What do you think of this report?

Question

Possibly the most oil friendly administration in the history of this nation has released a report that admits that the burning of fossil fuels has currently and directly caused the acceleration of global warming and that it is having negative effects now, with possible dire consequences right around the corner. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/05/0136.xml

My question is when will we see that more oil is not the answer?

What will it take for us to use this opportunity - the Global War on Terror, the cost of oil, our energy dependence on foreign oil, and the horrible environmental consequences - to find an alternate and clean energy source?

Answer 1

We don't need more oil, I agree.  There's no need to drill anymore--the oil companies' supply of oil already exceeds demand!  There's already too much of it!  Stealing the oil of other nations and finding and drilling for oil and then placing the oil in their strategic reserves--which are growing--only makes Big Oil wealthier at our expense.  Making us pay artificially high gas prices and for ethanol (which is driving food prices up and leading to deforestation) is not the answer.

“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.”

--Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden's findings:

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil...

“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention

warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.”

--Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995

Edit: Why do you have to be so rude?  I already mentioned what's probably really causing the warming and ice cap melting--you just want to suppress the truth.  You sound like a hateful radical fundamentalist!  And I think everyone else in America cares about price gouging and windfall profits.  They care about the environment and they care about people starving to death.  You don't!

Edit: How will taxing the people who have no control over what fuel sources we use going to help things?  Why do globalists always suggest punishing and taxing "the little people?"  If you were serious about making oil less competitive with greener alternatives, wouldn't you suggest taxing (if want to tax so much) the big oil companies instead?  I guess not, if you work for them. You're a phoney. : (

Answer 2

We still need oil to get over the bumps and learning curve of alternative energy.  Auto mechanics are seeing the results of the bad policy of using food as fuel.

Here is the article:

http://www.wesh.com/news/16200238/detail...

Answer 3

Until we find, produce, refine and market a new alternate source of energy oil is the only answer.  People are looking into it now, but it is still light years away because nobody has a clue about it.  Any meaningful alternative has to be plentiful and cheap to buy.  So far there is nothing.

Not many educated people are very concerned about the dire consequences right around the corner...that's just hype and lies and scare tactics put out by the crazy, moronic alarmists.

Answer 4

I would say this report belongs in the trash heap along with the IPCC's 4 reports. They are trying to say that a longer growing season will harm food growth? On what planet does this make sense? In a warmer world, there will be more precipitation on the whole as the air holds more water vapor. To say in some area which happenn to have a drought will have negative effects is a load of garbage. Droughts always harm crops. That's what a drought is. Notice it says "if precipitation decreases or becomes more variable." No kidding. If it rains less, crops will suffer. Now that takes some guts to say. Even though nothing suggests man made CO2 emmisions cause any of this.  This report then goes on to counter itself by telling us more areas have experienced more rain, but in those areas of drought, bad things are going to happen. As a matter of fact, I live in an area which experienced a drought last year, but now we are back to normal rain fall. Just as happens all over the world every year. There is no predicting these things, except to say it will happen again. as for weeds, ALL plants grow better in a higher CO2 atmosphere. Study after study shows this. Spray the weeds and enjoy nicer flowers. as for the trend in snowpack, they need to go back and reasses. I bet the snowpack is much increased, just like the arctic ice (which they seem to have forgotten). As for polar bears, how stupid are these people? Polar bears have lived through a much warmer climate than today. If what they say is true, then polar bears should have died off 50,000 years ago. The polar bear population is increasing and is at 5 times the level of the 70's (due to hunting). Seems they have increased in number from the 70's all through the global warming period of the 80 and 90's.

The bottom line is none of these insites matter one bit, unless they are saying they only occur if the warming is man made. Because that is then point, NO EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THE CURRENT WARMING IS MAN MADE.  So all of their learned observations do not mean ****!

I bet they will get a nice grant from this article though. I wonder how much was spent to offer up these casual observations that anyone with any common sense could have written. DROUGHTS HAPPEN AND PLANTS SUFFER WHEN IT HAPPENS. Seriously, I have to believe that the "scientist" who wrote this actually play scientist on a tv show, but are really just actors.

Answer 5

Pretty much in line with all the other publications from other scientific organizations.  I would be shocked if it said different.  I think every scientific organization in the world is convinced of the pending dangers.

What it takes is the majority voting to put people in office who will respond.  Hopefully, we will start to seriously respond after the November elections.

Answer 6

The implications of this report should prompt a country to do its best to cut down on consumption, extraction and importation of all fossil fuels.

Acknowledging that we are causing major problems but are unwilling to do anything to stop causing those problems would appear to be the criminal side of democracy.

Democracy becomes criminal when voters and consumers as one body refuse to do what they know they should, even must do.

Arguments about who gets rich can be resolved by taxing away the profits of those who own the product. That is, while it may require a price of $10 /gallon for gasoline to curb consumption, $8 of that $10 can be going to pay all the other taxes, and even paying down the national debt.

That might give us some incentives to get serious about getting off oil and coal.