The town meeting regarding the Calypso LNG Gas Port.

[ONESPEED]

Fossil fuels are costing us our young people, and I for one am sick of setting back and watching politicians think of new ways to sell the public the “Fossil Fuel Package” How gullible the American people have become. You guys are perfect examples.
When your son or daughter sits in Iraq or Afghanistan to defend our fossil fuels, they I will listen to this hog wash you spout out but not until then.

So that's what our soldiers are doing over there, defending fossil fuels? Thank you for clarifying this for us. Have you ever considered becoming a CNN analyst because you REALLY have your finger on the pulse of world events.

 

[thebes11]

Fossil fuels are costing us our young people, and I for one am sick of setting back and watching politicians think of new ways to sell the public the “Fossil Fuel Package” How gullible the American people have become. You guys are perfect examples.
When your son or daughter sits in Iraq or Afghanistan to defend our fossil fuels, they I will listen to this hog wash you spout out but not until then.

Perhaps some facts are in order. We are not in Afgahnistan for oil. We are there because of the Taliban's support of Al Qaeda. You can almost make a case for being in Iraq for oil, but if you check the facts, it would be more effective for us to invade Canada or Mexico, since those two countries account for over 32% of our crude oil imports and Iraq is a whopping 7.5%. And given the fact that less than 60% of our oil is imported, Iraq's oil import to the us drops to 4.5% of our total supply. Hardly worth the billions it's costing to be over there. But hey, don't let me confuse you with the facts, just let the news media spoon feed you propaganda.

Top 15 Exporters of Oil to the U.S.


So who is really the gullible ones, those that do research and draw their own conclusions, or those that react strictly from emotion.

 

[covediver]

Meetings are for show, petitions don't stop anything, if people are serious about stopping this, they will have to have a better lobbyist and more money to pass around the state capitol than the energy folks.

Or, if people are serious about stopping this, they could really stop using less energy whether for home cooling in the summer, petrochemical industry (lots of products that make life easier and depends on natural gas). or other industrial development. Conservation is an option, it is a lot more than a personal virtue. And while the effciency of our appliances increases, so do the number of devices we own that need power (computers, pdas, cel phones) etc. If there is not a demand for the natural gas, there is no need for expensive lng plants. Or, it could be produced locally, as it might have been offshore of Destin up on the Panhandle. As it is, Florida is already importing a lot of natural gas via piplelines. Having it produced somewhere else and shipped in does externalize (make someone else suffer) the environmental impacts that it sounds like a lot of folks at the meeting wished to avoid.

I guess there are no really easy solutions just a lot of alternatives in which some people will be indulged and others will be put upon. Can we at least agree that the population that benefits the most should be required to carry most of the costs whether environmental, aesthetic, or other? Trouble is the assignment and valuation of such costs and benefits are sometimes difficult, what a friend of mine called "an exercise in infinite regression".

I recall that at the Coastal Zone 89 or 91 meeting, an official with the California Coastal Commission asserted that because of the state's stringent appliance energy efficiency standards, they had earned the right not to have offshore oil development off the state's coast, having effectively more than offset the energy equivalent gained from offshore development. An interesting arguement, except that at the time California was importing huge amounts of crude oil from the Alaska North Slope, and Prince William Sound is still showing the effects from the accident that resulted from that development, an unfortunate casualty of modernity (not that I am in any hurry to return to the thrilling days of yesteryear.)

 

[Charlie99]

If people are really serious about reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels, then they will support taxing them out of existence.

For example, placing an import tax and excise tax on oil equivalent to $2 or $3 per gallon of gasoline will reduce our usage of gasoline as well as all other oil based products. Think about the long term affects on oil consumption if we were to impose a $100/barrel or even $200/barrel tax on oil. The increased cost of gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, and jet fuel will decrease our consumption. This will also make alternative energy solutions more attractive economically.

This doesn't require the goverment to be smart enough to pick out ahead of time which energy solutions are the right ones. This lets the marketplace and free enterprise figure it out, once we have rigged the game a bit by imposing hefty import and excise taxes to make oil less attractive. We should also of course apply somewhat equivalent taxes on LNG and coal.


That this would result in large economic impact is clear and obvious, but that is what we need to do to really and truly reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels.

The life cycle of industrial equipment is a few decades. The life cycle of consumer items like appliances and cars is a decade or so. It might make sense to gradually increase the oil tax over a decade or so to minimize impacts, in recognition that much of our energy consumption is dictated by long term choices such as the location of our jobs and house, what type of car we drive, and what size of house we have.

So far, I haven't heard any politician seriously propose something like this, although it would indeed have the desired results.

Charlie Allen

Note: even if we were to adopt this somewhat severe and radical approach tomorrow, I still support additional LNG terminal since our movement away from fossil fuels will not happen instantly.

 

[mlynch21]

So far, I haven't heard any politician seriously propose something like this, although it would indeed have the desired results.

That is not suprising. It would be politcal suicide if a lone polititian supported something like that. I am not so sure it would be a smart move with the weak economy either. It would need to be gradually impossed after the economy gets back on its feet several years down the road.

 

[Divergirl4U]

Although it would work Charlie, it just does not seem to be the way to go. Do you have any other suggestions

 

[letterboy]

So that's what our soldiers are doing over there, defending fossil fuels? Thank you for clarifying this for us.

And I thought I was there to help rebuild a country . . .

 

[dlndavid]

silly LB, blood for oil.

 

[letterboy]

better then for diamonds . . .

 

[letterboy]

SNIP~~Iraq or Afghanistan to defend our fossil fuels~~SNIP.

The Afghans sell us enough oil to fight for? I think we would be better off trying to get poppy seeds from them . . .