28, 2010 12:33:40 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
|
Post by katz on Apr 28, 2010 14:52:24 GMT -5
Moar nuclear power. Windmills and solar panels can't sustain current energy use at their current efficiency. Nuclear is the best option until they can. We're always going to need petroleum for plastic products, but that's why there needs to be a focus on recycling it specifically. But them tree-huggers hate Nuclear enegy too. They don't like these radioactive cement blocks that's being dumped into Nevada. They're still gonna dress up as dolphins and blame Obama for ruining the planet. Well, but who cares about them? Tree huggers also thing that GE foods are going to turn their children into tentacle monsters, when in reality they need less chemicals, less space, and less water to grow bigger, better food. Good for the developed world, and fucking vital for the developing world. I'm thinking of doing my undergrad thesis on the backlash against the Green Revolution. I will call it "Why Hippies Hate Africans". |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 28, 2010 14:53:49 GMT -5
Moar nuclear power. Windmills and solar panels can't sustain current energy use at their current efficiency. Nuclear is the best option until they can. We're always going to need petroleum for plastic products, but that's why there needs to be a focus on recycling it specifically. But them tree-huggers hate Nuclear enegy too. They don't like these radioactive cement blocks that's being dumped into Nevada. They're still gonna dress up as dolphins and blame Obama for ruining the planet. Well, but who cares about them? Coal is our primary source of electricity, it's also more radioactive than nuclear waste. So, at the least, nuclear power does less harm. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on Apr 28, 2010 16:33:55 GMT -5
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Leading it? Seriously? Who died and made us king of renewable energy, and why the fuck shouldn't we be? |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Apr 28, 2010 17:09:42 GMT -5
The liberals are winning! Drill on top of the sunk rig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Apr 28, 2010 18:02:45 GMT -5
I guess that is "responsible oil exploration" for you. I wonder what Frank Luntz will come up with now?
|
|
