PDA

View Full Version : Blame the Greenstapo for the oil spill disaster



Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2010, 07:36 AM
Whose Blowout Is It, Anyway? (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2010/05/28/whose-blowout-is-it-anyway/)
By Charles Krauthammer (Archive) · Friday, May 28, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all. ...

antichrist
31-05-2010, 06:21 PM
Don't blame environmentalists, they, like me, want to close down the whole automobile industry. We should not be drilling any oil, it should be phrased out quick smart.
Just imagine the earth like a fishpond full of water, and millions of years of accumulated garbage (and fish poop) is on the bottom - then stir it up - that is an analogy of what the oil industry does by putting the burn oil and coal into our atmosphere. We are dying in poop that should never be in the atmosphere but well below the surface.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2010, 12:52 PM
Don't blame environmentalists, they, like me, want to close down the whole automobile industry. We should not be drilling any oil, it should be phrased out quick smart.
Just imagine the earth like a fishpond full of water, and millions of years of accumulated garbage (and fish poop) is on the bottom - then stir it up - that is an analogy of what the oil industry does by putting the burn oil and coal into our atmosphere. We are dying in poop that should never be in the atmosphere but well below the surface.
So tell the ambulance, fire brigade or police to walk to your rescue.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 01:04 PM
So tell the ambulance, fire brigade or police to walk to your rescue.

Of course appropriate transport will be available. I have lived in far out places where could not go to town for a few days due to flooding etc. Did not worry me. Everyone would be a lot more healthier because more use of pushbikes etc. and less car crashes. And if they stopped polluting themselves with grog and drugs etc there would be much less need for fire, ambos and cops.

If this world is supposedly God's creation how can you tolerate how they completely poison his great work?

TheJoker
01-06-2010, 01:50 PM
Jono do you think this blame shifting is warranted? Given a simple analogy, you've got a spare car space but won't lend it to me, so I park in the middle of the road blocking traffic. Is it your fault that I am blocking traffic because you wouldn't let me park in your free space?

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2010, 02:35 PM
Jono do you think this blame shifting is warranted? Given a simple analogy, you've got a spare car space but won't lend it to me, so I park in the middle of the road blocking traffic. Is it your fault that I am blocking traffic because you wouldn't let me park in your free space?
Of course it's warranted. The moronic environazis have managed to ban drilling in remote wildernesses where a spill will do little damage. We need oil. Thus we are forced to drill deep in the ocean, where any accident is far more damaging.
The analogy is spurious. One is a case of private ownership of something (carpark) and a deliberate action to cause harm; the other is a bunch of self-righteous treehuggers coercively forbidding the Alaskans to allow oil drilling in a small fraction of their remote wilderness, forcing the oil companies to seek oil in more hazardous places.

arosar
01-06-2010, 02:41 PM
Of course it's warranted. The moronic environazis have managed to ban drilling in remote wildernesses where a spill will do little damage. We need oil. Thus we are forced to drill deep in the ocean, where any accident is far more damaging.

Jono, mate, you're an absolute bloody genius. That's all I can say. Makes perfect sense that.

AR

TheJoker
01-06-2010, 02:51 PM
Thus we are forced to drill deep in the ocean.

Nobody is forcing anybody. BP chose to drill there.



One is a case of private ownership of something (carpark).

Public or prvate owernship makes no difference in both cases the owner of the resources is refusing a third party access. The third party then chose to pursue another course of action, inherently more risky.


deliberate action to cause harm;

Parking in the middle of the road is not a deliberate action to cause harm, double parking is very common and rarely results in harm but it does have risks attached

Some try to people claim they were "forced" to double park, the reality just like BP they chose to undertake an action with certain risks attached.


forcing the oil companies to seek oil in more hazardous places.

Again falsly implying use of force when there is none. It was BP's choice to invest in that drilling operation. They did so not because they were forced, but because they were seeking profits.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 02:52 PM
Of course it's warranted. The moronic environazis have managed to ban drilling in remote wildernesses where a spill will do little damage. We need oil. Thus we are forced to drill deep in the ocean, where any accident is far more damaging.
The analogy is spurious. One is a case of private ownership of something (carpark) and a deliberate action to cause harm; the other is a bunch of self-righteous treehuggers coercively forbidding the Alaskans to allow oil drilling in a small fraction of their remote wilderness, forcing the oil companies to seek oil in more hazardous places.

Jono, man has lived about 2,000,000 years (believe it or not) on this planet without oil for automobiles but since finding that oil and coal etc we are completely and selfishly wrecking this planet. All because people are too lazy to get on their pushbikes etc. and proper planning where housing estates are situated etc.

You prove conclusively that there is no link between religiousosity and ethical living.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:54 AM
Nobody is forcing anybody. BP chose to drill there.
Or else go out of business.


Public or prvate owernship makes no difference in both cases the owner of the resources is refusing a third party access. The third party then chose to pursue another course of action, inherently more risky.
No, busybodies refused to allow Alaska to give some drilling rights in a small section of their bleak wilderness where no humans lived. NB, most Alaskans supported drilling there; Congresspeople including McLame, living thousands of miles away, refused to allow it.


Again falsly implying use of force when there is none. It was BP's choice to invest in that drilling operation. They did so not because they were forced, but because they were seeking profits.
Profits are not a dirty word, except to leftards. And they were forced to go there, because they were forbidden by force to drill in safer areas.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 10:22 AM
Or else go out of business..

BP aren't exactly about to go out of business they generate plenty of profit from their less risky operations, that as stupid an argument as I've seen anywhere.


No, busybodies refused to allow Alaska to give some drilling rights in a small section of their bleak wilderness where no humans lived. NB, most Alaskans supported drilling there; Congresspeople including McLame, living thousands of miles away, refused to allow it.

Unless, those same Alaskans don't want to be apart of the United States anymore, and want to stop receiving the benefits of being part of USA, then they can't complain about the USA as a whole making decision, about Alaska. You can't have it both ways, either you are sovereign or not. Again the argument is totally flawed. Alaskans choose to be governed as part of the USA. Still no force.



Profits are not a dirty word, except to leftards. And they were forced to go there, because they were forbidden by force to drill in safer areas.

No one said profits are a dirty word you idiot. They were not forced to do anything, they did it to earn profits which is a perfectly valid reason, but they need to be held responsible for the adverse consequences of their decision.

Desmond
02-06-2010, 11:13 AM
that as stupid an argument as I've seen anywhere.Oooh I dunno about that, do you read the science/religion threads? A few doozies in there.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:35 PM
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all. ...
Guys, you seem to miss the key part of it.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Guys, you seem to miss the key part of it.

I am saying they are not to blame at all.

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 12:41 PM
Seems to me that this is a long bow to draw. Assuming drilling were done in Alaska first and then the oil there was exhausted, I have no reason to think that BP would not next start deep drilling in the ocean.

As for assigning blame, it seems reasonably well documented now that BP have an absolutely appalling safety record with their US-based facilities, so if I'm looking for a scapegoat, "they's it!".

Comparing the completely stupid over-reaction to the grounding of that Chinese freighter on the Barrier Reef with the US oil spill situation is interesting. Makes one wonder what would happen if there ever were a genuine eco disaster in Australia.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:49 PM
I am saying they are not to blame at all.
Many ecological problems are actually caused by green movements.
For example, reliance on coal fired power station is caused by green campaign against nuclear stations (despite later to be much more environmentally friendly).
Nuclear station emit slightly less CO2.:hmm:

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 01:26 PM
Many ecological problems are actually caused by green movements.

We are talking about the current oil spill.

antichrist
02-06-2010, 06:36 PM
Many ecological problems are actually caused by green movements.
For example, reliance on coal fired power station is caused by green campaign against nuclear stations (despite later to be much more environmentally friendly).
Nuclear station emit slightly less CO2.:hmm:
\
But Igor, don't you think it is slightly unethical to create nuclear waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. A time period for which no civilisation has existed, what a legacy to give our children. All because we are too lazy to change our style of living and transport and profiteering.

Our grannies did not leave us such a legacy - what right do we have to pass on to future generations. Can't we think beyond our noses and selfishness.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2010, 01:22 AM
But Igor, don't you think it is slightly unethical to create nuclear waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.
Yet in the West, this waste has caused no problems. There are always trade-offs, and as IG says, coal mining is far more hazardous, as is oil drilling in deep water necessitated by Greenstapo zealots making the Alaskan wilderness off-limits.


A time period for which no civilisation has existed, what a legacy to give our children. All because we are too lazy to change our style of living and transport and profiteering.
Yet this has been a life-saver. Why do you think Haiti's earthquake took so many lives, while a slightly later earthquake in Chile, 100 times more powerful, took far fewer? It's because it takes wealth to strengthen buildings, and decent transport to evacuate people and get rescuers to the area. It takes a reliable energy source to refrigerate vaccines and food, run oxygen pumps and monitors.


Our grannies did not leave us such a legacy — what right do we have to pass on to future generations. Can't we think beyond our noses and selfishness.
Would you really want to go back to life as it was 100 years ago, with no antibiotics for example? Dr Thomas Sowell writes in The Real Public Service (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2010/06/01/the-real-public-service/):


Back at the beginning of the 20th century, only 15 percent of American families had a flush toilet. Not quite one-fourth had running water. Only three percent had electricity and one percent had central heating. Only one American family in a hundred owned an automobile.

By 1970, the vast majority of those American families who were living in poverty had flush toilets, running water and electricity. By the end of the twentieth century, more Americans were connected to the Internet than were connected to a water pipe or a sewage line at the beginning of the century.

More families have air-conditioning today than had electricity then. Today, more than half of all families with incomes below the official poverty line own a car or truck and have a microwave.

This didn't come about because of the politicians, bureaucrats, activists or others in “public service” that you are supposed to admire. No nation ever protested its way from poverty to prosperity or got there through rhetoric or bureaucracies.

It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader.

Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing "compassion" for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2010, 01:34 AM
Unless, those same Alaskans don't want to be apart of the United States anymore, and want to stop receiving the benefits of being part of USA, then they can't complain about the USA as a whole making decision, about Alaska. You can't have it both ways, either you are sovereign or not. Again the argument is totally flawed. Alaskans choose to be governed as part of the USA. Still no force.
Yes you can, since the US Constitution gives Congress specifically "enumerated powers" (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/12/the-enumerated-powers-of-states/). Things not listed within these were specifically given to the States and the People. But Congress has long trampled the Constitution, interpreting the "Commerce Clause" absurdly broadly.


No one said profits are a dirty word you idiot.
You're an unthinking leftard who's never seen a government regulation he didn't like, and loves the idea of wealth redistribution with no thoughts about how it is created in the first place.


They were not forced to do anything, they did it to earn profits which is a perfectly valid reason, but they need to be held responsible for the adverse consequences of their decision.
The Greenstapo need to bear a large share of the blame for making far safer drilling places off-limits.

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Yes you can, since the US Constitution gives Congress specifically "enumerated powers" (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/12/the-enumerated-powers-of-states/). Things not listed within these were specifically given to the States and the People. But Congress has long trampled the Constitution, interpreting the "Commerce Clause" absurdly broadly..

More spurious argument, if Alaska isn't happy with the federation then they should seek secession.



You're an unthinking leftard who's never seen a government regulation he didn't like, and loves the idea of wealth redistribution with no thoughts about how it is created in the first place.

If that's what you think then you are even more stupid than I thought. You might do some study in the area of business I think you'll find you haven't the slightest idea about business, nor about how national competitive advantage is created.

Your comment is akin to me criticising your knowledge of chemistry.


The Greenstapo need to bear a large share of the blame for making far safer drilling places off-limits.

I think they do take credit for making sure certain places are off-limits, I've got no problem with them taking credit for creating the public awareness that ended in these places being of limits. They do not need to take any blame for business ventures commisioned by BP, nor BP's shocking safety record.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
But Igor, don't you think it is slightly unethical to create nuclear waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.

Jono
Yet in the West, this waste has caused no problems. There are always trade-offs, and as IG says, coal mining is far more hazardous, as is oil drilling in deep water necessitated by Greenstapo zealots making the Alaskan wilderness off-limits.


AC
what do you mean no problems, there have been enormous spills in America. Just the mining is causing all sorts of problems in Austalia, the whole Great Artesian Basin will be polluted. Already the Aborginals are complaining about how it is wrecking their country.

Environmentalists don't ask for a trade off against coal. We don't want any long term polluntant, and with solar and other alternatives we can weened off the nasty polluters. Eventually we will have to anyway due to them being only finite resources - why not when the population getting the profit and benefit out of the pollution also have to pay the price.
___________________________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
A time period for which no civilisation has existed, what a legacy to give our children. All because we are too lazy to change our style of living and transport and profiteering.

JOno
Yet this has been a life-saver. Why do you think Haiti's earthquake took so many lives, while a slightly later earthquake in Chile, 100 times more powerful, took far fewer? It's because it takes wealth to strengthen buildings, and decent transport to evacuate people and get rescuers to the area. It takes a reliable energy source to refrigerate vaccines and food, run oxygen pumps and monitors.

AC
Any type of energy could alleviate the circumstances that you imagine. Also other considerations are the type of appropriate buildings for earth quake zones. And it is also due to overpopulation that people have to live so intensively in earth quake zones. Environmentalists don't want overpopulation either as I have pointed out earlier.

Do you think that man could defeat God's challenges via earthquakes etc?
God want man humbled before all His might - otherwise how He get man to worship him?
---------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Our grannies did not leave us such a legacy — what right do we have to pass on to future generations. Can't we think beyond our noses and selfishness.

Jono
Would you really want to go back to life as it was 100 years ago, with no antibiotics for example? Dr Thomas Sowell writes in The Real Public Service:

AC
Converting to a less polluting society does not necessarily mean turning one's back on medical research. I don't see the connection at all.

As I have told you I dont read other peoples views that you quote on here - use your own arguments or opt out. It is disrespectful.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 06:02 PM
We are talking about the current oil spill.
No, we are talking about green movement not being subject to scrutinity and being generally detrimental not only for the economy, but for environment as well.
If you read the article carefully, you'd see that it does not seek to exonerate BP or any other party involved.

TheJoker
03-06-2010, 06:25 PM
No, we are talking about green movement not being subject to scrutinity and being generally detrimental not only for the economy, but for environment as well.
If you read the article carefully, you'd see that it does not seek to exonerate BP or any other party involved.

No we are talking about whether environmentalists are to blame for the current oil spill. You are talking about other more broad issues, mainly to shift focus from the fact that you can't argue the case in hand.

I know it didn't seek to exonerate BP, it tried to suggest though that BP is not fully responsible for its own actions which is a load of crap. There is no way in hell anybody but BP are responsible for this mess. If you don't lend me your car and I steal a car as a result is it partially your fault? Ithink not. Same goes for a compnay that is blocked by environmentalists from drilling for oil in a certain area. The environmentalist aren't to blame for BP's susquent choice to undertake risky drilling in deep water, that was BP's choice and they are responsible for it.

But hey I know I am talking banging my head against a brick wall with you and Jono. You've both got your political blinkers on.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 08:24 PM
I know it didn't seek to exonerate BP, it tried to suggest though that BP is not fully responsible for its own actions which is a load of crap. There is no way in hell anybody but BP are responsible for this mess. If you don't lend me your car and I steal a car as a result is it partially your fault? Ithink not. Same goes for a compnay that is blocked by environmentalists from drilling for oil in a certain area. The environmentalist aren't to blame for BP's susquent choice to undertake risky drilling in deep water, that was BP's choice and they are responsible for it.
That view is excusable, but very narrow. Legal responsibility lies with BP, but any analysis aimed to prevent (or reduce possibility of) such event in the future should take much broader view. That view should takes the role of environmentalist groups into account, which, of course, requires taking political blinkers off:doh:

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 11:10 AM
That view is excusable, but very narrow. Legal responsibility lies with BP, but any analysis aimed to prevent (or reduce possibility of) such event in the future should take much broader view. That view should takes the role of environmentalist groups into account, which, of course, requires taking political blinkers off:doh:

Goal post shifting, here we are talking about aportioning blame for the current disaster. You are now talking about developing plans for future drilling operations, of course given the benefit of hindsight one might say it would have been better to drill eslewhere, however you forget that prior to the project being granted approval BP was promising that the chance of environmental disaster like we are currently facing was extermely remote and that event they were fully equipped to deal with it. I still can't see how you can suggest that evironmentalists take some of the blame for the current disaster, perhaps you have a different perception of what blame means, for me it includes the responsibility for having done something wrong. Since I don't believe the environmentalists did anything wrong they cannot be to blame.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Goal post shifting, here we are talking about aportioning blame for the current disaster. You are now talking about developing plans for future drilling operations, of course given the benefit of hindsight one might say it would have been better to drill eslewhere, however you forget that prior to the project being granted approval BP was promising that the chance of environmental disaster like we are currently facing was extermely remote and that event they were fully equipped to deal with it. I still can't see how you can suggest that evironmentalists take some of the blame for the current disaster, perhaps you have a different perception of what blame means, for me it includes the responsibility for having done something wrong. Since I don't believe the environmentalists did anything wrong they cannot be to blame.
You don't believe environmentalists were wrong by opposing drilling elsewhere? Or you don't believe environmentalists were opposing drilling elsewhere?

antichrist
04-06-2010, 02:49 PM
You don't believe environmentalists were wrong by opposing drilling elsewhere? Or you don't believe environmentalists were opposing drilling elsewhere?

Environmentalists with good reason oppose drilling everywhere, because strictly speaking it is criminal to pollute the atmosphere to such a great extent when it is strictly unnecessary. There are credible alternatives.

Doesn't it say in Revelations somewhere (11:18) that those who destroy the Earth will also be destroyeth

Desmond
04-06-2010, 03:26 PM
Environmentalists with good reason oppose drilling everywhere, because strictly speaking it is criminal to pollute the atmosphere to such a great extent when it is strictly unnecessary. There are credible alternatives.

Doesn't it say in Revelations somewhere (11:18) that those who destroy the Earth will also be destroyeth
I blame god for putting the oil in the wrong spot in the first place.

TheJoker
04-06-2010, 04:26 PM
You don't believe environmentalists were wrong by opposing drilling elsewhere? Or you don't believe environmentalists were opposing drilling elsewhere?

I don't believe they where wrong to oppose drilling in particular areas.

antichrist
04-06-2010, 06:58 PM
I don't believe they where wrong to oppose drilling in particular areas.

In 1968 I protested against it being drilled for in the Great Barrier Reef. That campaign was spearheaded by Judith Wright - and Joh Bjelke was the protagionist - that uneducated bum.

pax
11-06-2010, 02:29 PM
For example, reliance on coal fired power station is caused by green campaign against nuclear stations (despite later to be much more environmentally friendly).
Nuclear station emit slightly less CO2.:hmm:

A completely specious argument, since coal is orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, and therefore in a world unconstrained by environmental considerations, nuclear power has no (economic) place.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-06-2010, 10:13 AM
A completely specious argument, since coal is orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear, and therefore in a world unconstrained by environmental considerations, nuclear power has no (economic) place.
Are you say greens didn't campaign against nuclear power?

TheJoker
15-06-2010, 10:29 AM
Are you say greens didn't campaign against nuclear power?

I think what Pax is trying to say is the reason we don't have many nuclear power stations has far less to do with environmentalists and far more to do with the economic reality that coal is cheaper.

If you personally want more nuclear power for "green", then you'll need to support some sort of emissions tax.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 06:37 AM
John Stossel wrote about the expenses of nuclear power (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2010/03/31/what-we-know-that-isnt-so/). He says that the 12-century technologies of wind and water power make even less sense. Anything that does make sense doesn't need government subsidies.

PS: I should have put this thread in Politics.