RMF: Making A Mockery Of Conservatism [RotoGuru Politics Forum]

RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread	Self-edit this thread

Subject: Making A Mockery Of Conservatism

Posted by: Pancho Villa - [597172916] Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 19:30

One of the main mantras of the modern conservative movement in this country is government spending, ever-expanding deficits and unsustainable programs like social security and Medicare.
For the most part, conservatives are right in their appraisal of federal spending. The concept of spending more than revenue received, resulting in annual deficits of more than a trillion dollars, borders on the insane. Eventually, the equations become so sideways that only the most radical measures must be considered in order to avoid economic anarchy.
Many conservatives believe we are already there, and there's evidence to suggest that, lacking immediate and severe austerity measures ala Greece, the roadblock to continued economic growth is real and imminenet.

That's why it's so hard to understand why a large contingency of conservatives make a mockery of the term "conservative" when it comes to the subject of energy, and oil in particular. It's hard to understand why they promote the same "spending like drunken sailors" they condemn liberal politicians for, when the equations are equally sideways when it comes to oil.

According to figures accumulated by Canadian geo-scientist
David Hughes

The facts of the matter are that no nation on earth is more dependent on imported oil than the U.S. Although consumption has declined somewhat, due to the Great Recession, imports accounted for more than 61 percent of U.S. oil consumption in 2009. Net 2009 U.S. imports of 11.5 million barrels per day exceeded China's TOTAL OIL CONSUMPTION of 8.6 million barrels per day by 33 percent. Americans, with a population of 310 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels per day in 2009 compared to China, a country with 1.32 billion people, which consumed a mere 8.6 million barrels per day. This works out to 22 barrels of oil consumption per American in 2009 compared to 2.4 barrels per person in China.

Although American oil production increased slightly in 2009 from a recent low in 2008, it is down 36 percent from its all time peak in 1970. Meanwhile oil imports are up by 358 percent since 1965. The vaunted 100,000 barrel per day growth in shale oil production by 2013 in Krauss' article, if it occurs, would amount to half a percent of current U.S. consumption.

What about those vaunted Alberta tar sands? Hughes thoughts from a more recent article.

The tar sands have become infamous due to how dirty the oil is and how energy-intensive it is to extract, along with the massive environmental devastation required in the process of extraction.

Scientific and environmental critics of tar sand extraction also argue that oil companies' glowing forecasts of how much oil is there, along with how long it will take to extract are fantastic, in a literal sense of the term.

Hughes, whose expertise includes 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as both a scientist and research manager, calls the forecasts "exuberant".
"They were at 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2010. Industry has tripled the forecasts in 25 years, which would put them at about 4.5mbpd. It's taken 40 years to get the tar sands to 1.5 million bpd and the surface scar is incredible. I can't imagine what that would look like if you tripled it."

Hughes explained the government of Alberta reports 143bn barrels of oil, but "90 per cent of those are too deep to be surface minable. Huge energy inputs are required to get to that. So energy return on investment is going to go down a lot as the tar sands progress. I'll believe they triple it when I see it … frankly I don't think it's possible. This is industry hype they are talking to their shareholders."

The oil in the tar sands also requires time-consuming construction of more infrastructure to support its extraction and delivery, which, along with the aforementioned factors, lead Hughes to believe the tar sands "can't be ramped up enough to offset declines of conventional oil".
link

As Hughes summarizes from the 1st link:

In summary, oil and gas are finite resources that are being consumed at unprecedented and growing rates. Despite what Krauss' article says, the U.S. is the worst offender and is highly vulnerable to future energy price and supply shocks. The growth trajectory of the already high consumption levels in the industrialized world and the rapid growth in consumption in the developing world is patently unsustainable. Articles such as this falsely promote complacency and thus are an extreme disservice to understanding the energy sustainability dilemma facing the World. The premise of this article that the U.S. is approaching “energy independence” could not be further from the truth.

Even the website Peak Oil Debunked has a

DISCLAIMER FOR IDIOTS: This site officially accepts that oil is finite, and will peak someday.

As well, the site offers

THE SOLUTION: ELECTRIFICATION + CONSERVATION

It's becoming increasingly clear that electrification of transport (combined with conservation) is the near-term solution to peak oil. Yes, there are liquid alternatives (ethanol, biodiesel, CTL, GTL), and they will help take the edge off petroleum decline, and play a role in niche applications where liquid fuel is essential.

Electrification = Hybrids + PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrids) + NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) + Small EVs + Full-size EV cars + Electric bikes/scooters + Segways + Electric motorcycles + Electric buses + Electric trucks + New electric trains + Electrification of existing diesel train lines

Plus

Conservation = Walking + Bicycles + Mopeds + Scooters + Motorcycles + Carpooling + Van pooling + Telecommuting + Riding the bus + Riding the tram/train/subway + Moving nearer to work + Sleeping at/near work + NGVs + Ultralight/Ultraefficient conventional vehicles + Buying a used compact car as a second vehicle + Buying a moped etc. as a second vehicle + Converting oil-fired generation to coal/nuclear + Jacking up CAFE standards + Increasing downtown parking rates + Lowering speed limits + Compressed work week + etc.

We hear plenty from conservatives about estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves....
Democratic obstructionism at every turn in the road to more domestic oil production

but when was the last time you heard a so-called conservative promote the concept of conservation when it comes to our consumption habits that are hurtling us towards an unsustainable economic future that dwarfs the problem of the federal budget deficit.
They mock public transportation, the idea of sustainable growth where communities are designed to accomodate energy efficiency, and laughably worship a politician whose husband races snowmobiles thousands of miles across Alaska and deem her a true conservative. What they're really doing is making a mockery of conservatism.

Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.

bibA
ID: 204511510
Mon, Jun 09, 2014, 20:24

I did.

Viewing statistics for this thread
Period	# Views	# Users
Last hour	2	1
Last 24 hours	2	1
Last 7 days	2	1
Last 30 days	18	14
Since Mar 1, 2007	5482	1476