Limbaugh: "Nature cleaned up itself" after Exxon Valdez oil spill
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of the environmental effects following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, "[N]ature cleaned it up faster than we ever could." However, an NOAA research chemist reportedly said "very little of the oil actually disappeared," while scientists employed by the state and federal governments recently reported that the effects of the oil spill remain.
On the August 5 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska: "The sea eats oil alive. That place up there, nature cleaned it up faster than we ever could."
But recent reports have found the effects of the oil spill remain. In November 2006, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, a division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game jointly established and staffed by state and federal agencies, issued a report titled "Update on Injured Resources and Services." The report found that the ecosystems in the area of Prince William Sound had yet to fully recover from the incident:
Seventeen years after oil spill, we are again evaluating the status of injured resources and services and providing a synopsis of the most current information available in the updated [Injured Resources and Services] List. In 2006, the Trustee Council funded Restoration Project #060783 which provided a comprehensive synthesis of information for resources and services that had been considered not recovered, recovering or unknown in the 2002 Update. [...] Several species have been moved into the recovered category: common loons, cormorants, Dolly Varden and harbor seals. Harlequin ducks are improving and moved into the recovering category. Black oystercatchers have been down listed from recovered to recovering, and the recovery status of marbled murrelets has changed from recovering to unknown. Ten resources are considered fully recovered; nine resources and all four human services are still recovering; five resources remain unknown and two resources have not recovered.
[...]
The Restoration Plan defines ecosystem recovery as follows:
Full ecological recovery will have been achieved when the population of flora and fauna are again present at former or prespill abundances, healthy and productive, and there is a full complement of age classes at the level that would have been present had the spill not occurred. A recovered ecosystem provides the same functions and services as would have been provided had the spill not occurred.
Although significant progress has been made, using this definition of recovery, the coastal and marine ecosystems in the oil spill region have not fully recovered at this time from the effects of the oil spill. For example, harlequin ducks still show signs of oil exposure and may be negatively affected by such exposure. A number of other species and communities are showing signs of recovery, but are still not fully recovered from the effects of the oil spill. Although full ecological recovery has not been achieved, the spill area ecosystem is making progress towards recovery 17 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
A January 31, 2007, article in USA Today covering this report quoted a government scientist saying that "very little of the oil actually disappeared":
Seventeen years ago, scientists predicted that the oil would be long gone by now. "We expected the natural decay rate was 25% a year. But very little of the oil actually disappeared," says Jeffrey Short, a NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] research chemist. "What's left is going to be there a long time."
Instead, the researchers estimate, the oil is "weathering" away at a rate of 3% to 4% a year. "It will be readily detectable for decades," Short says.
Jennifer Culbertson, a marine ecologist at Boston University, is among the surprised. "The theory has been that on a rocky shore, it's not going to stay for that long, that waves will wash it away," she says.
Says Michael Baffrey of the Trustee Council: "We made a lot of assumptions about what would happen to the oil. A lot of those didn't play out."
In addition, a study published in the December 19, 2003, edition of Science magazine found that impacts of the spill were still evident in the ecosystem of Prince William Sound and predicted lingering effects on wildlife:
The ecosystem response to the 1989 spill of oil from the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound, Alaska, shows that current practices for assessing ecological risks of oil in the oceans and, by extension, other toxic sources should be changed. Previously, it was assumed that impacts to populations derive almost exclusively from acute mortality. However, in the Alaskan coastal ecosystem, unexpected persistence of toxic subsurface oil and chronic exposures, even at sublethal levels, have continued to affect wildlife. Delayed population reductions and cascades of indirect effects postponed recovery. Development of ecosystem-based toxicology is required to understand and ultimately predict chronic, delayed, and indirect long-term risks and impacts.
From the August 5 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: What is the damage? How has oil destroyed America? How has it destroyed people's lives? It's done just the opposite. Where does this come from? What in the world is the political calculation these people have to construct a presidential campaign based on the hatred of oil, as though oil itself is a conservative Republican? They're treating oil as if it were no different than Bush. They hate Bush, they hate oil. And both are irrational.
And our buddies, our buddies at CNN. They're preparing a retrospective special, ladies and gentlemen, on the disaster that was the oil spill at Prince William Sound and the Exxon Valdez. What they will not tell you is if you go up there today, you won't find any evidence of it other than the stupid memorials that human beings -- this is where oil was on the rock, this is where the otter got eaten by the shark, we threw it back in there -- the sea lion, whatever, ate the otter.
Nature cleaned up itself so damn fast. It was such a laughable thing to watch people with dish towels and Dawn dishwasher detergent wiping oil off of the rocks at Prince William Sound. Now, it was an unpleasant sight, of course. The birds got oil on their wings, and it was not pleasant to look at. But, it's an accident. The skipper of the Exxon Valdez did not say, "I want to destroy America, I want to destroy Alaska," and then let this stuff go. But anyway, the sea eats oil. The sea eats oil alive. That place up there, nature cleaned it up faster than we ever could.
But why in the world this abject hatred for a commodity? I mean, I can understand if you're a little kid and you don't like peas or broccoli. But an entire political party and an ideological movement has now targeted oil as -- as big a threat to this country as conservative Republicans are. It's hard to get your arms around it.
>>But why in the world this abject hatred for a commodity? I mean, I can understand if you're a little kid and you don't like peas or broccoli. But an entire political party and an ideological movement has now targeted oil as -- as big a threat to this country as conservative Republicans are. It's hard to get your arms around it.
Nah, conservative Republicans are much worse. Though both are becoming more scarce.
They hate Bush, they hate oil. And both are irrational.
More of Rush encouraging laziness in his zombies. He was able to convince them on "Bush Derangement Syndrome", His audience was still in a small minority of Americans who hadn't figured out what a pantsload Bush was. This was, obviously, due to the fact that the majority of Americans were crazy!
Now he's telling them that everybody who's better informed than they are has some sort of bizarre hatred of an inanimate naturally occuring material. And it will work.
I heard part of the Fatbag's show the other day when he was on this subject, and after setting up the "oil hatred' strawman, he went on to compare this invented hatred with hating sunshine or rain. In Rush world,oil is an essential element for human life.
Can you tell us the last time you went a whole day not using a product made from crude oil? (My Cryin'Nerd)
I'd have to check my Crude Usage diary, but it's probably been a while.It is the standard, and has been for way too long.
When the internal combustion engine was the newest innovation, you probably could have asked the same question about horses.
But that was just a demonstration of how stupid I could make your question look, even handicapping you by conceding the strawman. Here's a more accurate question for you that will clearly illustrate your confusion;
Can you tell me the last time somebody died from going a day without petroleum products?
How could I party without my polyester leisure suits????- oscar the grouch
OK, Oscar you got me. The most honest argument for keeping the pipeline flowing that I've seen.Those hemp leisure suits just don't catch the blacklights the same way. Drill here, drill now, Party on !!!
Can you tell me the last time somebody died from going a day without petroleum products? - Col. Harlan Sanders
Are you offering your community to be without fire, police, and rescue for a 24 hour period to see?
No. I was only asking you a question that you dodged.
Failure.Wear it proudly.
Boy, Limbaugh sure is good at knocking down those strawman arguments, isn't he?
There is disgust with the people who think that oil exploration and drilling come at no potential risk to the environment.
There is fear with the false meme that we don't have to do anything about global climate change, much of which is clearly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, much of that gas and oil, gets any credibility. It deserves none.
There is disappointment that the facts, like that simply having everyone in America keep their tires inflated to a proper level would save us as much gas as we'll find from new drilling, get downplayed for the false talking points of the right. The ridicule of real ideas and the promotion of the nonsensical is upsetting to us all.
We're targeting lies, and distortions, and rejection of factual information and expert testimony and short-sighted carelessness and disregard for our children's future.
It's not that we hate a commodity at all. We had the people that try to manipulate that commodity and our use of that commodity. What a piece of work!
Wow.. Just, wow...
When I think Limbaugh can't get possibly any dumber, and this tumbles from his mouth. One of the worst environmental disasters ever, as in, the world, and everything was OK by Limbaugh's standards. I'm sure to him, there are people also living happily in or near Chernobyl. Nature cleaned that up really fast as well. Jeesh...
Here's the thing Rush. Most, or a lot of our oil is provided to us from foreign sources. We can't replace our foreign sources with US sources, because we don't have enough to do so. Why is it "evil"? Mostly because the people who run the oil companies only care about their profits, and that's fine and dandy, but somewhere along the line, we're going to run out. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not even in 50-100 years, but oil is a finite source. We need to find a better way. Oil, when burned also harms out environment, but I"m sure Rush doesn't believe that nonsense either.
"For example, harlequin ducks still show signs of oil exposure and may be negatively affected by such exposure."
Wow. What a terrible result of the oil spill. The well being of these ducks is far more important than becoming energy independent and lowering the price of gas. I say we just completely stop drilling because of the threat of oil spills that could possibly harm ducks. The well being of ducks should always be more important than the well being of the American people.
The idiotic conversation started with your inane comments.
In case you haven't figured this out, we can tell who made the first comment in a string. It's really not very hard to do. You should try it.
Rush lied about how severely the environment was damaged and how long-lasted that damage was and how easy or difficult it is for the environment to recover.
You're the one who then posed a strawman argument that stated that we put ducks on a higher pedestal than we put human beings. You make another about how some must think we should stop drilling for any oil.
It was your idiotic argument full of strawmen that started it.
Democrats oppose drilling for oil
Nope. Democrats are willing to allow drilling for oil in areas that are not going to be terribly badly affected if a spill happens. They reject new drilling in sensitive areas, as should all sane people.
and put animals in ANWR and along our shores ahead of doing what's best for the American people.
Nope. Drilling in sensitive areas isn't what's best for the American people. What's best for American people is to help protect the environment, continue to use gas and oil drilled from current locations or locations already leased, and work on using less and less oil and gas in a variety of ways. Using up our finite resources even faster than we're already doing is not what's best for the American people. It's people like you who don't want to do what's best for Americans and instead you push a non-solution (drilling in sensitive areas) instead of going for a real solution.
It's not a straw man argument at all.
Both of your arguments are strawman arguments. Of that there's no doubt. There are no Democrats saying "don't drill anywhere". Therefore, when you 'debunk' that strawman argument, it's your argument that sucks wind. Dems aren't making that strawman.
I'm simply going by the rhetoric and voting records of Democrats in Congress.
No, you aren't. Liar.
It just seems like a straw man because of the fact that the Democrats' position on this issue is so ridiculous.
The position that's ridiculous is the one that says drilling in sensitive areas will bring us any significant amounts of oil anytime soon, and when it is performing up to capacity will reduce prices beyond an insignificant degree. That's ridiculous, and the Bush Administration's energy experts have already documented that.
"They reject new drilling in sensitive areas, as should all sane people."
So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane? Because that's the percentage of people who now support offshore drilling. And that includes half of all Democrats. It's only the extreme left that opposes drilling off shore. That's why even Obama is starting to change is mind on the issue. He knows that he has no way of winning if he takes a stance that 75% of the American people disagree with. Most Americans want us to become energy independent rather than rely on other countries. That doesn't make them insane in the least. It just means they aren't extreme far left zealots who care more about penguins and polar bears than the American people.
So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane?
This poll you trotted out is based on the LIE that more drilling will lower gas prices right away. This LIE has been promoted by the right-wing liars because it is simplisticly and falsely based on the law of supply and demand - WHICH DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
It's a land grab by the oil companies. Why can't you see that?
So you're saying that 75% of the American people are insane?
No, I said that all sane people should reject non-solutions. Drilling in sensitive areas is not a solution to anything. It won't lower the price today, it won't lower the price very much at all in a few decades. It's not a solution. Sane people should reject non-solutions when they're looking for real solutions! It's not my fault people don't always choose good solutions.
Because that's the percentage of people who now support offshore drilling. And that includes half of all Democrats.
The fact that the majority of Americans support new offshore drilling is because they think it will be a solution, even though it's not. I already explained this above, but since you apparently are too dense to grasp concepts quickly, I'll do it again. It may be politically necessary to agree to this non-solution, to make the undereducated American populace feel better. The fact that it becomes a chosen path doesn't mean it makes sense as an effacious solution!
It's only the extreme left that opposes drilling off shore.
So, that means that half the American public is undereducated about this and/or has bought into the false propoganda from the right (from liars like you) that it is a solution when it's really not, and the other 25% are people who still think George Bush has an admirable job as President - the perpetually blind, dumb and mute voters! If the 'extreme left' are the only ones who oppose non-solutions, then it means that us lefties are the only ones in our right minds. Thanks for finally acknowledging that fact!
That's why even Obama is starting to change is mind on the issue.
Obama hasn't changed his mind on the issue. He's agreed that despite it being a non-solution, if it is necessary to include that non-solution to get the damned Republicans to agree to a common-sense approach that includes real solutions, then he'll do it! It's amazing how you can read one half of Obama's stances and ignore the other pertinent parts and then come here and claim to expose the rest of us to how Obama feels!
He knows that he has no way of winning if he takes a stance that 75% of the American people disagree with.
So, you're saying that he's a savvy politician who realized that politicians have to compromise at times, and he's willing to do this? Thanks for recognizing that Obama, unlike most Republicans, is willing to compromise, and admitting that his actions are a good idea. Too bad so many Republicans have rejected compromise and bipartisanship for so long! But thanks for admitting what a good leader Obama will be!
Most Americans want us to become energy independent rather than rely on other countries.
Most Americans don't know that drilling additional wells in sensitive areas won't move us an inch closer to energy independence or lower gas prices. If they hadn't been misled by people like you, they wouldn't be for it. I will continue to blame you for that false propoganda campaign you've waged and will hold you responsible for endangering our environment and fattening the wallets of the oil companies. I want our nation to be as energy independent as we can be, but that doesn't start or get furthered by addt'l drilling in sensitive areas. I want real solutions, and that begins by realizing that doing additional drilling to speed our using up a finite resource is folly.
Botleblonde, I have to ask you, how do you do it? I read a lot of your posts, pretty much on-topic, no exclamation points or caps, no name-calling (except reciprocal), and on a regular basis, I see the wingnuts threatening to ban you for your temper, whining about "personal attacks", commenting on your "anger".
You really seem to make them nuts. I may be working too hard at being polite. Either that, or I'm not doing a good enough job of making them aware of how confused they are. I'm a little jealous. ;0)
So calling someone a piece of crapola isn't a personal attack? How wasted were you last night?- RINO Hunter
I didn't see the "crapola" comment, but that seems pretty mild.Archie Bunker said it on TV in the 70s.
I wasn't wasted at all, actually had to drive a pretty good distance last night , so I didn't drink. I had a little BBQ tonight, and put down a bit of whisky, but it didn't help , you still don't make much sense. Should I try some Opiates before responding to you?
Thanks Colonel.
If the shoe fits, wear it Rino. And if you need some toilet paper for all that crap you spew, just reach your hand under the stall divider. After all, that worked so well for Senator Larry Craig.
There's one person who John Edwards needed to admit his affair to, and that would be his wife. He and she shared their marriage vows, and it was those marriage vows that he violated, remember.
So, you're a liar again. The one person he needed to admit his affair to, his wife, knew about this a long time ago. You knew he had admitted it to his wife, and so when you say he didn't admit it, that falsehood is a lie.
My point was you spewing crapola. Larry Craig did that. He got caught by the cops and was charged with a crime he certainly committed, and he lied about it. Edwards was guilty of marital infidelity and he admitted it to his wife and she forgave him. John McCain had numerous affairs, had one last one (that we know about) with Cindy, got a marriage license to marry her while he was still married to his first wife, and you think that you're going to hurt Obama by bringing up maritial infidelity? Get real! Obama didn't cheat on his wife. If Edwards infidelity is relevant to Obama's campaign, then John McCain's infidelity is 100 times more relevant to McCain's campaign.
But, keep up that losing strategy. We need a fresh slate of Republican candidates and behind the scenes guys, and I think the only way that'll happen if for them to lose a couple of election cycles.
So, don't drop the losing strategy that harps on Edwards' affair, failing to realize how that doesn't hurt Obama near as much as it'll hurt McCain, serial adulterer. Remember, Edwards marriage survived his affair, and McCain's did not. Don't you think a fling, and a return to a good marriage is more worthy of praise than what McCain did, deserting an injured wife who didn't desert him for a trophy wife?
He (Edwards)didn't admit his affair. He lied about it until he got caught.
He admitted it to his wife. That's whose business it was.
McCain was honest about what happened with his first marriage.
When?
( And the fact that McCain's divorce was over 30 years ago and he's been married to the same woman ever since.)
LOL. Like McCain's been able to do anything in the last 30 years. He's really old.
I addressed the McCain issue above. As for Rush, he's simply a talk show host. He isn't a politician. And also, do you have any evidence that he ever cheated on any of his wives?
"And it all started with you claiming that one incident means that oil companies are irresponsible and hire drunk captains to run these rigs."
I never said that. This is all getting way too stupid now.
"Thanks for proving my point."
Huh? Are you drunk?
"Thanks for proving my point."
Huh? Are you drunk?
Clams, I was giving Rino/AnotherAmerican the benefit of the doubt, that they weren't sockpuppet twins, even though one of them pretty much admitted to that fact a while back. This has me reconsidering, as "thanks for proving my point" are the exact words each of them use when they've had their point proven wrong.
For the record, this is just a well supported theory.They could be two completely different, but equally stoopid, wingnuts,
People learn by looking at history.
If that were true Bush wouldn't have won a second term.
Rino: "You care more about animals and nature than you do about having our country become energy independent."
...and shouldn't that be the correct order of priorities? Without animals and nature, countries don't exist, and energy independece becomes an obsolete concept. How exactly do you plan to become 'energy independent' if you don't care about sustaining your supply of natural resources?
"There has to be a balance between taking care of the environment and having a strong economy."
Again, that argument is contradicted by logic: ecology clearly takes precedence over economy, because without the former the latter ceases to exist. A balance doesn't exist between two things of unequal weight. It's not a question of bringing them into balance, it's a matter of having an economy that doesn't undermine itself through its ecological effects.
"The new technology that we have now has enabled us to drill for oil without the threat of an oil spill."
Really? No threat of oil spills at all? Exactly how does this technology work? It extracts oil and magically transports it through hyperspace to its destination in consumers' gas tanks?
I agree that the technology has improved, but please don't exaggerate to make your argument: no system of oil extraction and transportation is completely without risk of spill and leakage.
Besides, the real risk of spills is exactly why Limbaugh is busy claiming that spills aren't such a big deal. He argues that nature magically recovers no matter what humans do. Break open a tanker? No biggie -- nature mops it up. That's why she's called Mother Nature, right? She's always cleaning up after us. We can do whatever we want and never have to worry about the consequences.
This from a man who claims to stand for the politics of individual responsibility.
Of course we have to have nature and a good environment for the economy to grow. I was simply talking about extreme environmentalism. I'm talking about the environmentalists who want to stop companies from building facilities in a certain place because they might kill a few lizards. I'm talking about environmentalists who don't want us to drill in ANWR, where nobody lives, because it might scare a few polar bears. This is extreme environmentalism which harms our country and hinders the production of new technology.
No, you were talking about a lie that's been debunked countless times.
And before that you were talking about the strawman arguments you were demolishing like it was something to be proud of.
Sue,
Please try to respond to what I actually say rather than simply spouting ignorant attacks. I know you can put a coherent thought together if you put your mind to it.
I'm not Sue.
I did talk about what you said. Everyone else can see that.
The person making a personal attack would be you. I attacked your argument. Everyone else can see that.
Sue,
You should probably stop the attacks before you get banned again. Nowhere did you respond to the what is being discussed, which is offshore drilling. Feel free to join the discussion if you wish, or you can just throw out baseless personal attacks and get banned for the 10th time.
Actually, I did. I addressed the topic before you went off topic even.
Boy, Limbaugh sure is good at knocking down those strawman arguments, isn't he? There is disgust with the people who think that oil exploration and drilling come at no potential risk to the environment. .....
It's not that we hate a commodity at all. We had the people that try to manipulate that commodity and our use of that commodity. What a piece of work!
And then in the same post where I point out that it was you who began the stupid argument, I said
Rush lied about how severely the environment was damaged and how long-lasted that damage was and how easy or difficult it is for the environment to recover.
It's not my fault you forgot what the topic was (or chose to go off topic, I should probably say!) between last night and this morning!
Then you said
"I was simply talking about extreme environmentalism. I'm talking about the environmentalists who want to stop companies from building facilities in a certain place because they might kill a few lizards. I'm talking about environmentalists who don't want us to drill in ANWR, where nobody lives, because it might scare a few polar bears."
To which I said
"No, you were talking about a lie that's been debunked countless times.
And before that you were talking about the strawman arguments you were demolishing like it was something to be proud of."
I addressed what you said. I addressed the topic of this posting by Media Matters too. You're the one who went off topic, made strawman arguments and lied about what Democrats want to do.
Sure, but Rino, if the arguments of extreme environmentalists are absurd, then the argument that Limbaugh is presenting is equally absurd: "But anyway, the sea eats oil. The sea eats oil alive. That place up there, nature cleaned it up faster than we ever could."
That was what Limbaugh actually said. And he's wrong. If you want to change the subject and argue that extreme environmentalists have unrealistic aims, then be my guest. But at least recognize that you're changing the subject. Limbaugh's absurd claim is in no way excused by the fact that someone else is making an absurd claim.
The sea eats oil alive? Is that really a claim worth defending? Rino, you're wasting your effort. The point here is that Limbaugh isn't contributing to a rational and realistic debate. Instead he's busy muddying the water. (Or perhaps spilling oil on it.)
By the way, let's put this on the table. Your arguments against Limbaugh's detractors and critics here suggest that you support at least the spirit of Limbaugh's argument. Here's a little more from what Limbaugh had to say about the subject of oil and oil's alternative energy sources on Thursday, August 7th, 2008:
"This whole thing of getting rid of oil is absurd. And I don't care, you may be able to drive around in a hydrogen car or a hydrogen bus or what have you somewhere down the road but you're never going to have air transit rely on that. Something is going to happen. I happen to think actually that some bright-eyed wizard of smart is going to find out how to use seawater to replace most of our energy needs. I think that's going to happen."
So let's be clear. This is a guy who thinks that we'll be able to replace oil dependency with the energy that we'll be able to extract from seawater. I think I saw that movie, too. Except I was pretty sure it was a work fiction. Apparently Limbuagh thinks otherwise.
That's who you're defending. A guy who thinks that the answers to all our energy problems are going to be found by an energy savior who will be able to turn water into electrical potential instead of wine.
And you're busy taking marginalized environmental extremists to task? Why are you wasting your time? They already have minimal influence. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has an 8-year $400 million dollar contract and the support of a major radio syndicator. He books interviews with major politicians and sitting executive branch officials. This is a man who actually claims to influence elections. And the vision of an energy independent future that he professes comes from a bad Keanu Reeves movie? Is this really the man you want serving as the most vocal spokesperson for your political position?
Did you like how Rino said that you clearly don't listen to Rush, or you could not come to that conclusion? The only way he could come to that conclusion, without it being a knee-jerk reaction that ignored the facts, would be if he (Rino) was a regular Limbaugh listener.
However, after you debunk his statement, he says that he doesn't in fact, listen to Rush. So, if he doesn't listen to Rush, how the heck did he figure he could correct your statement? Well, because he's the king of knee-jerk reactions that have no basis in reality, that's how!
That's a lie. There were spills just a few years ago from drilling rigs. That's a rightwing talking point that's been shot down here numerous times, but you feel no shame in repeating that long-debunked talking point.
That says more about you than anyone should be willing to admit.
Offshore drilling wouldn't be done anywhere near the coast. It would be at least 50 miles away. And I've already mentioned the fact that a threat of an oil spill in today's world is basically non-existant.
"And I've already mentioned the fact that a threat of an oil spill in today's world is basically non-existant."
Yes, you did mention that, but you didn't offer any evidence to support it. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in spills of 17,700 barrels of petroleum products. I know, it's not that much, really: just 3/4 of a million gallons. I'm sure, like Limbaugh argues, nature will be more than happy to clean that up for us, right?
So what is this spillproof technology that you have in mind?
Um, not to burst your bubble, but that wasn't a news article -- that was an opinion piece. Or did you miss the big words "Editorials and Opinion" at the top of the page? Did you also miss the author's ridiculous claim: "Thanks to Earth's curvature, these operations can stay out of sight"?
Out of sight, out of mind, eh? That's the basis you want to use for our future energy policy? Boy, it's a good thing that the Earth isn't flat -- otherwise we'd actually have to see the damage our oil extraction does.
Don't hitch your wagon to this moron's argument, Rino.
What about that oil spill that gummed up the Mississippi recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/25spill.html
And don't forget the little fact that a lot of the states where there could be offshore drilling, such as Florida, Texas, and a few others are highly conservative, and in year's past, it hasn't been democrats who didn't want to drill, it has been republicans, so when you want to demonize the democrats, maybe you ought to change who your blathering on about.
The well being of ducks should always be more important than the well being of the American people.
Those "well being Americans" are obese, they could stand to walk a few places.
It's time Americans started to THINK about our gas consumption, not keep drilling to feed our habit.
"nothing should be off the table"
I'm glad we agree on that. I too am for higher taxes at the pump, higher taxes for passenger vehicles that get less than 40 miles per gallon, ending the SUV exemption from CAFE regulations, revising CAFE regulations, ending corporate welfare for the domestic oil industry. Do you want to add any other goverment policies that will hasten a transition away from fossil fuels?
I meant that nothing should be off the table that will actually lower gas prices.
Then why are you pushing the proposal of giving land leases to oil companies on which they may or may not choose to drill when all evidence and logic shows that the price of gas will not be lowered one dime as a result?
To say that the price of oil went down a little bit because of propaganda about giving leases to oil companies where they likely won't even drill, much like at many of their current leases, is unfounded and absurd.
The rest of your argument is wrought with ignorance. Theoretical environmental concerns? That alone shows how little you know about this subject, just what you've been told by oil company shills.
The issue of us having all this oil to be independent I addressed in another comment. We don't get any of it. Many other countries either nationalize their natural resources or at least get a good percentage of the profits and money from leasing rights. We give away land and take virtually none of the profit from our resources, all because the oil companies have bathed the politicians in lobbyist money.
Why not nationalize domestic oil drilling? Or does that conflict with your free-market-as-God philosophy, RINO?
Yet again, the cons have positioned themselves square in the middle of two mutually exclusive talking points: "drill here, drill now" and "free market rules!"
Really, what is happening is that they are yet again being easily manipulated by corporate interests into pushing a policy that harms the country.
"But we have to go with the main source of energy that we have RIGHT NOW, because these new forms of alternative energy are at least 20 years away."
Funny, because the Department of Energy says that the benefits of new drilling wouldn't be felt until 22 years from now. The drilling that you're so desperate for will have zero immediate effect.
I suppose you're going to back that up with some actual sources? Newsbusters.org, no doubt.
According to the Department of Energy, "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic and Eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
Here's the link to the report: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
If you want to believe the government, go ahead. But I'd rather believe private citizens who actually know something about it. This also deals with the new technology in the oil business today:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/34982
Currently mired in red tape, Chevron's Destin Dome field off Florida could produce within four years. Southern California deposits could yield within five to 10 years. Besides, as Confucius said: "The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now."
You do realize you are posting an opinion piece, not a news article, right?
And about that Destin Dome, the bureaaucratic limbo it's been sitting in started under Bush I ran through Clinton and when Chevron sued under Bush 2 his people fought it and proposed buying it back from them and shutting it down. Tell us all again how this is the fault of Gore and the hippies, I love that story.
Um, right, but the author's argument is completely fallacious. That's why it matters that it's an opinion piece: it tries to make a subjective argument, not just report facts.
I've already mentioned that the author laughably argues that the curvature of the Earth should offer us solace about potential oil disasters since we in the U.S. won't be able to see offshore spills over the horizon. That's really logical. Like, really logical. Please, by all means, try to defend that. Just give me a moment to pop some popcorn and put up my feet.
Meanwhile, the fact-based opinion piece argues to which you've tied your argument claims that since 1980, human oil extraction has only leaked 0.001 percent as much oil into the environment as nature has oozed into the environment. To quote the author:
"U.S. offshore oil drilling is not perfectly tidy. It's only 99.999 percent clean. Indeed, since 1980 -- as MMS figures indicate -- 101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore. This is a 0.001 percent pollution rate. While offshore drilling is not 100.00 percent spotless, this record should satisfy all but the terminally fastidious."
And that's a fundamentally flawed argument, because it cleverly attempts to characterize pollution as something that nature can do to itself. In fact, by definition, human beings are responsible for 100% of pollution caused by human oil extraction -- which is quite a bit more than 0.001%. Calling the amount of oil released naturally "pollution" is plainly disingenuous.
Here's why: 50mg of cyanide is fatal for an adult human. So for a 150lb man, that's 7.34X10^-7 body mass. That's much, much, much less than 0.001% (1X10^-5).
Pollution is, by definition, human intervention into a natural system. The author of your article tries to argue that nature pollutes itself, which is a plain contradiction in terms. The author of the article you cite argues that human oil pollution can't possibly be influential because it constitutes only a 0.001% change in levels of leaked petroleum over what nature naturally leaks... but as I've shown, that additional percentage is more than 100 times a fatal increase in other natural systems.
Rino, the opinion piece you cited as your defense was badly flawed. Please tell me that your own opinions are better reasoned than that.
"Ironically, in terms of oil contamination, Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man. Some 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America's ocean floors each year. Compare this to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998, according to MMS."
So, the author is arguing that man is only responsible for a teeny weensy little fraction of the total annual oil spilled: 6,555 out of 627,055 total barrels... or 1.045%.
Now the part of my late-night post that I stand by is that 1% can be an extremely significant shift in biological systems, and far smaller amounts can be fatal in some. Furthermore, the author's comparison of the amount of oil the oozes naturally on the ocean floor to the amount that oil companies have spilled in general and on the surface is so completely inappropriate as to be nearly meaningless.
"If you want to believe the government, go ahead."
The study was done by a non-partisan group within the Department of Energy. Are you trying to claim that they're somehow biased? You may recall that this is the administration that wants to drill. Or maybe you're trying to imply that your right-wing opinion piece is somehow more reliable than the non-partisan study that uses actual facts and stuff?
Wow, it's like you're channeling the wisdom of OxyBreath. Nobody said we shouldn't be using oil or transporting it or anything like that because of what happened with those ducks. What is being said is that there are potential damages that can be caused by using fossil fuels and that we need to be aware of and attempt to minimize those damages.
Rush says "Look, no harm, everything's cool. Silly liberals."
Silly liberals say "We have pictures of the harm, we have proof of the damage."
Rushfan says "See those silly liberals hate oil and love ducks more than people."
Really effing productive.
How close to your home is too close for one of these my cackling RINO?
Drilling rig
Hey, Pit, I got them all over my neighborhood.
This one I see going to work and back every day. kinda purty at night, though.
I used to visit your fair 'hood. But got beat up by surf punks once to often. The globs of tar stuck in my hair after "going over the falls" turned me off also.
A few years ago I chaperoned a HS band trip to Disleyland, we drove all night from Colorado, and got to the pier just after dawn. The air was nice, maybe the wind was blowing the refinery smell inland that day, but I was shocked at how murky the water was. When I moved to Orange in '63, the water was relatively clear, you could see the bottom in 20 foot depths, now, not so much, maybe 4 feet.
DETOUR:OFF TOPIC (everybody but Pithaughn ignore)
lol. Pit, yeah, the surf rats are a bunch of A-holes.As much as they've tried to gentrify downtown HB ( I miss the old version, I'll take the winos and junkies over the fat loud tourists anyday), the ground-zero area around the pier is still a wanker-magnet.
I'm an old guy, not to mention a badass mofo, so I don't get much trouble, but I don't get into the water around the pier much.I just can't take the idiots.
We had a skinhead invasion several years ago, probably because the pussies felt safe with the mostly white population around here, but I think they've all moved out to Riverside.
I surf with the old guys at Dog Beach Cliffs, north of the stoopid zone.
It would have to be record setting producer then! But call Encana, or BP, maybe you could lease to them for a few dollars per year, just like the BLM does with federal land. Your willingness to lose the total value of your poperty and take on the enviromental liability is very patriotic, but short sighted.
If you really want to help, spread the word that the product of US refining is being exported at the rate of " A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department."
CNBC
Shale is not viable with current technology either economically or environmentally. It doesn't count into the equation until more progress has been made on it. If it can be done eventually without creating the toxic damage that it does and costing vastly more than standard drilling, it may be worth trying and it is worth continuing to pursue. But why not also keep trying to find viable alternatives at the same time?
Oil doesn't have feelings, it won't get depressed and cry if you see other energy sources, it won't spend the night ripping pictures of you with it in half and then call all your friends to find out who you dumped it for, oil won't do anything at all if you find something cleaner and cheaper, it will just sit around and continue to be oil.
"But why not also keep trying to find viable alternatives at the same time?"
We certainly should. I'm all for that. We should drill for more oil AND develop alternatives. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And oil shale can be used to produce jet fuel and diesel fuel. And with new technological advancement it may be possible to convert it into gasoline as well.
No, we should not drill for more oil, and speed up the rate at which we're using up a finite resource.
That's stupid. We should do everything we can to decrease the desire, and should do nothing to increase the rate at which we use that finite resource. It is never a good idea to try to use up a finite resource as quickly as one can. Even if it might save some money today (which experts say it won't!) or even if it might save some money in decades (which experts say it won't!) or even if it might make gullible Americans feel better and think they'll save more at the pump (it will make many feel better, but it won't help them save), we shouldn't do it.
Warning: The following fact can be perceived as a right-wing propaganda. Read at your own risk.
Sean Hannity came up with that long before Paris Hilton did. And he's done some things he could personally do to back that up.
We have enough oil in just THIS country for us to be entirely energy independent for 50 years
Since "we" pretty much give away the oil beneath our land to the oil companies when they are given lease for next to nothing, "we" do not have any oil to become energy independent. The only way your statement would even begin to be partially true would be if "we" changed the laws so that the oil being pumped out of our ground goes to "us" and not onto the world market. Are you in favor of nationalizing our natural resources or at a minimum forcing oil companies to sell to "us" at a priority before the world market?
So why aren't you on these threads pushing that policy? We already suck out quite a bit of oil from American land, so if we implemented that policy with just the current drilling operations, we would be far along towards energy independence. I find it odd that you would want to open up more drilling sites for oil to leave here and go on the world market and then, as an afterthought, consider giving priority to American purchase of our own resources.
It's almost as if you are blindly following people who don't have the best interest of the American people at heart by parroting their transparent propaganda.
You're missing my point (intentionally?) You agreed that it would be a good idea to at least give priority buying power to the US for oil coming out of US land. My point is that allowing oil companies to drill in the US and put the oil on the world market makes us no closer to energy independence than if they drilled in Canada or Brazil and put it on the world market
If your goal truly is energy independence, than why are you championing a proposal that does nothing for that and only lines the pockets of energy companies at the expense of the US. To say that we should drill first and then consider some sort of US priority for US oil is backwards.
but Americans should be given top priority.
The Democrats proposed just that - keeping all oil from new drilling in the domestic market. Guess who shot it down? Could it be the right-wingers who have big oil has in their collective back pocket?
Telling the oil companies that they have to give the USA 1st priority is pretty meaningless, unless the USA is going to set the price as well.
If the oil companies are allowed to sell at world market prices the effect to this country will be illusory. Paying $140 a barrel to a US corp instead of a Saudi corp still results n the same amount of oil being produced at the same price.
IF you think you can get the oil companies, and the politicians they 'work with' to let something like that pass, get back to us.
Oil is a finite resource. So is coal. So are copper and zinc. We're really, really low on copper and zinc.
We should not race to use up our finite resources as quickly as we can.
Oil is a finite resource and we should not race to use up that finite resource as quickly as possible. It solves nothing. It doesn't bring us lower prices today or in the future, and it does nothing to speed the alternatives coming to market.
It's so clear that you can't combat this argument, and so humorous to those watching you sink in the quicksand, that I hope you never stop. Or at least not for a couple of election cycles. I want you guys to fail miserably so that the sane conservatives can take over in another decade and help make our nation strong again, instead of degrading our nation with these unAmerican traits like you've been doing. I am a proud American but you should be ashamed. The bad thing is, you're immune from being ashamed, so we have to allow you to be pushed off the stage by the real conservative base, and because of their ideology, they don't let go of national leader hero worship very easily, so they need to be very disgruntled. You're helping that effort!
What? Don't you remember all those polar bears and fur seals out there with their rolls of Brawny, wiping off the rocks? Remember who the otters formed a giant circle in the ocean and escorted the slick into a containment area, where the whales collected it and took it to the bottom of the ocean and put it in Davy Jones Hazmat locker?
How quickly we forget...
Rino, I don't think it's in your best interest to be marginalizing the importance of lower life forms.
Oh, yeah...
sooooooo much !!!
Rino Hunter......
America IS NOT the only country on this Earth!
We are not the entire popluation of this planet either! We are less than 5.5% of it
Yet, we use more than 25% of the oil.....
This is not about just saving ducks you jackass, this is about saving the planet as a whole! It would serve you and all the other rightwing tools and deniers of global warming to stop thinking that its all only about America!
It is not! We could cut our oil dependency in less than 10 years by way more than half if we went solar, wind, and geothermal, and yes.... properly inflated our tires and has tune ups as needed! And be seen as true leaders of democracy, instead of self-righteous losers by the rest of the world!
But no.... clowns like you and DAWUSS and Rush and basically all rightwing knuckleheads that believe in that great American fantasy for little foolish boys in mens bodies called: American Exceptionalism
Grow up and smell reality! It's boneheads like you and Rush that are helping to ruin this planet by denying reality..... I for one would like, upon my deathbed, to know that the kids I brought to this world have a cleaner planet than the one I was brought into!
I just don't see rightwing ideology helping much in that!
"We could cut our oil dependency in less than 10 years by way more than half if we went solar, wind, and geothermal"
Again, I have no problem with that at all. Those things are all great. My point is that we shouldn't pick and choose energy sources. We should pursue ALL OF THEM. That's why the Democrats are getting hurt so bad on the energy issue. Most people want a comprehensive energy plan that incudes conservation, drilling, and alternative energy. That's what Republicans want. The Dems just want conservation, alternative energy, and of course inflating your tires. That's not good enough. We need EVERYTHING!
Why does Rush hate so much? Consider the black heart and souless entity that spews this condesending mush ;
"What they will not tell you is if you go up there today, you won't find any evidence of it other than the stupid memorials that human beings -- this is where oil was on the rock, this is where the otter got eaten by the shark, we threw it back in there -- the sea lion, whatever, ate the otter."
"stupid memorials" there are hundreds of people who were displaced by this avoidable act of corporate greed, who were descended from families that had lived there for generations, people, human beings, who will never be able to go back.
It's not so much that liberals hate oil as that we aren't in love with it to the extent that the wingnuts are. Nobody is seriously arguing for us to regress to pre-industrial times, what is being asked for is that we concentrate on finding the next step.
Oil is going to continue to increase in price both economically and environmentally. At the same time through research and development we can find the next source of energy and perfect ways to make it cheaper and cleaner than what we have now.
Just maybe if the idiot patrol and airbag brigade members would stop mocking the concepts of conservation and alternative energy we could get something done besides trying the same things over and over again and finding ourselves unprepared when crisis happens.
"Just maybe if the idiot patrol and airbag brigade members would stop mocking the concepts of conservation and alternative energy we could get something done besides trying the same things over and over again and finding ourselves unprepared when crisis happens." -MOONBATYOUBET
Well, that just about sums up the problem, now doesn't it?
You know what I love most about conservatives? How much they love cherry picking what's true and what's false from the Bush administration.
Bush administration: off-shore drilling won't produce any oil for a long period of time and will have no significant effect on gas prices.
Conservatives: That is laughable! That is a beauracracy wasting your tax dollars!
Bush administration: Saddam Hussein is funneling money and nuclear weapons to al Qaeda. We have proof that Osama bin Laden has brunch at Saddam's palace at least three times a week. They play golf twice a week.
Conservatives: Quick, Daddy Bush...take our tax dollars and go squash this new Axis of Evil!
It's an opinion piece that is based on facts. These are all facts that the author provided:
"The Santa Barbara spill accelerated oil companies' efforts to prevent such disasters. Beyond compliance with 17 major permits and 90 different federal regulations, offshore operators frequently conduct accident training and safety exercises. Sensors and other instruments now help platform personnel monitor and handle temperatures and pressures of subsea oil, even as drill bits whirl.
Hurricanes are manageable, since oil lines are capped not at the surface, but at or beneath the ocean floor. Even if oil platforms snapped loose and blew away, industrial seals restrain potentially destructive petroleum hundreds or even thousands of feet below the waves. Thus, 3,050 offshore structures endured Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September 2005 without environmentally damaging petroleum spills. While 168 platforms and 55 rigs were destroyed or seriously damaged, the oil they pumped remained safely entombed, thanks to heavy underwater machinery."
It's a commentary piece from a biased source that you didn't identify as such. You provided it as a source, and commentary is not a source.
Secondly, the fact that a commentary piece might contact some facts doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion piece. It also doesn't change the fact that the crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorists also have facts in their commentary pieces.
You're a sad sack of crapola and that's all you can spew I guess.
Sue,
Your anger is quite frightening. I can send you an anger management book in the mail if you wish. Until then, you should go back and look at the posts on this thread again. Nowhere did I state that I provided an unbiased source, or that there wasn't any opinion in it at all. You attempted to refute an argument that I never made.
So you think that your admittedly biased source is more reliable than my unbiased source? That just tells us that you're willing to overlook facts in order to push your agenda.
"Your anger is quite frightening."
Are you scared of the people on your tv too? If you're that afraid, you can always put out a restraining order on your computer. It would probably be best for everyone if your keyboard wasn't allowed within 500 yards of you.
Har! I posted to Bottleblonde earlier that I was jealous of her. What's with these punk-ass pussy Republicans being "frightened" by somebody calmly responding to their comments?
It's usually the same wingnuts using CAPS and exclamation points and "commie" and "terrorist" that are accusing the rational posters of being "scary", "unhinged" and "angry".
Is it the shelter of mom's basement' or the shelter of am radio/Fox News (with its lack of opposing views) that makes the truth so shocking and scary to the dittoheads?
A lot of liberals have indeed become very unhinged and angry. Maybe you all will be more happy and a little less angry once Bush leaves office. But then again, if McCain becomes President I wouldn't be surprised if Sue and the others simply become even more angry.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sue and the others simply become even more angry
Gramps has about a 10% chance of winning, IMO, only because the ignorant masses voted in a known war criminal in 2004. I won't be more angry, just more depressed
The race is tied right now, so how do you figure there's only a 10% chance?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
It was my opinion. You know what those are. And it's based on this fact:
Poll responders have land line phones. Older people tend to have land-line phones. Older people tend to vote Republican and older people likely will be more receptive to one of their own as president. Therefore, I dismiss these polls.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sue and the others simply become even more angry
Gramps has about a 10% chance of winning, IMO, only because the ignorant masses voted in a known war criminal in 2004. I won't be more angry, just more depressed
thatYour fear is what might be frightening. Scared people do irrational things.
My anger? I said "You're a sad sack of crapola and that's all you can spew I guess."
You've been spewing crap on this thread since yesterday evening. I wasn't angry at all! The fact that I make you angry doesn't mean that I am angry!
But you're stymied and confused and angry, that's for sure. Since you've having anger issues, you go ahead and keep that anger management book for yourself. I'm just fine.
I'm not Sue. Clearly she pissed you off in the past, and I've pissed you off, but that doesn't make me her, and has nothing to do with the way I've demolished every argument you've made. If you can't fight on the facts, attack the person, right? For those on the right, that's their method. It's not mine. I don't care who would have said what you've said. It's all been nonsense.
I didn't get angry. You got confused and frustrated because your talking points were being demolished. If you want to point a finger at an angry person, get a mirror.
I didn't get angry because you disagreed with me. I didn't simply disagree with you though. If two people with different philosophies are arguing, both using facts to have that debate, that's one thing. You're not arguing using facts though. For example, commentary pieces are not sources that one can use when having a debate - like I gave as an example, 9/11 conspiracy theorists use facts all the time in their commentary pieces, but they're still dead wrong. Your use of those opinion pieces doesn't bolster your argument, but instead make it weaker by half! I have no need to get angry with people of different philosophies. Media Matters is not about rejecting conservativism. It's about rejecting conservative misinformation. It's about deceitfully forwarding the conservative agenda. It's not about thoughtfully and factually forwarding the conservative agenda! There's a big difference there that rightie posters here either don't get or continue to lie about.
It's not about rejecting different opinions for me. Maybe for you, it is, Rino. Maybe you need to hold that mirror in front of your face 24/7 so you see who exactly you're pointing to at all times.
Oh, and claiming that I'm a banned poster, when your argument is totally debunked, isn't calling someone a name?
Do you really think you're fooling anyone with that crapola?
Since when are personal attacks not name calling? Since when is it a good thing to be a banned poster? Criminy, the lengths you'll go to in an effort to demean another person, and then you deny it? Laughable.
You tag teaming with science on this issue Rino? Last time it was he who seemed to take up half the thread on oil. This time your up um?
Trust me, with a McLoon presidency we'd be considered moderate comenters on the spectical of the continued trashing of our counrty and institutions.
We'll see if the media can deliver another one for the neocons.