Wack-0 Enviromentalist? Curious is all.

justsayn · #1 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 05:31 AM

Hai Guize,

I keep running into this repeat of "environmentalist ruining the country" slogan over and over again. And I must admit, I really don't understand.

When I go back and look at historical facts and data, it's the (R)'s that protect ANWR and ban off shore drilling. Into the 90's it was the (D)'s that blocked certain legislation from going forward to drill in ANWR at least, but other factors like the reality of there being relatively little oil there, in US consumption terms made it just looked like a bunch of politicians playing idiots on both sides.

Can anyone here provide me with some clear cut examples of long hair hippy, nazi sympathizing, tree hugging, socialist, liberal-wacjobs have set any of America's energy policy?

justsayn · #2 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 05:53 AM

“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

“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

farmer_fred · #3 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 06:37 AM

It's just more fun to blame environmentalists for capitalist plans that fail.

Rebellion · #4 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 08:10 AM

Happy to help. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-d8ec3580dd20

In 2005 a bill was introduced to ease the permitting process for refineries. Dems voted it down in committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5254

* Oil Shale Exploration Republicans 90% supported--Democrats 86% opposed
* Coal to Liquid Republicans 97% supported--Democrats 78% opposed.
* Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration Republicans 81% support-Democrats 83% opposed
* ANWR Exploration - Republicans 91% support-Democrats 86% opposed

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ar-power_N.htm

Nuclear power where a host of environmentalists oppose it

Quote:

"We remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power," Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said.

Quote:

Greenpeace USA also says it finds nuclear power unacceptable.

Quote:

"I think there are a lot better carbon-free alternatives for producing electricity," says Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group.

And of course there are a host of others who opposed it, but might be changing their stance. And even more who still oppose it http://www.nirs.org/press/05-17-2001/1

Environmentalists oppose wind farms
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19782
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art..._big_obstacle/

Enviros oppose clean coal http://www.mlive.com/business/index....pose_more.html

Whackos oppose solar power
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/...616Busi001.asp

They oppose hydroelectric
http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/12/06/hydropow.php
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/714.html

And this is just on energy. Want to touch on some other issues?

Enviros cause death and misery in Africa thanks to their false opposition to DDT
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin...e=18&num=82711

Whackos claim Dow breast implants cause cancer. Results in multi-billion settlement. Scientists later debunk this theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Corning

Power lines cause cancer, another zapped theory. http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html

And this is just the "sane" ones. It doesn't include the crazies who go around bombing construction sites and lighting farms on fire.

Yep, other than the above Farmer is right on target!

I guess it's just easier to drink the kool aid than actually be informed.

Anikdote · #5 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:08 AM

Stop it with the fact Rebellion, they only cloud the emotional aspect of this discussion.

justsayn · #6 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 09:53 AM

That's awesome, you covered some bases. I'm gonna shift through it and see what I come up with. Thanks

katiegrrl0 · #7 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Happy to help. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-d8ec3580dd20

In 2005 a bill was introduced to ease the permitting process for refineries. Dems voted it down in committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5254

* Oil Shale Exploration Republicans 90% supported--Democrats 86% opposed
* Coal to Liquid Republicans 97% supported--Democrats 78% opposed.
* Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) exploration Republicans 81% support-Democrats 83% opposed
* ANWR Exploration - Republicans 91% support-Democrats 86% opposed

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ar-power_N.htm

Nuclear power where a host of environmentalists oppose it

And of course there are a host of others who opposed it, but might be changing their stance. And even more who still oppose it http://www.nirs.org/press/05-17-2001/1

Environmentalists oppose wind farms
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19782
http://www.boston.com/news/local/art..._big_obstacle/

Enviros oppose clean coal http://www.mlive.com/business/index....pose_more.html

Whackos oppose solar power
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/...616Busi001.asp

They oppose hydroelectric
http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/12/06/hydropow.php
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/714.html

And this is just on energy. Want to touch on some other issues?

Enviros cause death and misery in Africa thanks to their false opposition to DDT
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin...e=18&num=82711

Whackos claim Dow breast implants cause cancer. Results in multi-billion settlement. Scientists later debunk this theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Corning

Power lines cause cancer, another zapped theory. http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...opics/emf.html

And this is just the "sane" ones. It doesn't include the crazies who go around bombing construction sites and lighting farms on fire.

Yep, other than the above Farmer is right on target!

I guess it's just easier to drink the kool aid than actually be informed.

Tons of info some very good sites.

Doesn't it seem obvious that we do need to start taking the hard looks at the environment. We just can't let it go. Maybe its not something that has to be done instantly but over the next four years some strides need to be made.

Joe1991 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-17-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justsayn

“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

“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

Great stuff. I wish we could see the notes of Cheney's meetings with the oil bosses in 2001.

justsayn · #9 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 02:46 AM

So the Gore man is back in the news. This time he supposedly has a plan to halt pollution. Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7513002.stm

But, what strikes me as curious is that I can't find any actual information on what he plans to do other than tax on carbon footprints.

I see where he and a host of others on his websites claim over and over again how this technology exist to completely convert to renewable sources of energy, but absolutely no specifics are offered. It all sounds suspiciously like a big wink and a nod, just trust us.

The other half of his personal web site is pages of quotes on how good of a speech he gave yesterday by a bunch of college professors.

Where is substance of his message? If he has a plan to do what he claims in ten years, there must be mountains of information all ready to go and be implemented.

Anikdote · #10 (**permalink**) 07-18-2008, 08:25 AM

Step 1. Tax corporations
Step 2. ???
Step 3. No pollution

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Now I'm Curious...	HT!	Humor & Satire	15	04-30-2008 11:13 PM
Curious/Definitions	Hornet	Political Science	2	04-04-2008 11:11 PM
I've recently had a look at a curious document of the UN....	Bobby	Political Opinions & Beliefs	2	08-26-2005 07:13 AM
Curious about Edwards	Sleepy	Off-Topic Chat	6	09-27-2004 08:01 PM
Just curious	Demosthenes	Religion	26	08-21-2004 05:49 AM