Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Frank
Why is Cutting Back On Consumption necessarily "faster" or "more effective" than Increasing Production?

It is faster because we can make reductions in consumption more quickly than we can add new production. It is more effective because we can make a bigger difference with reduced consumption than with increased production. In addition, moving to more efficient vehicles will have a lasting effect.

Why must we "replace" the Persian Gulf oil? I'd settle for giving it some competition, lowering prices, reducing their ability to blackmail us, etc.

I was responding to a post that suggested reducing or eliminating our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, which most of us think is a good idea. It already has plenty of competition. If the prices were any lower domestic production would drop, because we have higher production costs (especially in Alaska). The Arabs will always be able to hold back oil, if they are willing to stop getting paid for it. They aren't in a position to lose the revenue.

We don't want to "spill" it.

No we don't. But it happens anyway. It is an inevitable part of drilling, pumping, and shipping oil.

Oil is important to sustain our lives and for our prosperity. It exists in underground deposits. Why not go get it? Because you have a quasi-religious attachment to land which is "pristine"? Silly, childish, dumb.

Of course we should get it. And we will. As I posted here, in time we will get all the oil that is humanly possible to extract. But how and when are matters for economic and government policy.

32 posted on 02/28/2002 12:58:22 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Looking for Diogenes
It is faster because we can make reductions in consumption more quickly than we can add new production.

For one thing, we can shut down our economy fairly quickly by destructive government policy, but it takes a few years to clear the hurdles (bureaucratic, personnel, production..) required to start drilling for oil. Ok, I think I get it. And the reason we should do this, when there is oil in the ground just waiting to be gotten, is....?

It is more effective because we can make a bigger difference with reduced consumption than with increased production.

Pretty vague statement. We can "make a bigger difference" reducing our consumption by .0000001% than if we increased our production 1000000%? I don't think so.

It really depends on the extent to which we do these things, now, doesn't it? Of course by being vague enough you can gloss over that fact.

In addition, moving to more efficient vehicles will have a lasting effect.

Can't argue with that. Feel free to buy yourself a more efficient vehicle. (What's that? You want to force me to as well?)

Feel free to invent a more efficient vehicle. (What's that? You don't know how?)

If the prices were any lower domestic production would drop, because we have higher production costs (especially in Alaska).

Why is that hmmm? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that some people have a quasi-religious attachment to "pristine" pieces of frozen tundra.

[spilling oil] But it happens anyway. It is an inevitable part of drilling, pumping, and shipping oil.

True. That's life. What are ya gonna do? Never drill for oil? I guess we also shouldn't grow wheat cuz the fields might burn....?

As I posted here, in time we will get all the oil that is humanly possible to extract. But how and when are matters for economic and government policy.

Economic policy, of course. Why government policy?

P.S. Still waiting for your definition of "pristine" and explanation why land must remain in this "pristine" state....

33 posted on 02/28/2002 1:11:37 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson