Senate votes to allow Alaska wildlife refuge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLCFreshies

How about this factoid. If the average fuel economy of all our cars increased by THREE miles per gallon, some have estimated that we could save as much oil as can be extracted from ANWR over 10 years.
:

---

Again, I'm not anti-Earth, and I'm interested in making the Earth a better, cleaner, place too. But the rhetoric tends to get a bit thick. I hear this statement about increasing automobile fuel efficiency a lot in regards to ANWR and I'm not sure I understand exactly what the point of it is. Is it really a solution to something, a suggestion for action, or is it just rhetoric?

There are more than 200 million automobiles in the United States today. Why is it that suddenly making all of these vehicles three MPG more efficient an answer to drilling for more oil? Are you aware of a plausible plan for how we are going to remove 200 million vehicles from the road, increase their efficiency, pay for it, and put them back on the road? How many decades will it take to pass legislation that will enforce fuel economy and subsequently increase the average fuel efficiency of US automobiles by 3 MPG?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

Are you aware of a plausible plan for how we are going to remove 200 million vehicles from the road, increase their efficiency, pay for it, and put them back on the road? How many decades will it take to pass legislation that will enforce fuel economy and subsequently increase the average fuel efficiency of US automobiles by 3 MPG?

---

YetiPlan= proper tire PSI + no A/C + low restriction muffler + K & N washable foam air filter

that'll get 3 mpg most of the time.

really a one-sided argument no this board. fuck bush and fuck the oil companies because they fucked alaska, blah blah blah.. i wonder if many of you, however, have really read both sides to the argument. additionally, i wonder if many of you have really considered what you're saying.

for example, lets take the argument that for all the effot, not enough oil is going to come out to justify the oil company's own expenses. does this argument honestly make sense to you, or is that just something you read out of someone's blog, or a statement made my an enviromental group? for all the money they spend paying off politicians (which is probably true), do you honestly think oil companies haven't considered this?

another example. it's going to take ten years to get oil out of this thing, and that's not going to solve our problems now. true, but remember what they want to do: reduce dependance on foreign oil. given current trends in oil prices and foreign policy, what will be the price of 87-octane ten years from now when that oil becomes available? (funny note - some of you who pointed this out had the balls to say that the plan is short sighted, for other reasons of course.)

meanwhile, not one comment has been made about all the efforts made by the oil companies to make this as minimum-impact as possible. i know some of you don't believe a word of it, but you gotta admit that when this is under way they're going to have to at least set this up such that those modifications are implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pube-in-my-taco

meanwhile, not one comment has been made about all the efforts made by the oil companies to make this as minimum-impact as possible.

---

http://www.gpdesenhos.com.br/imagens.../richtexan.jpg

"we made this as minimum-impact as possible? I'll be damned."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duker

The fact is we dont have a resonable alternative source to petroleum.

---

Have you ever thought about why this might be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duker

Therefore, We are going to use every last drop of oil on the earth anyway.

---

Not even close to a foregone conclusion--unless you are a die hard shrub-lover or an oil company exec. Moderate conservation steps would save more petro than drilling anwr would provide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duker

So perhaps Anwr was not a matter of if, but when?

---

Bullshit. It was a matter of if big oil and the repubs could dupe the american people into believe drilling in anwr is necessary and when enough americans voted in enough pro-drilling senators to allow drilling in a place protected for over 40 years. The decision to drill in areas where it makes no sense to drill doesn't have to be an inevitable thing that will happen no matter what. Why the fatalism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twoplanker

There are more than 200 million automobiles in the United States today. Why is it that suddenly making all of these vehicles three MPG more efficient an answer to drilling for more oil? Are you aware of a plausible plan for how we are going to remove 200 million vehicles from the road, increase their efficiency, pay for it, and put them back on the road? How many decades will it take to pass legislation that will enforce fuel economy and subsequently increase the average fuel efficiency of US automobiles by 3 MPG?

---

How long has it taken oil companies to (almost) start drilling in ANWR? Over TEN years. Remember, Clinton vetoed it in 1995. And can the oil companies start drilling in ANWR immediately? Of course not. It'll take at least half-a-decade to even extract oil from the area.

In those 10 years that have passed or in the 5 years to come, we could easily implement legislation that would mandate increasing the fuel economy of our vehicles. We don't even have to pass new legislation--the CAFE system is already set up. It's just that through a loophole that no one is willing to close, SUVs and trucks are exempt.

And as for the technologies to increase fuel economy. The technology underpinning today's SUVs and truck engines are, for the most part, are light years behind those used in our automobiles. Most are relatively unchanged from 1970s designs. Why? There has been no incentive for auto makers to make more efficient engines.

Do all SUVs have to be so heavy? Using lighter materials (even more aluminum) would also increase their fuel economy.

Advanced ignition systems could have our cars and trucks shut off when they have stopped for an extended period of time, and start up when you press the gas to go. This technology is already used in hybrids. Idling in traffic is inherently wasteful as you get, by definition, 0 mpg.

Of course, automakers will bitch and moan that these technologies will make vehicles prohibitively expensive. But car makers have said that about everything--seat belts, antilock brakes, air bags. Their knee-jerk protestations don't carry much weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pube-in-my-taco

meanwhile, not one comment has been made about all the efforts made by the oil companies to make this as minimum-impact as possible. i know some of you don't believe a word of it, but you gotta admit that when this is under way they're going to have to at least set this up such that those modifications are implemented.

---

Your damn right I don't believe a word of it. I work with companies on a daily basis that say they are going to do the work with as minimum-impact as possible. I have never seen a company take this to heart. They may play the good citizen for the first few months or make a few token gestures, but over the entire length of the project the companies care more about profit than anything else.

In my line of work I will sometimes set no work zones for various reasons (i.e. habitat, endangered resourses, springs) and they are always enchroached upon. So the idea that the US Govt. would set boundaries and the company will stick to them is too hard to believe. I am sure the company will claim that they can't do their job properly unless they are allowed a "little extra room". Then they will start to push the limits of their permit. If caught they will plead ingnorance or that they misunderstood their project manager. And what will happen to them when they are caught? Nothing more than a small fine that probably won't even show up in their bottom line calculations.

Also these boundaries that would be set up, will they account for impacts other than the footprint such as noise or height. What about the pipline needed to bring the oil the the lower 48?

The reason we were given for drilling was to lessen our impacts on foreign oil. To me this implies all the oil will be earmarked for US consumption. I doubt the oil companies are going to limit themselves to one consumer. Also what happens when the oil is gone, which according to some sources could be as little as 6 months, are we going to go back to foreign oil? I would rather see the money be spent on research and development of alternative energy sources.

We should have a huge music festival and organize against the corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 72Twenty

We should have a huge music festival and organize against the corporations.

---

I hope this was a reference to this week's South Park

Oh it was...and oh that South Park was excellent.

no worse hippie than the know-it-all college kind.

First there's a couple of hippies, then there's a drum circle, and it gets bigger and bigger, and before you know it, you've got a full-on hippie music festival.

HTML Code:

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/goldberg200503180758.asp

---

Also, I wonder how many gallons per season of Jet A are used for backcountry helo trips?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

Also, I wonder how many gallons per season of Jet A are used for backcountry helo trips?

---

Or aircraft oil, to lubricate the engines...turbines (which power everything from airplanes to generators to helicopters to tanks to ships) don't have oil that you can "change out" like internal-combustion engines do, as the oil is burned off in the operation of the turbine, and at a far higher rate than any "oil-burner" gas or diesel engine.

Also, a great number of designs use Skydraul, which is a combination of oil and hydraulic fluid, and it's very nasty stuff.

Yay it's so nice that we think that we're going to make a change, by implementing the changes of europe in our automobiles, etc. But then it will just be white people who are efficient and environmentally friendly. I realize Africa isn't doing much damage of its own, but what about the middle east, or most specifically, Asia? The fact will remain that demand for oil is skyrocketing, while the supply hasn't been enlarged by new finds for some time, and will continue to do so as the economies of India and China expand (there is a middle class there now that wasn't there 15 years ago), and all the while they have very few environmental controls over their actions or industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumper Bones

Or aircraft oil, to lubricate the engines...turbines (which power everything from airplanes to generators to helicopters to tanks to ships) don't have oil that you can "change out" like internal-combustion engines do, as the oil is burned off in the operation of the turbine, and at a far higher rate than any "oil-burner" gas or diesel engine.

Also, a great number of designs use Skydraul, which is a combination of oil and hydraulic fluid, and it's very nasty stuff.

Yay it's so nice that we think that we're going to make a change, by implementing the changes of europe in our automobiles, etc. But then it will just be white people who are efficient and environmentally friendly. I realize Africa isn't doing much damage of its own, but what about the middle east, or most specifically, Asia? The fact will remain that demand for oil is skyrocketing, while the supply hasn't been enlarged by new finds for some time, and will continue to do so as the economies of India and China expand (there is a middle class there now that wasn't there 15 years ago), and all the while they have very few environmental controls over their actions or industries.

---

What does any of this have to do with drilling in ANWR?

Quote:

---

What does any of this have to do with drilling in ANWR?

---

One way or another, our form of recreation is very fuel intensive.

my point is that demand is high, higher than it ever has been, while supply is unchanged. That's why prices are soo fucking high. I'm sure there is a bit of blatant profiteering here and there, and the 'weak dollar' plays a part, but for the most part that's the market. It ain't any cheaper anywhere else, 'cept for maybe mexico.

if that is to change, something has to be done at some point to expand the demand to satiate the market. I'm not saying it's necessarily ANWR, but at some point a number of American viewpoints need to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CUBUCK

I hope this was a reference to this week's South Park

---

yes.... it was.

The supply of oil is already finite, and all the current research shows that we are either very close to, or already past, Hubbert's Peak. This is the date after which we have already extracted half of the oil available on Earth.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm

What this means: we *must* find alternatives to oil, because the amount of oil available will decrease, year after year. There is no decision to be made here, because we have no choice!

The only question is: do we do this now, preserving the few remaining places on the planet we haven't irretrievably spoiled, or do we do it later, after having destroyed everything in a futile effort to delay the inevitable?

The Bush choice is obvious: rape it. Pimp that bitch out, slap her, take her money, spend it on himself and his friends -- and fuck you, me, and everyone else who isn't a rich Texas oilman or defense contractor. You don't count.

Drilling in ANWR or Helo Drops?


Helo Drops every time. :D


Bell 206B Long Ranger III - Fuel Consumption: 43 gal/Hr
Bell 205A - Fuel Consumption: 96 gal/Hr.

I know that Jet Fuel is kerosene not gas. But in my imaginary world, my civic could travel from my house in Brooklyn to Seattle on the same amount of fuel I would use for a day of drops.

Or....

I drive 10,000mi a year, so 3 days of helo drops would equal the amount of fuel for a year of driving.

But you know what?

I could give a rat's ass about all of that.

I am a callous fuck. If some chicken-little, hippie motherfucker takes my one fucking day a year of pants pissing joy away from me, I swear I will set an oil rig up right in the middle of Central Park to get enough juice to fly that helo.



:FIREdevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

One way or another, our form of recreation is very fuel intensive.

---

Actually, only for those of us that are too lazy to earn our turns.

I assume the following:

Your skis are wood
Your boots are leather
Your jacket is wool
You ride a mule to the hill

You are right then, you do not use any petroleum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

One way or another, our form of recreation is very fuel intensive.

---

Even though this may be the case, it doesn't mean we have to drill in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR and recognition of our thirst for petro are 2 different issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

I assume the following:

Your skis are wood, Your boots are leather, Your jacket is wool, You ride a mule to the hill

You are right then, you do not use any petroleum.

---

Take that tired old horse out back and shoot it. I might as well say to you "Well, since you can never ski as well as Bode Miller or Jeremy Nobis, you shouldn't bother learning to ski better." We all instantly know that's incorrect, but a lot of people still believe and repeat what you said.

Do I use petroleum? Yes. Since I work from home and ride my bicycle on a lot of errands, I use a lot less than the average American. If everyone did the same, we wouldn't need ANWR, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

I assume the following:

Your skis are wood
Your boots are leather
Your jacket is wool
You ride a mule to the hill

You are right then, you do not use any petroleum.

---

Spats hit the nail on the head. Just because you are limited by the technology available does not mean you don't take steps in your daily life to improve things. I do several things to change public policy to encourage exploration of atlernate energy sources. I make conscious investment decisions and voting decisions. I'll ride in an A-star, but I will do my best to push national policy-makers to have those damn things running on vegetable oil someday. Until corporate greed and the top 1% are voted out of power, I work my ass off to ensure that we don't lose ground to their manipulation of our uneducated masses by making everything a "security" issue.

I'll also argue points with others without creating a bullshit alias to hide behind... unless of coure you've been hanging out in a skiing forum with nothing to add until a political debate about ANWR came up??? :fuckyou:

Quote:

---

I'll also argue points with others without creating a bullshit alias to hide behind... unless of coure you've been hanging out in a skiing forum with nothing to add until a political debate about ANWR came up???

---

First you want to make me use less fuel, then you want me to justify my posts on political topics. On top of that you insult me.

Go ahead insult me more. If fact go ahead am PM me and I will give you my telephone number so you can insult me in person. I'm a Republican who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, believe me I can take it.

Remember, hate is not a family value.

I look forward to your PM.

Scip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scipio_Africanus

I'm a Republican
Scip.

---

Couldn't have guessed that.