Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
U.S. Senators Impressed With Alberta Oilsands Tour
EDMONTON - Two U.S. senators who toured the oilsands Friday say they were impressed by Alberta's success in balancing industry with environmental stewardship, but critics say the government tour is biased in favour of development.
"The oilsands don't have a public relations problem, they have an environmental problem," said Pembina Institute oilsands director Simon Dyer. (Photograph by: Chris Schwarz, Edmonton Journal) Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss said the tour, organized by government and industry officials, has persuaded them Alberta is taking a conscientious approach to oilsands development.
"The actual mining is a very small part of the landscape up here, so when you fly over you see a lot of nature and rivers and wilderness," Graham said during a tour of the Syncrude facility in Fort McMurray. "Once you get in the site, it's just massive . . . It's a kind of industrial ballet up here."
The two Republicans and Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat, also toured an area that has been reclaimed.
"From my point of view the environmental issues are being addressed in a responsible way," Graham said. "I am for full-speed-ahead in terms of using Canadian oilsands oil in America."
The tour did not include a visit to aboriginal communities downstream from the oilsands, whose residents believe their water, food and bodies are being poisoned by the operations. The senators did not meet with renowned biologist David Schindler or any other critics of development.
Senator Saxby Chambliss said he was particularly impressed with the technological advances and reclamation efforts.
"From an environmental standpoint it appears the government has got the right plan in place and has the right kind of mandates in place . . . to ensure the reclamation of the land takes place in the right way," Chambliss said.
He acknowledged the tour did not include a meeting with area residents or critics but said he discussed health and environmental issues with the tour operators.
"Obviously you have to be concerned about health issues as well as environmental issues, but it appears the government of Alberta, under Premier (Ed) Stelmach, is doing the right kind of testing both upstream and downstream to ensure the mining operations are not adding any health issues that are unfortunately occurring in the area."
Pembina Institute oilsands director Simon Dyer said the senators did not get a balanced picture of what's happening in Alberta's oilsands.
"Clearly the senators are only hearing one side of the story," he said. "I don't know how you could tour the oilsands in 2010 and not talk about elevated levels of heavy metals in the Athabasca River that have been definitively linked to oilsands development, or talk about the growing greenhouse footprint of the oilsands and the fact that Alberta doesn't have a plan to reduce emissions, or the fact that the federal government has no greenhouse gas regulations."
He said the government's public education campaign around the oilsands fails to give voice to the concerns of reasonable critics.
"In the long term, that's just going to hurt the credibility of oilsands development. The oilsands don't have a public relations problem, they have an environmental problem."
In a blog post Thursday night, Premier Ed Stelmach lauded the government's advocacy efforts.
"Over the last little while you may have noticed your government has been very active championing the oilsands," he wrote, listing half-a-dozen trips Alberta MLAs are making this month to educate industry and government leaders.
"Couple all of this with our Tell It Like It Is campaign . . . and you can see your government is running a co-ordinated advocacy campaign designed to get people the facts on oilsands development."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
68 Comments so far
Show All"Pembina Institute oilsands director Simon Dyer said the senators did not get a balanced picture of what's happening in Alberta's oilsands.
"Clearly the senators are only hearing one side of the story," he said. "I don't know how you could tour the oilsands in 2010 and not talk about..."
The Senate delegation consisted of two extreme-right-wing Republicans and a blue-dog Democrat, who heard precisely what they came to hear and are able to hear. If Mr Dyer had been given the opportunity to scream his message in their ears, they wouldn't have heard, and wouldn't have been able to hear...any more than could our blue-dog president.
Oilsands are good. After all, it has the word oil in there, doesn't it?
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss and Democratic Senator Kay Hagan.....Welcome to Canada Senators...I am sure you saw what you wanted to see....Heard what you wanted to hear, and concluded what you wanted to conclude...All is well in Alberta....So much so you were positively "impressed."
Did I say oil sands? When I was growing in Quebec they were called tar sands. Or... I might have translated the English term oil sands incorrectly into my native french tongue. ..But I am sure that even the English Canadians said tar and not oil....
I guess oil somehow sounds better than tar.. Perhaps we could call it...hmmmmm...forget it...
Excuse my sarcasm
Thomas Gilbert
They were always been called tar sands in the past, which is more accurate than oil.
they require much more processing (in other words, water) than oil shale, which is bad enough.
Sheepherder,
Disclosure is required here... I worked on several project development studies in the Fort McMurray area .... I guess you can say I have oil on my hands...Or tar...
Thomas Gilbert
Well said!
2009 documentary is Peter Mettler's PETROPOLIS: ALBERTA TAR SANDS. The title suggests the point of view of the doc. It is less than an hour.
Rather than a ground view (perhaps the "Potemkin Village" view your senators received) the film is an aerial view.
Whatever your point of view is on tar sands/oil sands, the film is worth looking at.
When I looked at it, i thought of some of the eco disasters the USSR visited on parts of Siberia, its forests and water ways.
As a Canadian watching Petropolis made me feel like I'm now living in a third world country. James Cameron is supposed to be out in the next week or so. I have heard he is also doing a fly over. Here is hoping for a more realistic assessment.. or better still a movie.
http://oilsandstruth.org/ is a link for the latest info.
"The actual mining is a very small part of the landscape up here, so when you fly over you see a lot of nature and rivers and wilderness," Graham said during a tour of the Syncrude facility in Fort McMurray. "Once you get in the site, it's just massive.."
You can't have it both ways, Senator. It is either small or massive. But I guess U.S. Senators (Republicans from the South) are not used to being precise. Their tour was clearly intended to whitewash the idea of using this worst case "resource."
I'm curious as to why you believe Republican Senators from the North, East or West are more "precise"? Or Democratic Senators for that matter. I surely don't find it so. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, DeMint, Boehner for example are "precise"?
Thank you for the correction. No Senator is to be trusted, but if Graham or Chambliss told me the sun would rise in the East tomorrow I would doubt it.
Sheepherder and Mighty,
"f Graham or Chambliss told me the sun would rise in the East tomorrow I would doubt it."
That is the sad part..They should be the most honored and honorable citizens in our country...They have the privilege and are given the trust to represent the voice of the people. Yet they dishonor the people and violate the trust of the people by constantly representing the private interests of the few at the expense of many....
Will we ever send a man or woman to congress who will not become corrupted by the interests of the few? I believe it is possible but we certainly have our work cut out for us...
As I stated before, hold on tight.... it is going to be one hell of a ride
Thomas Gilbert
Dante
"That is the sad part..They should be the most honored and honorable citizens in our country...They have the privilege and are given the trust to represent the voice of the people. Yet they dishonor the people and violate the trust of the people by constantly representing the private interests of the few at the expense of many...."
This is so well said and so truthful it makes me want to cry. As to "Will we ever send a man or woman to congress who will not become corrupted by the interests of the few? I believe it is possible but we certainly have our work cut out for us..."
As to" Will we ever send a man or woman to congress who will not become corrupted by the interests of the few? I believe it is possible but we certainly have our work cut out for us..."
I think we are about to find out if its possible ...if a lot of these Tea Party candidates are elected as I believe they will be. They detest bot established parties as near as I can tell. They may not be on the same wave length, but we will find out if there is any hope left soon enoough.
Mighty,
These tea party folks are more complicated than many would like to believe. They seem to run the full spectrum and are very difficult to nail down..Yes there are crazies involved but not all are such. This could be a break with the traditional way politics is practiced in this country. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds over time....Somebody got to stir up the pot.....
I still believe that this country is going to make it.I still believe in the power of the people.
Thomas Gilbert
Dante
To be clearer, its not the Tea Party folks per se that are moving things, its the vast majority of folks going in the same direction that are doing it.
I believe they may indeed break the grip of the etablishment and it matters not to them if some nutter does get elected along the way. It just matters to them that they break the "old boy's network"
Jill posted this on another string but its a neat summary that I agree with. "I don't see a vote for any member of the tea party differently than I see a vote for Obama in 08. The circumstances surrounding these votes are identical--fear, desperation and disgust with professional politicians. Everyone I knew who voted for Obama, did so with good motives. They truly believed he would restore the Constitution, get us out of the wars and renew the economy."
I also posted this...
"Whether they are loons, principled conservatives, or a mix of both, they are a potent force that won’t be intimidated off the national stage by snarky media coverage and clueless attacks from the establishment.
Kate Zernike’s a New York Times reporter debunks the myth that the Tea Party is “Astroturf,” and a creation of Republican strategists. In fact, she describes it as a legitimate grassroots uprising.
Whatever you make of them, Zernike’s reporting makes clear that the Tea Partiers care deeply about the future of their country. They aren’t intimidated by difficult odds. Many of them had their first experience in political organizing when they put together their maiden Tea Party rally. They detest the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party.
And the more they are mocked, the more determined they are to push forward. The derision of elites, to them, is a badge of honor."
I believe this is a fair indication and Zernike isn't aright wingers I'd say.
And as near as I have been able to determine, Kate Zernike’s statement "They detest the Republican Party almost as much as the Democratic Party." is exactly true.
Mighty,
Actually you just did a better job of explaining what I was trying to say than I..It is not about the tea party folks but rather what this movement tells us about the wide spread dissatisfaction with both parties....(Republican and Democratic) This was what was on my mind when I wrote a response to your remarks...
Your remarks were very clear and I had no trouble following where you were going. What I needed was for you to clarify mine....
Thanks Mighty
Thomas Gilbert
If I'm clear...it's a miracle!! I have terrible trouble expressing my meaning.
Thanks!
When I re- read my comment I was afraid the others would be expecting me to endorse Glen Beck for President..You saved me from that one......lol
I guess I am reaching that age where I should not attempt to do two tasks at the same time ..lol..One thing at a time is now hard enough......
Thomas Gilbert
Yes and Tea Partyers hate and fear such people as Elizabeth Warren and Dennis Kucinich.
I can't imagine why you'd think that. Elizabeth Warren? I doubt any give her any thought at all. Dennis? Why?
"Kate Zernike’s a New York Times reporter debunks the myth that the Tea Party is “Astroturf,” and a creation of Republican strategists. In fact, she describes it as a legitimate grassroots uprising."
Yes, and the New York Times also had some really FINE reporting by one Judith Miller, on the urgent necessity and wonderful success of the IRAQ BushWar, too, as I recall. No, some of the members of the Tea Party may think they are "independent", but they really ARE an Astroturf creation of the far-far-right contingent of the Republican Party. They are, whether they know it or not (and probably they do not, so don't ask them), the Shock Troops of the far rightwing of the Republican Party.
The very concept of the Tea Bag Protest and the Tea Party was a teevee creation by some cable-media-dominating, Futures-Trading Wall Street Hucksters who actually stated upon its creation that "they did not want the 'successful' (gamblers) to have to pay for bailing out all the 'Deadbeat' homeowners, and raise taxes for this purpose"... most especially not taxes on the wealthy futures-traders and banksters... you know, the ones who were 'SUCCESSFUL' in gaming the system. And fug all you others; including the Tea Party suckers, who are being royally played.
Of course, this 'teabag movement' then became an official Talking-Point with all the Usual Suspects, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Then it became a 'grassroots movement'- with a lot of rightwing financial help from the Dick Armey.
Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that it was the gubmint that bailed the WALL STREET BANKSTERS' asses out of the giant economic conflagration that the banksters themselves started- with a lot of help from their bought-and-paid-for politicians who facilitated the highway robbery.
Anyway, that's so yesterday, and the banksters were bailed out because They are the Important Ones of the national economy, and are very much not 'deadbeats' like ordinary Americans, who deserve nothing but wage-slavery. Because after the gubmint bailed out the banksters there is apparently NO MORE MONEY LEFT for anything else, and now Wall Street screams about 'reckless gubmint spending' bankrupting America (talk about self-serving, bald-faced hypocrisy).
And the Baggers get right with the program, and talk about 'reckless gubmint spending' - only it is about gubmint spending on 'illegal aliens' and 'welfare queens' and 'deadbeats' and 'lazy Americans' and 'socialist healthcare for all'- as well as about 'getting rid of the commie unions so corporations will keep jobs here' and 'keeping your gubmint hands off'n my Social Security'. Nothing about the rich creditors to which the nation is in hock, or the MIC war machine, or the Bush wars, or the treasons of the transnational corporations, or the corruptions on government of the devious rich, or the injustices of the capitalist system, or the rule of the money of Wall Street and the wealthy rightwingers upon politics and the corporatized media, or the criminality of the mortgage banking system... Nope, nuthin' from the Baggers on that stuff.
Hey, isn't it a hoot that the banksters can get the idiot teabag-brainers to actually think they are agin' the banksters? Instead of being Played by them? It's just like the fact that the ordinary southern Confederate soldier thought he was fightin' for freedom, not slavery. But he was, in fact, fightin' For slavery and actually For his own denigration. So, too, the Baggers of today think that they are fightin' for their personal rights even up to and including, figuratively, "owning slaves" if they so wanted and so could afford. And the baggers are fightin' because no yankee 'gubnmint' gonna take away their personal rights. So once again, like the ordinary Confederate soldier, the Baggers are fightin' for the Upper-classes and the Masters and don't even know it, but think instead they are fighting against their oppressors. Instead, that is, of the truth that they are fighting FOR their oppressors.
All you have to do is look at what the Bag Party is for and against, which include such things as NO TAXES, NO GUBMINT, NO 'SOCIALIZM', NO RULES & REGULATIONS, NO COOPERATION, NO 'BLACK PREZNIT', MORE RIGHTWING CHRITIANITY, MORE DOG-EAT-DOG INDIVIDUALISM and MORE WAR.
And all you have to do is just look at what politicians are throwing in with the Bag Party, people like MICHELLE BACHMANN and SARAH PALIN and SAXBY CHAMBLISS and GLENN BECK. And look at all the millions of dollars thay are getting from people like the fascist billionaire brothers, the KOCHS (pronounced KOOKS). And look at all the MSM Corporate Media coverage they are getting from reptiles like RUPERT "Fux News, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal" MURDOCK. And look at who they are voting for- LUNATIC ULTRA-RIGHWING REPUBLICANS.
So do tell me that the Baggers are a fresh breeze in politics. And I will tell you that you have totally Bought the Propaganda from the Masters, and you are now part of the problem, not part of the solution. Because that 'fresh breeze' is coming from an open sewer. Baggers HATE every progressive thing, and have declared war on the Left. So No Peace with the Baggers!
sheepherder
Not a correction, just curious at the statement. And your summation of Graham and Chambliss is spot on for sure. The sun would assuedly be rising in the West if they said that.
The area slated for future oil sand development is huge. Check out the maps at
http://oilsandstruth.org/
If Senator Lindsey Graham is involved and saying yes, you can be assured the truthful answer is no.
Lindsey Graham is an unprincipled liar, a man without honor or loyalty.
So if he says Oilsands are good, I must assume they are bad and everyone should oppose their use.
Bring America Back !!!!
***Tarballs in the sands; we are talking, about
Pensacola Beach Florida, right ?
---What are a bunch of Neocon Repubbys doing at
a Canadian oilsands development ????
MOST TOXIC ENERGY SOURCE:
At a time when carbon pollution has been recognized by the international scientific community as a paramount danger to our planet’’s future, the current promotion of strip mining the oil shales/sands in Alberta and elsewhere defies logic-- especially as alternative energy is becoming more viable.
The energy and water required to extract these low grade oils from the formations, and the environmental destruction resulting from the millions of tons of contaminated waste and denuded landscapes which can never be properly restored, render oil sands/shales the worlds most environmental damaging and wasteful source of energy .
Not until the energy cartels, including these Senators, who have blocked every vital reform measures, are detoothed, will we be able develop renewable non toxic energy sources--and reverse the self perpetuating climate change that we have generated.
Fossil Franken Fuels for Fools
This three corporate fossil fuel loving government officials wouldn't know environmental damage if it rushed down a creek bed, rained on their car or washed up on a beach right in front of them and would still refuse to believe that it was a problem. As stated in this article, they see environmental devastation as good/progress!
Chambliss is all for oil, tar, nuclear without regard for the environment. This very short YouTube video explains it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37SfhywPcHs&sns=em
""The actual mining is a very small part of the landscape up here, so when you fly over you see a lot of nature and rivers and wilderness," Graham said during a tour of the Syncrude facility in Fort McMurray."
"Syncrude?" Really? They actually call themselves Syncrude? I don't think CEO Ray Pen Pillage has gotten serious enough about his greenwashing yet . . .
Meanwhile, as to why those sands are being mined in the first place--Peak Oil--we have a new interview with Dr Hirsch, author of the 2005 US DoE paper admitting Peak Oil and its likely consequences, http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/09/16/interview-with-robert-l-hirsch-12
An excerpt:
le Monde: "What happened after you published your 2005 report on ‘peak oil’ for the US Department of Energy (DoE)?"
Hirsch: "The people that I was dealing with said : « No more work on peak oil, no more talk about it. »"
le Monde: "People that were high in the administration hierarchy?"
Hirsch: "The people that I was dealing with were high in the laboratory level. They were getting their instructions from people on the political side of the DoE, at high levels.
"After the work we did on the 2005 study and the follow-up of 2006, the Department of Energy headquarters completely cut off all support for oil peaking and decline analysis. The people that I was working with at the National Energy Technology Laboratory were good people, they saw the problem, they saw how difficult the consequences would be – you know, the potential for huge damage – yet they were told : « No more work, no more discussion. »"
....
"I think in the case of the United States, that there are people inside the government that understand the problem [Peak Oil]. I don’t think it’s a huge number of people. And one might say that there is a conspiracy to keep it quiet."
With the evidence we already have regarding the willingness of corporations and nations to inflict malice upon the planet and its peoples, oil sands mining will continue regardless of the consequences, and fracking will be allowed no matter how much ground water it pollutes.
The problem with the term 'peak oil' is that it's such a squishy concept. The peak occurs when the production costs approach or exceed the market value. The location of the peak can be manipulated by fudging the costs and by fixing the market. This was seen even in Hubbert's time. Neither the Athabasca tar sands nor BP's Deepwater Horizon Macondo well would have been seen as feasibly exploitable sources back then because, in a sane world, confronted with the outrageous costs and risks of such ventures, the benefits would be seen to lie in reducing reliance on petrochemicals as fuel (and, of course, the melting of the arctic ice and the extraction of those hitherto inaccessible reserves was not even considered). The problem with peak oil lies in assessing the state of mind of the world.
That's got to be one of the oddest comments I've read: "The problem with peak oil lies in assessing the state of mind of the world."
Peak Oil is a physical phenomenon, not psychological.
Let's see if I can do better. If the peak is where the value of the (production cost)/(market value) ratio, or the (energy to produce)/(energy produced) ratio approaches 1, then how the numerator(s) is evaluated will determine where the peak is. Is the (for example) environmental degradation factored in? And if so, how is it evaluated? That's an example of the state of mind I was referring to.
Does that disoddify it any?
So rather than even CONSIDER looking forward and trying to come up with something new, renewable, and clean, they insist on dredging up even more of the foulest 19th century fuel source possible. Isn't it GREAT that we can find this crap in all kinds of places? Too bad that it's destroying the planet, and that alternatives could be found if we had a concerted effort TO LOOK!
I expect nothing more or less from the party of obstruction and national destruction. Not a possibility of looking forward, just doing everything they can to destroy everything they touch. Unfortunately, they are damned good at destruction, and miserable at anything else.
And for the record, I consider every "blue dog democrat" out there to be nothing BUT republicans. If they insist on acting and talking like them then they ARE republicans. They just aren't HONEST enough to admit it.
May they ALL rot in hell.
All the criticism is coming from people who constantly use the resource to prop up their own lifestyle, as well as from Provinces which have enjoyed being welfare cases by having sucked billions of dollars out of Alberta which are the direct result of the oil extraction.
Hypocrites, all of you. If you want to "save the environment" STOP USING THE RESOURCE. It's a very simple solution and equation.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
Words of protest do not diminish demand on oil production. In case you haven't noticed, all the old basins are running out of oil, and nobody "really" knows how much oil is actually in Saudi Arabia, except the Saudi government itself.
Your consumption of Arab oil fuels wars and terrorism.
Your consumption of oil fuels totalitarian regimes.
Your consumption of oil fuels environmental destruction.
It is YOU who is the problem, not Syncrude, not Exxon, not BP. You demand the resource while at the same time protesting the consequence of your demands.
There are seven billion of us. 99.9% want the same thing. They want to live it up, if they only can achieve that level of income. It is the curse of humanity. You cannot have more and more and more AND at the same time save the biosphere.
So, what will it be?
What do you dress with? What are your shoes made of? How do you heat your home? How do you get to work (if you work)? How does your food get to you? How do you power your computer? How do you watch TV? How do you get to your activities? How do you get to your favorite vacation spots? How was your favorite non-motorized transportation made?
Oil.
Stop being the hypocrites that you are. The destiny of the world is in your hands. When YOU stop using the resource, the environmental destruction will end.
So, you use absolutely zero oil-related products? I rather doubt so. We can start with the computer you used to type your tripe.
Nope. I am very well aware how our life depends on this very criticized resource, and I am not the hypocrite here. I understand that the benefit comes with a price. There are two sides to the coin, a blessing and a curse. You cannot have one without the other, though plenty of people try to have just that, ranting and raving against oil while their very life and lifestyle depends on it.
I am not criticizing the oilsands or the oil production, because I know that oil is absolutely essential for the world. Now, how much of it we use, that is up for debate. But at 7 billion population and rising, it is not up for debate "whether" we use it.
We were all born into a world dependent on petroleum production, but because that world that we were born into was dependent on such, all of those who argue against such, are all hypocrites in some existential sense?
Please sign up for a logic class, so as to stop harassing with this particular line of balderdash.
If you still use oil and products derived from or delivered to your house by means of oil, you have no right to complain about 'environmental destruction'. The day you stop using the resource is the day you have the right to open your mouth.
There is a topic called game theory. A short course in game theory would enable you to see a very important flaw in your thinking. Game theory often makes the difference between idealistic thinking and pragmatic thinking. I recommend adding a rudimentary appreciation of this to your mental toolbox.
Some things can only be achieved collectively, either with global co-operation of all or by global enforcement. By global I don't necessarily mean the planet, I mean global within some system, e.g. global within a town, country or the planet.
For a given system under consideration, there may be good collective outcomes for good collective behavior. But sometimes in that same system, the situation for individuals is different (individual persons, corporations, towns, or countries, etc). Sometimes the one who exhibits good behavior will end up with the worst result, and the one who exhibits bad behavior gets the best result. And then you have a problem because it is in everybody's interest for everybody to exhibit good behavior, but it is not in anyones interest to exhibit good behavior.
This is the situation our planet faces with regards to pollution, global warming, resource wars, nuclear or arms proliferation, peak oil, etc. That is why these problems will never be solved, and why humanity is, in a nutshell, screwed. A look at world events and the behaviors of each country's leaders will inform you that the world does indeed work that way. I wish it were otherwise.
Idealistically and collectively these are easy problems to solve. Pragmatically and politically they are impossible to solve, and that is why humanity is doomed.
I agree with you.
Braithwa842 and Johnathan Edwards: If the situation is completely hopeless, why do you not go sit on a beach or tend your gardens? Let the rest of us grapple in peace.
Joe
This meme, could come straight from the propaganda ops of EXXON.
Jon Ed--- double names are common marks of whatever here in East TN, Some of us try- not just whine and bitch and worthlessly carp and moan! On my part I went food shopping on my bike yesterday and will take my small bit of refuse to the dump the same way. Tell us what you did.
Back to chewing my hayseed---MD
Do you understand that in a global sense, whatever you did is completely and utterly meaningless?
If oil from offshore as well as the oilsands, both Canadian and Venezuelan, would be turned off tomorrow, your world would literally fall apart. You wouldn't know what hit you.
It doesn't matter if you rode your bike to the food store. I ride it every day to work or wherever I go, until it snows. The food was grown with oil and natural gas input. It was transported to the store on roads built with oil and vehicles fueled with oil. It was refrigerated with energy from oil or natural gas or coal, or a combination of it, and equipment built with oil input.
Don't get me wrong. I think you are doing a marvelous job trying to conserve energy. More of us should. However, after all is said and done, you are still completely dependent on oil.
So the whole way our society is organised is dependent on oil. How does that make us all hypocrits? Many are tackling elements of this problem from different directions or at different aspects of it.
If I may say, J E, you seem to oscilate from one extreme to another. Too much all or nothing thinking I think. Whilst you make many good points your tone is a bit destructive against many who are making sincere efforts to change social patterns or highlight the problem.
You bitch about people NOT doing anything to make a difference, and yet when someone gives you an example of how they are TRYING, you bad mouth them and tell them that it means NOTHING. You are just having one of those "You will NEVER please me" moments, and it's NOT adding anything to the discussion.
And for the record, what, EXACTLY, are our options? Lots of us walk, bicycle, or carpool. Millions of us recycle, and millions drive very fuel efficient vehicles. But yet, according to you, that means nothing. Sorry we're not living up to YOUR expectations.
And so I repeat, what are our options? If we had anything like a Manhattan style project to make us energy independent, we COULD be. As it is, thanks to the myopia of the "ruling class", we have very FEW options. And yet you come here and heat up all of OUR asses when WE aren't the ones calling the shots. We ARE trying to help, and your bad mouthing of our efforts doesn't help ANYTHING.
Try being constructive, with some SOLUTIONS, and then maybe I will see your comment as something other than useless bitching.
If you haven't noticed, economies of scale, and power relationships of scale are well established, and unassailable to us "hypocrites" who don't walk everywhere on hand sewn shoes.
It is possible, of course, to soundly argue against particular processes of fossil fuel extraction that are particularly damaging to the environment e.g.such as tar sands oil extraction, mountaintop removal of coal, and deepwater oil drilling, without being a hypocrite.
Your equation of culpability – regarding whose most responsible for the perpetuation of dependency on fossil fuels – seems to be missing a few variables, and constants, save the constant of your seeming exponential arrogance.
I'm off to buy some hemp from this guy who lives on a self sustainable island, with zero carbon footprint, so I can start fabricating computer components for my hand made computer that will be powered by my homemade solar system. But first, I have to go online with my regular computer (this one) to learn chemistry, and physics, some DIY manuals about building green computers at home.
Then, hopefully, I can find an open network originating from green servers and routers, so I can come back online to CD, and be washed and cleansed enough to reply to the great unblemished, Johnathan Edwards.
Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, two of the most sensible Senators in Washington and very reasonable and balanced and of course interested in protecting the environment.
(Sarcasm)
Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, two of the most sensible Senators in Washington and very reasonable and balanced and of course interested in protecting the environment.
(Sarcasm)