Environmentalist and Everyone Else Would This Compromise work for US Energy Independence???

Question

For those that believe in Global Warming and those that don’t, would you be open to a compromise something like this…

We open up Alaska and offshore areas for oil exploration in the US

We also allow the oil companies to begin full scale oil shale production

-The US contains 1-2 Trillion barrels of oil in this form

-800 billion barrels currently economically feasible due to new technology

-Majority of it is on Federal lands so the US would get royalties from oil shale (lots of extra money for the government to spend on programs such as alternatives, schools etc)

Allow more coal liquification, which is the process of turning coal into oil

-We have tons of coal and could easily use some of that to produce oil

In turn…

We invest more in alternatives such as Wind, Solar and other forms

We also invest heavily in carbon sequestering technology (Takes the CO2 in the air or whatever is filtered and pumps it deep into the ground for storage, basically putting the CO2 from oil and coal that was burned back where it came from to lower level)

-This would also be implemented in coal powered plants  clean coal

We would increase the amount of conservation land

Would increase the required MPG per vehicle in the US quicker than the current rate

-Would increase conservation

More environmental cleanup projects would be funded heavily to reverse the effects of already damaged areas.

Enacting all this at once would allow a quick drop in the price of gas/oil since even as the oil companies have said, the price of oil should be at about $60-70/barrel if not for speculators raising the price, so when more oil reserves are opened up it should drop at least somewhat on anticipation of greater future supply. That would lower the price of transportation fuel thus saving everyone money and keeping the costs of other goods such as food from continuing to rise… saving everyone money. In addition in 5-10 years the newly opened oil reserves will be up and operational and be providing the US with a much larger % of its own energy so it will have to rely on volatile places like the middle east much less. You figure we have spent $1.5 trillion on Iraq which is in part, how much you can argue some where else, but in part do to our need to protect the oil supply over there. Imagine if we can have enough of our own supply which we do to basically rely on ourselves and our neighbor Canada (our #1 supplier of oil). Forget goin to war over there and spend some of that money to make things better at home via education, alternative energy etc. You can do a lot by eliminating much of that cost of guarding the middle east oil.

So yes we would be doing some more environmental damage, but not a ton more plus we would be spending a bunch more to fix that and to repair the damage that has been done. We would also be bridging the gap from now to 15-20yrs from now when an alternative energy is ready to completely replace oil as our transportation energy source. We would have lower prices til then so would not be hurt in our wallets and overall I think it would be a solid compromise. What do you think?

Answer 1

excellent question, & well presented.

there are no technical barriers to prevent us from supplying ALLof our energy needs from within our own borders.

the only barriers have been political & economic.

as others have mentioned we can make oil from coal & we have been making high test aviation gasoline from natural gas for 70 years now.

we also have huge reserves of oil shale & heavy oil that has to be extracted with steam or solvent.

as long as oil was under $60 per barrel it was easier to buy it from other countrys than to make the large long term investments necessary to develop these more expensive resources.

oil is now above $130 per barrel. it is sure to continue rising & we can expect our supply to be interupted by some events in the next 10 to 20 years & more wars to be fought over it.

as our economy & way of life are now totaly dependent on oil, I believe the obstructionists that have been blocking the development of these un utilized resources(including nuclear power) for the past 30 years will be ignored & pushed aside because of necessity.

even so we are going to have some tough times ahead for the next 10 years or so untill we can start getting meaningful production from the new sources.

Answer 2

I have felt the same way for a long time.  A couple additions I would throw in:  All domestic energy, coal, oil, natural gas, should be retained for domestic use, in other words, not for export.  Nuclear energy needs to be part of the equation as well.  Our domestic sources right now, at current use levels will last us at an estimated 100 years. We need to be able to stretch this out to 200.  Also, a small tax needs to be implemented for infrastructure improvements.

Answer 3

Great Idea. If only our Congress could be as practical and not listen to all the special interests.

Answer 4

There is no need to compromise when the environmentalist are gaining more and more leverage everyday...hahahha

Answer 5

Anything we do to reduce the price of fuel will increase its usage, and will result in emission of GHG. That is so even if you use 'clean coal', gasified coal. We probably should retain elevated pricing even if we do any of the things you propose. That elevated pricing is needed to drive conversion to non-oil non-coal energy.

Now nuclear power does not to the same extent.

The current strategy has been to use those reserves you mention as a strategic reserve, to be used up after the USA has used up all the other oil, from all over the world. But there is another sticker shock... those reserves will demand higher prices too.. higher than we now pay.

Which is OK. Having a higher priced fuel is not a problem, unless someone is selling this plan on the basis of keeping down the cost of energy.

Spending trillions of meaningless dollars to get other people's oil away from them is one very good deal for us.

Environmentalists have almost hoped that oil supplies and coal might run out in time to prevent global warming catastrophe. So your solution is to make sure we can go on blasting CO2 into the atmosphere, at least into the great warming period and on into the next major ice age. So just as the next great ice age is upon us we finally exhaust our final reserves.

It may be better to leave those reserves as strategic reserves, get into a major nuclear build program.

Answer 6

That could work. One major promblem is tha oil shale requires as much as, if not more energy to harvest than it yeilds. Also, more oil reserves open will not lower fuel prices much, if at all. The oil companies have proven that they will find as many loopholes as possible to exploit the law of supply and demand to keep prices up, even if costs go down. Oil companies have also proven that if the law of supply and demand does not work in their favor, they sipmly disregard it and lie. But other than that, that plan sounds good enough to me.

Answer 7

no, i wouldn't.

for global warming, we just need to cut carbon burning.

if the price of oil declines, people will continue to use large cars, and burn more.

mind you, i don't like paying $4.50 for gas.

(yeah, that's what it is around here today.)

our conversion to alternative energy will be market driven.

when people can no longer afford their SUV, and get a Prius, companies will get the drift.

when carbon taxes are imposed, companies will get the drift.

mind you, I DON'T LIKE PAYING MORE FOR GAS.

PAYING HIGHER TAXES IS NOT MY FAVORITE PASTIME.

but, just because i don't like it, does not mean that it's not the right thing to do.

as i said, i don't like paying taxes.

but i also don't support our deficit, which is stealing from our children and grandchildren.

to my mind, that's a far worse crime than raising taxes.