Environmental Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Shell

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

22 posts / 0 new

Environmental Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Shell Oil’s Risky and Reckless Arctic Drilling Plan

Agency gave Shell the stamp of approval to drill in fragile Arctic Ocean, despite threats

Interior unlawfully approved Shell’s problem-riddled Arctic drilling plan. In doing this, it has failed the communities and wildlife of this region.
Erik Grafe
Staff Attorney, Earthjustice

http://earthjustice.org/…/environmental-groups-file-lawsuit…
June 2, 2015
Anchorage, AK —

An alliance of environmental and Alaska-based community groups are challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of Shell’s oil exploration plan for drilling this summer in the Chukchi Sea.

Earthjustice filed a lawsuit today in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Pacific Environment, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL), Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society to challenge approval of Shell’s exploration plan. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management greenlighted Shell’s plan in May, paving the way for the oil giant to drill in the Arctic Ocean’s Chukchi Sea starting as soon as July.

See also

the 52 page review from the Department of the Interior, Secretary Salazar, 2013
Review of Shell’s 2012 Alaska Offshore Exploration Program, Report to the Department of the Interior, March 8, 2013, 52pp

http://www.doi.gov/…/p…/upload/Shell-report-3-8-13-Final.pdf

and from earthjustice.org

http://earthjustice.org/…/challenging-shell-oil-s-arctic-ch…

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

I would be unqualified to make any determination about what is right here. All I know is that if somebody is wronged, then they should file a lawsuit.

Maine's picture
Maine
Joined:
Jul. 8, 2015 3:26 pm
Quote Maine:

I would be unqualified to make any determination about what is right here. All I know is that if somebody is wronged, then they should file a lawsuit.

Agreed, most persons posting here do not have the background to make an informed comment on this subject, and that includes me. For all you who object to drilling in the Arctic, just realize one thing. The world goes through 80 million barrells of oil a day. That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

Agreed, most persons posting here do not have the background to make an informed comment on this subject

What methodology have you used to verify this claim? Whose backgrounds have you personally checked?

Quote Mauiman2:

For all you who object to drilling in the Arctic, just realize one thing. The world goes through 80 million barrells of oil a day. That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

The very idea that humans actually can devise another way to live than through this massive use of primarily fossil fuel-based energy to maintain industrial civilization is actually a conceivable option.

The idea that changing to a more sustainable, lower energy way of life will mean we do not need to make up lost production is also part of that conception. These ideas are already out there and being considered by some people. I can cite many who have gone about conceiving it, as well as envisioning a number of possible scenarios as to how it could play out. As to whether seven point something billion humans can collectively muster the will to change, well, that's another question.

There are also plenty of extremely dark scenarios as to how things will play out for all of us, including the other species on this planet, if we do not make that change.

From the documentary, Merchants of Doubt, we find that various corporate-funded, energy corporation-related think tanks have come up with three basic arguments regarding what to do about climate change. At about 54 minutes, Mathew Crawford, who was an Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute for about six months before he realized he couldn't go along with their ideologue-oriented program, tells us these are the three basic arguments:

1. The earth is not warming

2. The earth is warming but it is not due to human activities.

3. The earth is warming, it's due to human activities, but the cost of doing anything to curtail it is too great for society to bear.

Your above somewhat narrow constriction of options for humanity tends to fall in the latter category.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren:
Quote Mauiman2:

Agreed, most persons posting here do not have the background to make an informed comment on this subject

What methodology have you used to verify this claim? Whose backgrounds have you personally checked?

Quote Mauiman2:

For all you who object to drilling in the Arctic, just realize one thing. The world goes through 80 million barrells of oil a day. That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

The very idea that humans actually can devise another way to live than through this massive use of primarily fossil fuel-based energy to maintain industrial civilization is actually a conceivable option.

The idea that changing to a more sustainable, lower energy way of life will mean we do not need to make up lost production is also part of that conception. These ideas are already out there and being considered by some people. I can cite many who have gone about conceiving it, as well as envisioning a number of possible scenarios as to how it could play out. As to whether seven point something billion humans can collectively muster the will to change, well, that's another question.

There are also plenty of extremely dark scenarios as to how things will play out for all of us, including the other species on this planet, if we do not make that change.

From the documentary, Merchants of Doubt, we find that various corporate-funded, energy corporation-related think tanks have come up with three basic arguments regarding what to do about climate change. At about 54 minutes, Mathew Crawford, who was an Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute for about six months before he realized he couldn't go along with their ideologue-oriented program, tells us these are the three basic arguments:

1. The earth is not warming

2. The earth is warming but it is not due to human activities.

3. The earth is warming, it's due to human activities, but the cost of doing anything to curtail it is too great for society to bear.

Your above somewhat narrow constriction of options for humanity tends to fall in the latter category.

How about option 4. The earth is warming, humans have something to do with it but not everything to do about it. At times there are circumstances where the earth will cool down or heat up no matter what man does (look at history). There are forces out there heating the earth up right now that we don't understand and can't do anything about. And perhaps all this effort we are putting into reducing CO2 won't do anything but raise the price or our electricity and slow down the world's economy. As one EPA official recently testified before Congress, all this effort will do is reduce the global temperature 0.01 degrees C. Too small to even measure.

I am not going to say that I know the above option is correct, but I haven't seen anything to prove it wrong either.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

How about option 4. The earth is warming, humans have something to do with it but not everything to do about it. At times there are circumstances where the earth will cool down or heat up no matter what man does (look at history). There are forces out there heating the earth up right now that we don't understand and can't do anything about. And perhaps all this effort we are putting into reducing CO2 won't do anything but raise the price or our electricity and slow down the world's economy. As one EPA official recently testified before Congress, all this effort will do is reduce the global temperature 0.01 degrees C. Too small to even measure.

I am not going to say that I know the above option is correct, but I haven't seen anything to prove it wrong either.

That's another version of 2 adding a little more of the 3 responsibility aspect.

Which then leaves you room to say:

Quote Mauiman2:

That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

Which is a version position 3. So you are mixing 2 and 3 is all and calling it 4.

Here's what a former Congressman from the reddest district who was previously a global warming denialist had to say after he was put on the science committee and went to Antarctica and talked to the scientists who were doing the ice core work there, and actually looked at the measurements and what the science has to say about the direct correlation with global warming and the industrial revolution. I transcribed this from the documentary by Bob Kenner, Merchants of Doubt:

Quote Merchants of Doubt:

Viewer/watcher/listener/questioner (VWLQ): Should I think of you as a liberal, a conservative, or....?

Bob Inglis 6 Term Congressman: Pretty Conservative is how you should think of me. Ninety Three American Conservative Rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, National Right to Life.

I represented the 4th District of South Carolina, which is probably the reddest district in the reddest state in the nation.

When I was first in Congress I was a complete denier. I said, “That's hooey, absolute nonsense. Al Gore's imagination.” I hadn't really thought about it, I just knew that if it was coming from the other team, it had to be wrong. I got on the science committee and had the opportunity to go to Antarctica twice, actually. I saw the evidence in the ice core. You can pull it up and examine the CO2 levels. They were really stable. And then coinciding with the industrial revolution, there's an uptick. The chemistry is real clear, that you'rr changing the chemistry of the air. So I decided, really right there, I'm gonna go back and I'm gonna do something.

(Cut to scene of Bob Inglis speaking in Congress.)

Bob Inglis continues talking to VWLQ: Of course that was to my great peril with the tea party coming on and the great recession happening. (Amidst a background screen of Tim Phillips, President of Amerians for Prosperity, shouting to the protesters Bob continues:) There's a tide of doubt that comes out of the Great Recession where we started to doubt every institution, you know. And along comes some people that see the opportunity. Americans for Prosperity has been amazingly effective. They're able to organize that discontent.

(Cut to a scene with Tim Phillips speaking into a microphone saying: “In the name of Al Gorism... And by the way, can we just talk about Al Gore for a moment? Loud boos, Loud No's, a shot of a protester's back with a T'shirt that says “Global Warming My and a large red arrow below the lettering pointing downwards at his ass. Tim Phillips laughs at the response. He' seems as if he expected that reaction.)

VWLQ questioning that Tim Phillips in a car: If you see Republicans becoming sympathetic to carbon tax, do you view it as your job to knock those guys out?

Tim Phillips: Well, we hold both parties accountable.

(A series of scenes showing the "let's do something about climate change" attitudes of well known republicans (New Gingrich, John McCain, John Boehner, Romney) early in the 2008 election campaign.)

Tim Phillips continues: I remember in the mid 2000s, so many Republicans, they had a lot of the same tenets of faith that Democrats still many have today. Those days are over. Few Republicans play that game anymore and a lot of Democrats have bailed out too.

Bob Inglis: You have Newt Gingrich at the beginning of '08 on the couch with Nancy Pelosi (repeat th scene with them saying climate change is real and we need to do something about it) And by the End of 2008 (Gingrich in an inteview with Bill O'Reilly saying “I don't think we know.” Similar scenes with McCain, Boehner and Romney. Then a shot of a room full of people, apparently at a campaign rally, shouting at Bob Inglis to shut up and sit down.)

VWLQ to Bob Inglis: What happened in your election?”

Bob Inglis: Well, it wasn't even close.

(Television news room scene: One reporter: "Bob Inglis ran into a buzz saw of voter frustration with incumbents. Inglis lost every county in the district. He is a seasoned congressman going down to a huge defeat tonight." Reporters are replaced with a screen showing election results: Trey Gowdy with 71% and Bob Inglis with 29%.)

(2 years after defeat Bob is still carrying out the pledge he made while on the science committee visiting Antarctica, that is, to come back and do something. He's shown driving on his way to a talk show interview, apparently in Mississippi.)

Bob Inglis' assistant in the back seat: Did Price brief you on the climate views of this radio show?

Bob Inglis: No.

Assistant: All right, well, we better find that out, huh?

Bob Inglis: We can turn on the radio, see what he's saying.

(Bob reaches over and tunes in radio, we hear a male country singer singing “everyone knows this country is being flushed right down the drain, the ___?__ and liberals is where I place most the blame...” As the song fades to the background, Bob continues...)

We're after --- The target audience is red-state Republicans. And so I think we found some in Mississippi.

(radio announcer in the background: “From SuperTalk Mississippi”)

Eight-o-two. We go on at 8:06.

(Shot, we are outside the car now, of Inglis's car pulling into the studio's parking lot with a radio announcer introducing the next talk show host: “Paul Gallo, a shining example of the Fairness Doctrine as it should be.” Now Inglis running to the studio while Gallo can be heard, sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh, saying: “You think polar bears are in trouble? No, they're not in trouble. In some cases we've got more polar bears than we've ever had. We got polar-bear problems out there in some cases.)

Now the studio Interview begins, Bob's got his headphones on and he's seated across from Paul Gallo:

Paul Gallo: Former South Carolina GOP Representative Bob Inglis is urging conservatives to stop denying humans are contributing to global warming. (Talking to Bob now) I don't understand. How do you come up with this? Because to me, every fiber in my body is saying you're a conservative. You can't believe this, that conservatives---? You're asking me, as a dyed-in-the-wool native-born Mississippian, will die here and blessed to do so, to believe that humans are responsible for global warming, and we must admit that? Mic's yours sir.

Bob Inglis: The challenge here is it's a conversation started by liberals, right? And what we're used to, as conservatives, is they gin up the hysteria, and then they drive through regulations and tax increases and grow government. Right? And so it's natural that we respond with, “No, we don't wanna do that.” But what if we had a different conversation? It's all about economics. You're taxing something you want more of, which is income, and you're not taxing something yo maybe want less of, which is CO2.

Paul Gallo: Why do we need to be talking about the global-warming tax again?

Bob Inglis: Because if you believe in taking care of this part of Eden that's left, and if you believe in creation care...

Paul Gallo: Now you're confusing me. Because now you're saying you do believe that we, as humans, are creating global warming. We are part-and-parcel responsible.

Bob Inglis: Yes.

Paul Gallo (speaking emphatically): I don't believe that humans are creating this, because – and neither do, apparently, the vast majority of climatologists out there.

Bob Inglis: I was tracking with you until that last part. You are wrong on that last part.

Paul Gallo: Listen, uh... Good luck to you. It was good meeting you.

Bob Inglis (as he's taking his head phones off): Good to talk with you.

Paul Gallo (moving on): Ok, Lots to do...Final two segments coming up next.

(As Bob and his assistant are getting in their car after leaving the studio)

Assistant: It's a battleship, Bob. Takes awhile to turn it around.

Bob Inglis. That's right.

(Now we're driving down a freeway; we're in the back seat looking between Bob and his Assistant at the road and all the traffic coming at us through windshield...)

Bob Inglis speaking thoughtfully: I mean, it's not just a head thing. This is very much a heart issue. It's not the science that's affecting us. I mean, the science is pretty clear. It's something else that's causing this rejection.

(Now we are seeing various scenes, an overview of crowded freeways panning to a distant city, football stadium, cheerleaders doing acrobats for the crowd, a suburban home lit up with Christmas lights, all as Bob is speaking...)

Many conservatives, I think, see action on climate change as really an attack on a way of life. The reason that we need the science to be wrong is otherwise we realize that we need to change. That's really a hard pill to swallow... that the whole way I've created my life is wrong, you're saying? That I shouldn't have this house in the suburb? I shouldn't be driving this car that I take my kids to soccer? And you're not gonna tell me to live the way that you want me to live. And along comes some people sowing some doubt, and uh it's pretty effective because I'm looking for that answer. I want it to be that the science is not real.

Kenner also gives Bob Inglis the last spoken words of the documentary:

Bob Inglis: You don't have to accept things the way they are. There are things we can do to change. The lie is that we can't do it, that we can't innovate. We gotta keep relying on petroleum, coal, we gotta have just those things.

Why?

To be in this situation where fossil fuels are imperiling our future and future generations and we're not accountable for that... That really becomes a moral problem.

We're leaving our children and grandchildren a legacy of people who failed to lead. People who, when it came their time to be awakened, they slept. We didn't have enough faith in the future that could be brought about so we just gave up. We couldn't rise to higher things.

I don't wanna be a part of that. I wanna be part of saying: "No, we did rise to it. You bet we did."

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren:
Quote Mauiman2:

How about option 4. The earth is warming, humans have something to do with it but not everything to do about it. At times there are circumstances where the earth will cool down or heat up no matter what man does (look at history). There are forces out there heating the earth up right now that we don't understand and can't do anything about. And perhaps all this effort we are putting into reducing CO2 won't do anything but raise the price or our electricity and slow down the world's economy. As one EPA official recently testified before Congress, all this effort will do is reduce the global temperature 0.01 degrees C. Too small to even measure.

I am not going to say that I know the above option is correct, but I haven't seen anything to prove it wrong either.

That's another version of 2 adding a little more of the 3 responsibility aspect.

Which then leaves you room to say:

Quote Mauiman2:

That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

Which is a version position 3. So you are mixing 2 and 3 is all and calling it 4.

Here's what a former Congressman from the reddest district who was previously a global warming denialist had to say after he was put on the science committee and went to Antarctica and talked to the scientists who were doing the ice core work there, and actually looked at the measurements and what the science has to say about the direct correlation with global warming and the industrial revolution. I transcribed this from the documentary by Bob Kenner, Merchants of Doubt:

Quote Merchants of Doubt:

Viewer/watcher/listener/questioner (VWLQ): Should I think of you as a liberal, a conservative, or....?

Bob Inglis 6 Term Congressman: Pretty Conservative is how you should think of me. Ninety Three American Conservative Rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, National Right to Life.

I represented the 4th District of South Carolina, which is probably the reddest district in the reddest state in the nation.

When I was first in Congress I was a complete denier. I said, “That's hooey, absolute nonsense. Al Gore's imagination.” I hadn't really thought about it, I just knew that if it was coming from the other team, it had to be wrong. I got on the science committee and had the opportunity to go to Antarctica twice, actually. I saw the evidence in the ice core. You can pull it up and examine the CO2 levels. They were really stable. And then coinciding with the industrial revolution, there's an uptick. The chemistry is real clear, that you'rr changing the chemistry of the air. So I decided, really right there, I'm gonna go back and I'm gonna do something.

(Cut to scene of Bob Inglis speaking in Congress.)

Bob Inglis continues talking to VWLQ: Of course that was to my great peril with the tea party coming on and the great recession happening. (Amidst a background screen of Tim Phillips, President of Amerians for Prosperity, shouting to the protesters Bob continues:) There's a tide of doubt that comes out of the Great Recession where we started to doubt every institution, you know. And along comes some people that see the opportunity. Americans for Prosperity has been amazingly effective. They're able to organize that discontent.

(Cut to a scene with Tim Phillips speaking into a microphone saying: “In the name of Al Gorism... And by the way, can we just talk about Al Gore for a moment? Loud boos, Loud No's, a shot of a protester's back with a T'shirt that says “Global Warming My and a large red arrow below the lettering pointing downwards at his ass. Tim Phillips laughs at the response. He' seems as if he expected that reaction.)

VWLQ questioning that Tim Phillips in a car: If you see Republicans becoming sympathetic to carbon tax, do you view it as your job to knock those guys out?

Tim Phillips: Well, we hold both parties accountable.

(A series of scenes showing the "let's do something about climate change" attitudes of well known republicans (New Gingrich, John McCain, John Boehner, Romney) early in the 2008 election campaign.)

Tim Phillips continues: I remember in the mid 2000s, so many Republicans, they had a lot of the same tenets of faith that Democrats still many have today. Those days are over. Few Republicans play that game anymore and a lot of Democrats have bailed out too.

Bob Inglis: You have Newt Gingrich at the beginning of '08 on the couch with Nancy Pelosi (repeat th scene with them saying climate change is real and we need to do something about it) And by the End of 2008 (Gingrich in an inteview with Bill O'Reilly saying “I don't think we know.” Similar scenes with McCain, Boehner and Romney. Then a shot of a room full of people, apparently at a campaign rally, shouting at Bob Inglis to shut up and sit down.)

VWLQ to Bob Inglis: What happened in your election?”

Bob Inglis: Well, it wasn't even close.

(Television news room scene: One reporter: "Bob Inglis ran into a buzz saw of voter frustration with incumbents. Inglis lost every county in the district. He is a seasoned congressman going down to a huge defeat tonight." Reporters are replaced with a screen showing election results: Trey Gowdy with 71% and Bob Inglis with 29%.)

(2 years after defeat Bob is still carrying out the pledge he made while on the science committee visiting Antarctica, that is, to come back and do something. He's shown driving on his way to a talk show interview, apparently in Mississippi.)

Bob Inglis' assistant in the back seat: Did Price brief you on the climate views of this radio show?

Bob Inglis: No.

Assistant: All right, well, we better find that out, huh?

Bob Inglis: We can turn on the radio, see what he's saying.

(Bob reaches over and tunes in radio, we hear a male country singer singing “everyone knows this country is being flushed right down the drain, the ___?__ and liberals is where I place most the blame...” As the song fades to the background, Bob continues...)

We're after --- The target audience is red-state Republicans. And so I think we found some in Mississippi.

(radio announcer in the background: “From SuperTalk Mississippi”)

Eight-o-two. We go on at 8:06.

(Shot, we are outside the car now, of Inglis's car pulling into the studio's parking lot with a radio announcer introducing the next talk show host: “Paul Gallo, a shining example of the Fairness Doctrine as it should be.” Now Inglis running to the studio while Gallo can be heard, sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh, saying: “You think polar bears are in trouble? No, they're not in trouble. In some cases we've got more polar bears than we've ever had. We got polar-bear problems out there in some cases.)

Now the studio Interview begins, Bob's got his headphones on and he's seated across from Paul Gallo:

Paul Gallo: Former South Carolina GOP Representative Bob Inglis is urging conservatives to stop denying humans are contributing to global warming. (Talking to Bob now) I don't understand. How do you come up with this? Because to me, every fiber in my body is saying you're a conservative. You can't believe this, that conservatives---? You're asking me, as a dyed-in-the-wool native-born Mississippian, will die here and blessed to do so, to believe that humans are responsible for global warming, and we must admit that? Mic's yours sir.

Bob Inglis: The challenge here is it's a conversation started by liberals, right? And what we're used to, as conservatives, is they gin up the hysteria, and then they drive through regulations and tax increases and grow government. Right? And so it's natural that we respond with, “No, we don't wanna do that.” But what if we had a different conversation? It's all about economics. You're taxing something you want more of, which is income, and you're not taxing something yo maybe want less of, which is CO2.

Paul Gallo: Why do we need to be talking about the global-warming tax again?

Bob Inglis: Because if you believe in taking care of this part of Eden that's left, and if you believe in creation care...

Paul Gallo: Now you're confusing me. Because now you're saying you do believe that we, as humans, are creating global warming. We are part-and-parcel responsible.

Bob Inglis: Yes.

Paul Gallo (speaking emphatically): I don't believe that humans are creating this, because – and neither do, apparently, the vast majority of climatologists out there.

Bob Inglis: I was tracking with you until that last part. You are wrong on that last part.

Paul Gallo: Listen, uh... Good luck to you. It was good meeting you.

Bob Inglis (as he's taking his head phones off): Good to talk with you.

Paul Gallo (moving on): Ok, Lots to do...Final two segments coming up next.

(As Bob and his assistant are getting in their car after leaving the studio)

Assistant: It's a battleship, Bob. Takes awhile to turn it around.

Bob Inglis. That's right.

(Now we're driving down a freeway; we're in the back seat looking between Bob and his Assistant at the road and all the traffic coming at us through windshield...)

Bob Inglis speaking thoughtfully: I mean, it's not just a head thing. This is very much a heart issue. It's not the science that's affecting us. I mean, the science is pretty clear. It's something else that's causing this rejection.

(Now we are seeing various scenes, an overview of crowded freeways panning to a distant city, football stadium, cheerleaders doing acrobats for the crowd, a suburban home lit up with Christmas lights, all as Bob is speaking...)

Many conservatives, I think, see action on climate change as really an attack on a way of life. The reason that we need the science to be wrong is otherwise we realize that we need to change. That's really a hard pill to swallow... that the whole way I've created my life is wrong, you're saying? That I shouldn't have this house in the suburb? I shouldn't be driving this car that I take my kids to soccer? And you're not gonna tell me to live the way that you want me to live. And along comes some people sowing some doubt, and uh it's pretty effective because I'm looking for that answer. I want it to be that the science is not real.

Kenner also gives Bob Inglis the last spoken words of the documentary:

Bob Inglis: You don't have to accept things the way they are. There are things we can do to change. The lie is that we can't do it, that we can't innovate. We gotta keep relying on petroleum, coal, we gotta have just those things.

Why?

To be in this situation where fossil fuels are imperiling our future and future generations and we're not accountable for that... That really becomes a moral problem.

We're leaving our children and grandchildren a legacy of people who failed to lead. People who, when it came their time to be awakened, they slept. We didn't have enough faith in the future that could be brought about so we just gave up. We couldn't rise to higher things.

I don't wanna be a part of that. I wanna be part of saying: "No, we did rise to it. You bet we did."

I don't think anone denies that both the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and the temperature is rising. The question is, how much of a cause and effect is there?

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

I don't think anone denies that both the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and the temperature is rising. The question is, how much of a cause and effect is there?

Some do deny that I've discovered.

This was your original point:

Quote Mauiman2:

For all you who object to drilling in the Arctic, just realize one thing. The world goes through 80 million barrells of oil a day. That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

As I suggested, we do have other options besides pumping the oil out of the ground if we want to explore them, and other options besides maintaining the level of production the oil supports. I'm the first to admit it won't be easy to get seven point some odd billion people to do anything different. I have not the slightest desire to try to convince people who don't want to change that they can change how they live if they want to. I merely pointed out you created a false choice dilemma. I don't really care to go beyond that. If most people don't want to find a sustainable way to live on this planet, then most humans won't. That's a simple calculation. If they find out one day they should have and it's too late, well, that's out of my hands.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren:
Quote Mauiman2:

I don't think anone denies that both the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and the temperature is rising. The question is, how much of a cause and effect is there?

Some do deny that I've discovered.

This was your original point:

Quote Mauiman2:

For all you who object to drilling in the Arctic, just realize one thing. The world goes through 80 million barrells of oil a day. That oil has to come from somewhere, or the entire world's economy will shut down. If you don't want to drill in the Arctic, pray tell where else would you drill to keep the oil flowing? Sorry, leave it in the ground is not an option here, unless you can make a suggestion as to where to make up the lost production.

As I suggested, we do have other options besides pumping the oil out of the ground if we want to explore them, and other options besides maintaining the level of production the oil supports. I'm the first to admit it won't be easy to get seven point some odd billion people to do anything different. I have not the slightest desire to try to convince people who don't want to change that they can change how they live if they want to. I merely pointed out you created a false choice dilemma. I don't really care to go beyond that. If most people don't want to find a sustainable way to live on this planet, then most humans won't. That's a simple calculation. If they find out one day they should have and it's too late, well, that's out of my hands.

When it comes to CO2, it is my understanding that coal fired power plants are villian number one. Obviously there are other ways to generate electricity than coal fired power plants, but the electricity from those options are more expensive. The two questions in my mind are:

1. If you shut down all the coal fired power plants would it really make a difference? How much (if any) would it slow down global warming? I'm not sure anyone has the answer to that one.

2. And if the answer is that it would make a significant difference, is humanity willing to spend an extra 25-50% (or so) for their electricity? That would be a serious tax on the global economy, and would really slow it down.

As far as replacing oil goes, it is the internal combustion engine that has allowed the world's population to explode in the last 100 years. Those engines burn gasoline and diesel. Batteries can move a small to mid sized car, but no more, at this point. And Teslas are expensive. Bottom line, the internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere for quite a while. Which means that gasoline and diesel aren't going away anytime soon either.

To back off on drilling, we will have to figure out how to reduce the demand for gasoline and diesel. That simply is not going to happen overnight. The only way I can think to do it is to put a worldwide tax of 50% (or so) on transportation fuels. That would force everyone to figure out how to live with less. However again, that would be a huge tax on the worldwide economy, and really slow it down. I don't see that happening, do you?

Perhaps in the future there will be a battery light enough that can generate enough power to move an 18 wheeler 500 miles or so on a single charge. I've been told that this technology is a long way off, and perhaps impossible. The only other option I have heard is to power our roadways such that you would put your car on the road and get your power from the road itself. I think the technology to do that is there, but you can even imangine the cost of that? And the demand you would put on the power grid would be staggering. And the power would have to come from "green sources", if you set up such a roadway system, and generated the power via coal you have not gained anything environmentally.

Bottom line is that you can replace coal right now, at a cost. Oil is a different story. You cannot eliminate oil right now, and to reduce drilling, you have to reduce demand. That would require everyone on the earth living with significantly less than they have now. I don't see that happening, do you?

So all these protesters, who drive their cars to Oregon to protest Shell drilling in Arctic (creating demand for the Arctic oil they don't want Shell to go after) should be concentrating on ways to reduce oil demand, not trying to stop the drilling that is caused by the demand.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

As I understand it, the biggest culprit is industrial agriculture and the way 7 point some odd billion people collectively are eating.

No doubt managing a shift to lower energy use for the extremely spoiled industrialized nations like ours is fraught with problems. I would never pretend it wasn't. I can imagine that resistance will be insurmountable on some quarters, especially with the help of the powerful corporations who own the media so they can heavily influence national attitudes, and are profiting from this system. The people involved in those systems will not likely be inclined to voluntarily dismantle them.

And yes, the entire economic system is set up so that in order to protest and call for change one is forced to use the system to get around. Pointing that out doesn't involve a great amount of imagination. Pretending it's some kind of cynical or lazy contradiction on the part of those who see that the system needs changing and are trying their best to communicate their concern is to me extremely disingenuous and a distraction from the real problem.

And that real problem is clear to me: we are all stuck in a system that we now have to figure out how to change from the inside in some incremental way if most of the dire scenarios and even more we collectively have not imagined begin to come about. Trade offs must be made. They may not all be smart or the best that could be made, but humans haven't always done the smartest things. Complex civilizations have failed and collapsed repeatedly. In this case, a short term energy cost involved in getting protestors together to make an impact compared to the long term energy costs of drilling in the Arctic and adding more of that buried CO2 to the atmosphere would be one of those trade offs.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Here is an article along these lines. Slightly off topic, the guy is pushing for higher gasoline taxes, on the idea that battery operated cars are the wave of the future, so a gasoline tax will no longer support our roads and bridges at the curent level. Just note that he says the same thing I do, gasoline powered cars may be on their way out, but it will take a while for that to happen.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3473819/Blogs/COLUMN-Should...

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am
Quote .ren:

As I understand it, the biggest culprit is industrial agriculture and the way 7 point some odd billion people collectively are eating.

No doubt managing a shift to lower energy use for the extremely spoiled industrialized nations like ours is fraught with problems. I would never pretend it wasn't. I can imagine that resistance will be insurmountable on some quarters, especially with the help of the powerful corporations who own the media so they can heavily influence national attitudes, and are profiting from this system. The people involved in those systems will not likely be inclined to voluntarily dismantle them.

And yes, the entire economic system is set up so that in order to protest and call for change one is forced to use the system to get around. Pointing that out doesn't involve a great amount of imagination. Pretending it's some kind of cynical or lazy contradiction on the part of those who see that the system needs changing and are trying their best to communicate their concern is to me extremely disingenuous and a distraction from the real problem.

And that real problem is clear to me: we are all stuck in a system that we now have to figure out how to change from the inside in some incremental way if most of the dire scenarios and even more we collectively have not imagined begin to come about. Trade offs must be made. They may not all be smart or the best that could be made, but humans haven't always done the smartest things. Complex civilizations have failed and collapsed repeatedly. In this case, a short term energy cost involved in getting protestors together to make an impact compared to the long term energy costs of drilling in the Arctic and adding more of that buried CO2 to the atmosphere would be one of those trade offs.

Yes, without the internal combustion engine, we simply could not feed 7 billion people on this earth.

So you tell me, what did those protesters in Oregon hope to accomplish by holding up that tanker of Shell's? I will still argue that their time and efforts would be better spent somewhere else, like trying to figure out a way to reduce oil demand so that drilling in the Arctic would not be neccessary.

Bottom line, we Americans love our cars and the freedom it gives us. Have you seen the spike in gasoline demand since the price of gas has dropped from $4.00 to $2.50 a gallon? For the first time in several years, the US refiners had a summer gasoline season this year. Instead of running for max diesel, which has been the case for several years now, they have been running for max gasoline recently. That will change here soon now that summer is almost over, but it shows that market forces are at work here. And artificially pushing up the price by taxes will be EXTREAMLY unpopular. But that is the only way I can see to reduce gasoline consumption here in the US.

High gasoline prices do get people pissed off. Just look at what is going on the California. ExxonMobil, Torrance had a problem and had to shut down. Since California's gasoline requirements are so tight, no out of state refinery can supply gasoline to California. Therefore the price of gasoline in California took off, and to say people got pissed off is an understatement.

Do you think the US population would tolerate a tax of $1.50 a gallon just to reduce oil demand here in the US? I don't see that happening.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

If what's been set in motion by global industrial civilization is destined to result in circumstances that make our way of life impossible, I have little hope that much will be done to stave off collapse. Humans have shown little capacity to overcome their latent inertia when it comes to seeing a need to act, other than under the threat of war.

Just, for instance, this one syndrome is easy enough to see: Normalcy Bias

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

I have an interesting find here........

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 In the Chukchi Sea, Alaska Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F

Just looking at the table of contents made me sick!We won't spill the oil if we don't drill for it.Look at all the crap we go through just to allowan oil company to go and play around with OURenvironment while they carelessly search for amotherload of oil that we all know needs to stayin the ground! I have not had the stomach to read the report yet.I wonder if anyone other than those who wrote it have read it? If they did I wonder WHY they allowed the lease! Link is on the next comment! SORRY I just couldn't get it to work on this comment!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Link to above Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/(eisdocs)/20150036/$file/2015_0127_ls193_final_2nd_seis_vol2.pdf?openelement

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

WHY WON'T THE LINKS TO THIS WORK? ? ? ? i'M SORRY! It's SO FRUSTRATING!!!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

Maybe this one will work???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

For more information on the Oil Pollution Act

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135325610200052X?np=y

I wish I could get that link to work for the EIR!!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

That's amazing, mega oil spill tankers and rigs have a $75M liability cap, which still remains while US Nuclear plants have $13.6B liability insurance prepaid fund, no fault. And Greenpeace whines about Nuclear insurance subsidies.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

That's amazing, mega oil spill tankers and rigs have a $75M liability cap, which still remains while US Nuclear plants have $13.6B liability insurance prepaid fund, no fault. And Greenpeace whines about Nuclear insurance subsidies.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

Chukchi Sea Planning Area
Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193
In the Chukchi Sea, Alaska

Final Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 2. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, and F

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am

Thank you .ren I still haven't mastered chaining links to words.

I guess because the link was so long that's the only way it would post!

It angers me that they know all about oil spills and spend time preparing an Environmental Impact Statement and yet knowing all they know they still award the lease! The oil company and the people preparing it just minimize everything. They make it should like there's no chance in hell that it's going to spill. I disagree. If they drill, they WILL SPILL is more like it!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system