Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (215505)	1/7/2002 5:24:57 PM
From: Bob	Respond to of 769670

Human beings have rights; wildernesses do not. What a fabulous elementary statement. Regards, BobP

To: greenspirit who wrote (215505)	1/7/2002 5:25:24 PM
From: Bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Human beings have rights; wildernesses do not. What a fabulous elementary statement. Regards, BobP EDIT: I guess it needed to be said twice....

To: greenspirit who wrote (215505)	1/7/2002 6:23:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Far be it for me to criticize an article posted from an Ann Rand site, but it does seem a little miopic, and it does seem to setup one straw dog after another to demolish... without really addressing fundamental issues, so, here goes: 1) Re: improving energy efficiency is an "irrational solution". Says who? Efficiency can be a very good, cost-effective thing in and of itself, without obviating the need to still actually CONSUME our fossil fuel resources. Not to mention the fact that an ancillary benefit of cleaner, more fuel efficient technologies is the concommitant lessening of environmental damage to the "commons" that we all live in. This too, is a measurable good, a "positive externality" to the Economists, but a very real thing none-the-less. Efficiency (using limited inputs more wisely) can be a cost-effective thing both in straight-up economic analysis, and when expanding the calculus to include 'down-stream' considerations. 2) Re: "Environmentalists want us to produce, and consume, less energy, because they value untouched nature above human comfort." Please admit the possibility of a rational middle ground, where arguments from both extremes may meet in fair debate. What the article posted was doing was arguing against an extremist position, and imputing that ALL environmentalists share that exact same limited position... setting up a "straw man" to knock down. This is a childish rhetorical technique, unworthy of serious attention. In fact, the majority of "environmentalists" would hew much closer to balanced considerations of economic growth and environmental protection. For example, the advent of fuel cell technologies in our transportation industry potentially offer both vastly cleaner "tailpipe" emissions and greater fuel efficiency, thus allowing a limited resource (nearly all resources are limited... a fact your article artfully skips over in regards to oil) to last longer. Such technological innovation can offer win-win scenarios. 3) As to: the "Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contains approximately 46 billion barrels of oil...", I believe you may be correct. There is likely to be a vast amount of oil there... particularly offshore to Florida and North Carolina / Virginia. But look at who has overwhelmingly opposed drilling there for the past 30 years... not the Feds, it has been the locals of both political parties. Why? Obviously because they fear damage to their existing economic interests (tourism, fishing, coastal real estate development values, etc.) No wild-eyed "eco-terrorists" these, no innocents duped by the duplicitous Sierra Club, but rather a hard-nosed bunch of existing monied interests who have acted in their own perceived economic best interest. These are capitalists opposing other capitalists who have differing development strategies... and may the most politically-connected win! (They usually do.) 4) I have one further point to make: Whatever oil is in American jurisdiction and isn't drilled today can be drilled tomorrow. It's been there for millions of years, it's not a wasting asset. American oil, undrilled today, is American oil in the Bank. I predict that someday, at some incentive price, ALL our oil will be exploited... and who's to say that we may not need it a heck of a lot more 50 or 100 years down the road when the market price is $100, $200, who knows? a barrel? Just 'cause something isn't exploited today (at today's low prices) doesn't mean we are not going to get around to exploiting it some day....