Are environmentalists willing to accept partial responsibility for high food and gas prices?

Question

The price of oil (and consequently refined gasoline) is set because of supply and demand.

The environmentalists have prevented us from:

-drilling for oil off our coasts, in Alaska, and various other locations within our boarders.

-Building new refineries.

-Standardizing the grade of gasoline used throughout the country

-Preventing coal-to-oil plants from being created

-Preventing Nuclear power plants from being built (that would make more coal available to be turned into fuel).

-Forcing ethanol on us which has caused high food prices because of the higher cost of corn (for feed, etc).

I realize that the worldwide consumption has increased (esp. Chinese), and that poor fiscal policies have created a falling dollar relative to commodities.

I'm not placing all the blame on the environmentalists, but I'd like to see them step up and claim some responsibility. Are any groups? Are any individuals?

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

"Environmentalists" must take responsibility for not making the rest of us undersand that fossil fuels are finite,

for not helping us understand that increasing demand would lead to increasing prices, so we could have reduced our consumption to sustainable levels;

they let us forget to factor in the decommisioning costs of nuclear reactors, (and not allowing for climate change will flood most of the existing coastal reactor sites or result in water shortages for the inland ones);

and they failed to stop big agro-business foisting govenment subsidised environmentally damaging ethanol; crops on us.

so yes all those doom sayers from the 70s limits to growth, deep ecologists pointing out we depend on a healthy eco-system and peak oil/transistion town movements, are all to blame for not being able to counteract the industrial growth consumer society

- the ancient greek epicurious was able to identify the problem and the solution, right at the beginning of "western" civilisation, but he was stomped on from a great hight too.

Surely we must all be enviromentalists since we all live in; are part of and depend on the environment - and yes all us humans, especially in the powerfull "western/industrial" societies must take responsibility for our actions, or lack of.

Answer 2

who the h**l are the environmentalists that tells America to use biofuels? they are insane. Biofuels is a bad alternative. it causes pollution like typical cars emit.

but i think they must not get responsibility from it. they are just trying to lessen gas emissions that harms the atmosphere. those things you said can cause too much pollution in the environment.

Answer 3

Most of your points are simply wrong, here is why:

--------------------------------------...

--> Oil markets are international. The ANWAR supply is not sufficient to really make an impact on the worldwide balance of demand and supply

--> Energy efficiency instead could cut by half using existing technologies the cost of miles driven (I drive a nice 55MPG tdi which cost 15,000 new).

--> Building new refineries: Oil companies themselves totally misc alculated oil prices and expect $30/barrel in 2005-2010. Therefore no heavy new investments have been made. It has also been argued that they might have desired the shortage to increase the profit margin.

--> I agree with the gasoline grade. In Europe, even my landmower would not run anymore on an octane of 83... In most countries, octane levels are at 100 or higher

--> Coal to oil: How do you do it with water shortages??? Hydrocarbons consist of carbon AND hydrogen molecula. See why China has scrapped its plan of coal to liquid.

--> Nuclear power plant: At their average life-time after commissionning in 2040 (if the permitting is started now), solar power will be cheaper due to the fast learning effect of solar PV and concentrated solar. I know that there is a regret in the US not to have made the same decisions as Japan and France in the 70's... but these were the 70's. New options are now possible and you shouldn't decide the future based on passed situation no longer valid.

--> Environmentalists have from the beginning warned against corn ethanol...   In Europe where environmentalists have a voice, the choice has been for raps-methyl esther instead (biodiesel) since corn ethanol is sub-optimal

--> 80% of the price increase at least is from the increased demand side in emerging economies

--> When food prices increase, it's the bioenergies' fault, when food prices decrease, it's nobody's fault....   (no comments)

If I tell you now which the right choices are, you won't listen and blame me for your own choices in 10 years.

Answer 4

Here's an interesting tidbit-

Compare the processing that is required to turn corn into bio-fuel vs the processing that is required to turn sugar cane into bio-fuel....

Corn requires a lot more processing (and energy), and produces less fuel than sugar cane does...

Why are we using corn instead of sugar cane?

Oh, and corn is a lot more valuable in the food market than sugar.

Answer 5

hey buddy..u r going quite wrong.....

don't blame the enviromentologist...

the global oil production is decreasin as the natural store hav quite finished up....and  also  heavy transportation fees..and low productivity is increasing the price...