Comments on: The Enemy to Off-Shore Drilling? http://donklephant.com/2009/05/05/the-enemy-to-off-shore-drilling/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:41:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: kranky kritter http://donklephant.com/2009/05/05/the-enemy-to-off-shore-drilling/comment-page-1/#comment-459570 kranky kritter Wed, 06 May 2009 14:41:54 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=14714#comment-459570 I support the middle ground on this too Alan. It's too bad when some folks on the right can't do any better than complain that a cartoon character is part of a conspiracy. It's indisputable that we are going to need change sooner or later, and no time like the present. Oil execs can do way better than suggesting that if we all just get out of the way, they'll gush oil for us. Now is a good time to put resources towards determining how far we can go with alternative approaches. I strongly agree with you that a centerpiece (only one of them, folks!!) must be the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are going to continue to be a big part of the picture for the foreseeable future. I am also 100% on board with trying to diminish their role for several obvious reasons I won't bother listing here. Any effort to diminish fossil fuel use really must speak to economics and international competition. And most important, and assessment of the virtues of any alternative energy source must <i>count everything</i>. None of the alternatives is anything like a panacea. It's going to be hard work, and we need to be open, honest, and upfront about all the costs benefits, limitations, and side affects of various approaches. In other words, decisions need to be based just as much (or even more!!) in numbers and science than ideology, especially dreamy idealism. I could never stomach "failure is not an option" when it was sported by pro-Iraq war conservatives, and I can't stomach it now by the dreamiest greens. Viability is not simply a function of what we wish we could have. It's a function of hard facts, data, work, the limitations that the real world places on us depending on what we have been able to figure out how to do so far, and our creative ability to overcome or work around those limitations. I support the middle ground on this too Alan. It’s too bad when some folks on the right can’t do any better than complain that a cartoon character is part of a conspiracy. It’s indisputable that we are going to need change sooner or later, and no time like the present. Oil execs can do way better than suggesting that if we all just get out of the way, they’ll gush oil for us.

Now is a good time to put resources towards determining how far we can go with alternative approaches. I strongly agree with you that a centerpiece (only one of them, folks!!) must be the acknowledgment that fossil fuels are going to continue to be a big part of the picture for the foreseeable future.

I am also 100% on board with trying to diminish their role for several obvious reasons I won’t bother listing here. Any effort to diminish fossil fuel use really must speak to economics and international competition. And most important, and assessment of the virtues of any alternative energy source must count everything. None of the alternatives is anything like a panacea. It’s going to be hard work, and we need to be open, honest, and upfront about all the costs benefits, limitations, and side affects of various approaches.

In other words, decisions need to be based just as much (or even more!!) in numbers and science than ideology, especially dreamy idealism. I could never stomach “failure is not an option” when it was sported by pro-Iraq war conservatives, and I can’t stomach it now by the dreamiest greens.

Viability is not simply a function of what we wish we could have. It’s a function of hard facts, data, work, the limitations that the real world places on us depending on what we have been able to figure out how to do so far, and our creative ability to overcome or work around those limitations.

]]> By: TerenceC http://donklephant.com/2009/05/05/the-enemy-to-off-shore-drilling/comment-page-1/#comment-459424 TerenceC Wed, 06 May 2009 08:09:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=14714#comment-459424 Great post Alan! I have never understood the O&NG interests point of view regarding our national energy policies (which don't really exist), nor have I really understood the policies of those allied against them. If you agree with the O&NG people then you're classed as a right wing nut case. Anyone who organizes against O&NG interests is classed as flaming liberal who undermines out national security. The reality is always somewhere in the middle of course. A national energy policy that creates an energy independent USA while allowing for the protection of the environment with the correct level of conservation is certainly a policy worth implementing. I have often wondered what the results would have been today if we had actually continued on the path President Carter set us on over 30 years ago? I can imagine that 30 years of conservation, government subsidized renewable programs, and increased funding for R&D at all levels would have given us a very different USA than the one we live in now. Great post Alan! I have never understood the O&NG interests point of view regarding our national energy policies (which don’t really exist), nor have I really understood the policies of those allied against them. If you agree with the O&NG people then you’re classed as a right wing nut case. Anyone who organizes against O&NG interests is classed as flaming liberal who undermines out national security.

The reality is always somewhere in the middle of course. A national energy policy that creates an energy independent USA while allowing for the protection of the environment with the correct level of conservation is certainly a policy worth implementing. I have often wondered what the results would have been today if we had actually continued on the path President Carter set us on over 30 years ago? I can imagine that 30 years of conservation, government subsidized renewable programs, and increased funding for R&D at all levels would have given us a very different USA than the one we live in now.

]]>