?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

What Ever Happened to Conservation?

Did anyone else hear Dubya's comments today on his "new energy initiatives"?  Did anyone notice that he didn't say a single word -- not one! -- about conservation?  Does anyone else find this deeply disturbing?  We could drill every inch of land and coastline in the United States and it wouldn't change the fact that there is a finite amount of oil in this country, and most of it is gone.  It also wouldn't change the fact that even if we find new oil reserves tomorrow, we won't have them for ten years.  It also wouldn't change the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is killing our planet.  And it wouldn't change the fact that the big multinational oil companies will always -- ALWAYS -- find some way to make us pay through the nose for the oil and gas we use.  Oh, and by the way, we have plenty of reserves in accessible places right now.  The oil companies want access to the protected areas, so they're not drilling where they currently can.  That's right!  They're not drilling in some places they're currently allowed to drill, but they're demanding that we open up protected waters off the California and Florida shores and protected land in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.  Why?  Ask them.  Ask the oilman who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

On the other hand, energy conservation (more efficient cars, better insulation in houses and buildings, lowering your thermostat 2 degrees in the winter and raising it 2 degrees in the summer, energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, etc.) will make those reserves we have right now last longer.  Conservation will lessen our imports of foreign oil.  Conservation will save you money and it will decrease the damage we do to our environment.  But conservation will also lower the profits that those big oil companies rake in every year.  And, sadly, that's why you didn't hear our President utter the word "conservation" even once today.

Expect to see more about this in the BOW Award posting this weekend.  I think we already have a winner....

January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
davidbcoe
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:36 pm (UTC)
Every award until January? Hmmmm. I don't know. Not that he won't earn them, but I've got to keep myself amused, not to mention my readers.

Thanks for the commment, Tiffany.
gauroth
Jun. 19th, 2008 02:50 am (UTC)
WORD!

I have been cutting back on electricity use this last year (turning off lights when I leave a room; buying long-life lightbulbs; using my washing-machine at 30 degrees.) From what I have read, however, this probably isn't enough, even if every individual family in the world does the same. Alas, I suspect that nuclear power will become the replacement for oil, gas and coal.

My main worry about nuclear is that I don't trust any government, whether yours in the US or mine in the UK, to treat the waste materials properly. If we can persuade all nations to treat nuclear fuels responsibly, that might solve our energy problem. I observe that it's bitterly unfortunate that the ability to provide nuclear power for peaceful purposes also involves nuclear weapons. Talk about Pandora's Box!

I'm just old enough to remember when nuclear power, in the 50s, was spposed to be so cheap that it would be free. Nope, neither is true. It ain't cheap and it ain't free.

Yet, if the world isn't to return to tallow candles (and is there enough pig or beef fat to supply such candles?) what are we to do? My turning off lights or unplugging the pc every night will only postpone the inevitable. What can we do?
davidbcoe
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:40 pm (UTC)
Actually, I've read that the oil we can save with tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and other conservation steps would dwarf any oil that can be found by drilling. That said, you're right: to meet all our energy needs and save the planet, we need other sources. Environmentalists (myself included) are going to have to find a way to avoid our knee-jerk reactions to hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants, and instead try to be part of the search for solutions. Perhaps working with industry, tree-huggers like me can come up with a way to make these forms of energy work.
ogre_san
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:17 am (UTC)
The man's been clueless for the last 7.5 years. I don't expect him to start making sense now.
davidbcoe
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:42 pm (UTC)
Well, yeah. You've got that right. Although in this case I don't think it's a matter of him being clueless. His priorities are just totally screwed up.
jp_davis
Jun. 19th, 2008 10:19 am (UTC)
Con-serve? That's un-American! You must have meant con-sume! That's how we do it over here! Don't forget, everyone, market forces are the answer to every problem.
davidbcoe
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:43 pm (UTC)
Sad, but true. We could be leading the world in this. We could be the answer to saving the planet. And instead we're pushing the earth toward its destruction. Tragic.
kmarkhoover
Jun. 19th, 2008 02:49 pm (UTC)
Hell, even Richard Nixon believed in conservation. Nixon, that walking definition of paranoia. Nixon. Yeah, Nixon.

That says a lot as to how far off the reservation from their basic tenets the Repubs have strayed. T.R. Roosevelt would never be accepted in today's Repub Party. And Lincoln? Don't make me effing laugh. Lincoln would never even be a player in today's march toward GOPocalypse.

"Whaddya mean we gotta do somepin' for the slaves? Yah guddum libberul, wherez yur flag pin...?"
davidbcoe
Jun. 19th, 2008 03:44 pm (UTC)
You're right, Mark. When people like us start harkening back to the good old days of the Nixon Administration you know that something is seriously wrong with this country.
hedwig_snowy
Jun. 19th, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC)
Or, we could slightly raise fleet MPG averages. That would be a big boost. Saw on the news that for Nov - April Americans have driven 30 BILLION fewer miles than the same period the year before.

SUV sales are down, meaning less gas is being used there.

So why the increase? When Bush was inagurated, gasoline was $1.47 a gallon. Today's average is $4.073 for regular. Only a small part of that increase can be blamed on the fall of the US dollar.

Bush and McSame believe we need to ween ourselves off of our dependence on oil...by drilling more oil. That's how crackheads think not rational policy makers. If I can just get more crack, it will make me use less crack. As in the Guinness ads, "Brilliant!"

Most believe the culprit is the "Enron Loophole" passed with the help of Phil Gramm (McCain's economic advisor). It sure ain't supply/demand any more...

Here's a differing view...as long as supply=demand...internally supply is exceeding demand, but internationally demand is still growing. However, if the former chairman of the CFTC is correct, closing the Enron Loophole would almost overnight drop the cost of gasoline to US consumers 25%.

Sorry about all the links, but this is a failry important issue for the upcoming campaign. Now, I don't have time for this....I need to go see what everyone is saying about Michelle Obama's appearance yesterday on The View.... :)
davidbcoe
Jun. 20th, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the links and the comment. I'll be blogging about this at length tomorrow (Saturday) in the BOW Award post, and this will help. Thanks again.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Australia, Ghost Gum
davidbcoe
David B. Coe
Website

Latest Month

September 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner