Something that you may not know about oil companies is that they commonly double as moral compasses, explaining to the rest of the world precisely what is right and what is wrong.
For example, I recently learned from Shell that creating biofuels from food crops is "morally inappopriate." Why? Well, according to a Shell executive, it's because there are still people in the world who are starving. Ethanol, biodiesel - all that stuff is so morally inappropriate that I could just shit.
But posting a $9 billion profit in a single quarter while citing the starving poor as a reason not to invest in biofuel technology which is in direct competition with an alternate fuel you've developed? That, my friends, is fucking awesome.
Liberal environmentalists usually take the uneducated position that oil/gas/nuclear bad, hydrogen/ethanol/wind good.
If they did some unbiased investigation, they would find that most "alternative" fuels actually use MORE energy to make than they generate
GiM - yes, but that's already changing and we haven't even started to really engineer the feedstocks.
If you took the additional step of analyzing environmental and health impacts from use of fuels, you'd also learn that their impact on public health is substantially less. Assign costs to those impacts and the advantage shifts solidly to oxygenated fuels like ethanol.
We always consider the environment a freebie and we really need to stop that. Either that or we all better start getting use to asthma inhalers.
TOG- Biofuels will be better for Texas. We've got a lot of farmers who could really use a premium crop.
mcblogger - I take exception to your emotional reference to "inhalers". In fact, America's air quality is actually far better today (thanks to the Clean Air Act) than it used to be - and getting cleaner. In reality, the air in most people?s homes is far worse than that outside.
The fact is, except for its finite supply and the location of reserves, oil and natural gas are still the most efficient and cleanest form of energy known to man. However, as the price goes up for these commodities, other alternatives will come into play - some more efficient and less polluting, others not.
Instead of focusing on the improving pollution problem in America, environmentalists should turn their eye to the much greater polluter countries of China, India and those countries that still use leaded gasoline and unprocessed diesel fuels.
Isn't it fascinating how economic concerns can trump moral concerns? E.g, how gayinMIDLAND can support oil and gas companies? Someone from MIDLAND supporting the oil industry? Holy shit.
"except for its finite supply and the location of reserves, oil and natural gas are still the most efficient and cleanest form of energy known to man"
wtf? By "man," do you not mean humankind, but rather some particular guy named "man" who has never heard of solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, or even nuclear power? If so, I'm willing to bet that this "man" is also from MIDLAND.
GiM- Emotional? It's just fact. The number one source of asthma causing/aggravating pollutants in the US is petroleum dependent transportation. While particulate matter is lower, NO2 and CO2 are still too high despite the CAA (which has been mostly gutted, just FYI). You may not get ozone action days up in Midland but they sure suck ass here.
Next you'll be telling me the atmosphere can handle an increased carbon load without effect because plants will grow to consume the carbon.
Cut the knee jerk reaction. Oil is nothing more than stored solar energy, a battery if you will. I'm not some dirty hippy treehugger so don't pull that bullshit with me. I'm a pragmatist and I'm not operating under any kind of illusion that petroleum fuels are going away tomorrow. Still, it's time to move on and we might as well start now.
As for focusing on China and India... I'm not a citizen of either and I've always thought it was best to lead by example.
ghtx - don't get your panties in such a wad. I am sorry if you don't understand "facts". And the fact is, per energy output, oil and NG are more "efficient than the other fuels you mentioned. And you sir are the reason we cannot have an intelligent discussion about energy. You throw insults, etc. Yes, facts sometimes do not go along with the "liberal" viewpoint that oil and gas are "bad". Get some unbiased education vs. the liberal BS you obviously drink.
And mcblogger, despite what you may think, I mostly agree with you. I think the US should begin a government financed program to begin the production and distribution of biofuels for all cars. But not because I think oil companies are evil, oil and natural gas are nasty or Satan runs Halliburton. But because (growing up in oil country), I understand that oil is a finite commodity. And in the future, I do not want the American people over a barrel to a bunch of crazies in the Middle East, Russia, et al. With the proper leadership, I think we could be there in less than 20 years.
he drinks BS? and liberal BS at that.
Drink BS, goes down smooth and refreshing, great taste that never lets you down.
See, you guys agree on much. I think we were all offended, at some level, by that really ugly dude who made $400 million when he retired from the oil company while the rest of us were paying more for gasoline. It's easy to get emotional when you're getting fucked, or at least feel like it. I certainly don't look to the large corporations to be moral leaders. Some might, just don't count on them. That's why government is an important counterbalance. God bless Willie.
Or like the T-shirts say "LISTEN TO WILLIE".
Its really quite amazing that Al Gore never talks about all the NO2 and CO2 from volcanoes or geothermal. Al Gore needs to get those sources under control to have any real credibility on this issue.
But government ISN'T BEING a counterbalance here. It's merely a puppet, and Corporate America has their hand fully up it's ass. As long as conservative Republicans are in office and control policy, we can expect more of the same.
Jimmycity...you get it!
Did someone call?
jk, I just like trees in an arborial kind of way...
Actually, the cellulose based technology that Shell is cooperatively working with might just be the ticket or at least a new technology that is a partial solution. Cows and termites have it figured out but they have a methane byproduct problem (both ends, btw). Ethanol is heavily subsidized but at least there would be some use generated for the corn stalks...a nice symbiotic use of the material, I think. All the subsididization of the corn producers will just artificially create a vast monoculture that tends to be succeptable to disease and insects. A variety of energy sources might be a better policy, along with a healthy dose of conservation, new CAFE standards, and some culture adjustments. Cali has problems due to weather and a gazillion cars/trucks. Texas has problems due, in part, to industry, but also due to weather (high pressure systems in summer) and,....cars/trucks. Soon the corporations will figure out how to make money controlling emissions and we'll all be healthy and happy. Or not. I vanpool because it saves me money. Economics then, becomes important also. FWIW $0.02
That dude gets paid a lot of money to educate you on this stuff. I just drove along the border of Texas on the way to the beach. Oil and gas has been very, very good to Texas. I'm sympathetic to your point, to a point.