Obama camp spies endgame in Oregon

#27
#27
TennNC said:
A little knowledge is dangerous.

We never were first. Find another source than Ann Coulter and Robert Novak. We may produce a lot, but we're consuming what we produce. As a country, that's not efficient.

Here's the math: we have 5% of the world's population. We use 25% of the world's energy resources. We have a trade deficit. Therefore we require a lot more input to match our output.

We are not energy efficient.
Click to expand...

Why find another source, if it says we're productive you claim it is invalid.

We are the only ones that consume what we produce? American farmers don't export? Also, I doubt there are many countries that are able to distribute goods and people as efficiently as the US can. We are far from inefficient.
 
#29
#29
OrangeEmpire said:
You can find any thing you want.......
Click to expand...


I agree OE, a person can find studies to back up either argument in just about any argument. As a society with an economy built on capitalism I can't see us as one of the least efficient energy users. Companies with the best ideas survive, inefficieny is not useful.
 
#30
#30
TennNC said:
A little knowledge is dangerous.

We never were first. Find another source than Ann Coulter and Robert Novak. We may produce a lot, but we're consuming what we produce. As a country, that's not efficient.

Here's the math: we have 5% of the world's population. We use 25% of the world's energy resources. We have a trade deficit. Therefore we require a lot more input to match our output.

We are not energy efficient.
Click to expand...


Ha, coming from an Obama supporter, that's rich. While drilling may not solve all the problems, it would help, and to suggest otherwise is incorrect. Maybe the gas tax Obama propsed will help?
 
#31
#31
volsforever27 said:
Ha, coming from an Obama supporter, that's rich. While drilling may not solve all the problems, it would help, and to suggest otherwise is incorrect. Maybe the gas tax Obama propsed will help?
Click to expand...

Even if we drill more, it will mean exactly jack if we don't build more refineries.
 
#33
#33
TennNC said:
A little knowledge is dangerous.

We never were first. Find another source than Ann Coulter and Robert Novak. We may produce a lot, but we're consuming what we produce. As a country, that's not efficient.

Here's the math: we have 5% of the world's population. We use 25% of the world's energy resources. We have a trade deficit. Therefore we require a lot more input to match our output.

We are not energy efficient.
Click to expand...

this is a completely flawed argument.

We have 5% of the world's population, use 25% of the world's energy and represent how much of the wold's GDP? We're using that energy in an economy that makes an enormous portion of the world even remotely economically viable. If we weren't net importers, it would still be 1682 in China, Singapore, Phillipines, Mexico, etc, etc.

How on earth does energy efficiency have anything to do with its ultimate use? You rail conservative sources, but this viewpoint is nothing but tired liberal blather. We are fat, dumb and comfortable Americans at the expense of everyone else. It's why they hate us. Obama's words that MG1968 pointed out early in the thread.
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
. It's why they hate us. Obama's words that MG1968 pointed out early in the thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama's words. I am always fascinated when someone talks about leading by example in regards to conservation and Global Warming and lives in a 6400 square foot home. I assume his adolescent daughters each have their own bedroom? Is that kind of like "eating as much as we want, driving SUVs, and keeping the house at 72 degrees"?
 
#35
#35
allvol123 said:
Yes, Obama's words. I am always fascinated when someone talks about leading by example in regards to conservation and Global Warming and lives in a 6400 square foot home. I assume his adolescent daughters each have their own bedroom? Is that kind of like "eating as much as we want, driving SUVs, and keeping the house at 72 degrees"?
Click to expand...
House has to be at 70.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
this is a completely flawed argument.

We have 5% of the world's population, use 25% of the world's energy and represent how much of the wold's GDP? We're using that energy in an economy that makes an enormous portion of the world even remotely economically viable. If we weren't net importers, it would still be 1682 in China, Singapore, Phillipines, Mexico, etc, etc.

How on earth does energy efficiency have anything to do with its ultimate use? You rail conservative sources, but this viewpoint is nothing but tired liberal blather. We are fat, dumb and comfortable Americans at the expense of everyone else. It's why they hate us. Obama's words that MG1968 pointed out early in the thread.
Click to expand...

Energy efficiency has everything to do with how it's used. It's a simple equation: output divided by input. Our input is far greater than our output.

The argument is about total energy consumption -- both in terms of what we use to produce stuff and what we use to live the way we do. We are very efficient producers - we produce a lot of stuff, very rapidly. The problem is, we require a lot of stuff to live the way we do -- far more than any other country.

Nobody's talking about fat, dumb, comfortable Americans. We're talking about the reality of the situation, which is that either 1) we continue to pay more and more for the energy we currently import so we can live the way we want to live, 2) we find new sources of energy that we can own and that will substitute or supplement the energy we currently import, 3) we find new ways (technology) to use less energy without changing our lifestyle, or 4) we change our lifestyle.

Obama's for option 3 first and foremost. I think that makes sense.
 
#41
#41
volsforever27 said:
Ha, coming from an Obama supporter, that's rich. While drilling may not solve all the problems, it would help, and to suggest otherwise is incorrect. Maybe the gas tax Obama propsed will help?
Click to expand...

You won't see me quote Al Franken or MoveOn.org. They're blatantly biased, as are people like Ann Coulter.

Find where Obama said drilling wouldn't help. He said it (and a tax holiday) was a phony solution. It won't solve anything. It's a drop in the bucket.
 
#42
#42
TennNC said:
You won't see me quote Al Franken or MoveOn.org. They're blatantly biased, as are people like Ann Coulter.

Find where Obama said drilling wouldn't help. He said it (and a tax holiday) was a phony solution. It won't solve anything. It's a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

In the short term no but it will buy us time until another economically viable energy source presents itself. Look we do need to look at alternatives to oil but I simply don't want the government involved. Look at what they did with ethonal, experts tried to warn them oil prices and agriculture prices would go up and that is exactly what happened.
 
#43
#43
TennNC said:
Energy efficiency has everything to do with how it's used. It's a simple equation: output divided by input. Our input is far greater than our output.

.
Click to expand...
that's why the GDP equation blows an enormous hole in your entire argument. Output does not in any way equal exports.

Again, our consumption is 100% supporting the economies of many of this world's nations. Gloss over it as you like, but I'm telling you that those folks are far happier with our wanton consumption than they would be if we cut our energy use drastically.
 
#44
#44
KB5252 said:
In the short term no but it will buy us time until another economically viable energy source presents itself. Look we do need to look at alternatives to oil but I simply don't want the government involved. Look at what they did with ethonal, experts tried to warn them oil prices and agriculture prices would go up and that is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

I agree that ethanol (and other biofuels) are a phony solution too. I can't quote Obama specifically on this issue, but I think he's been more open to biofuels. I think we should use farmland to feed people.

And drilling might buy us a bit more time, but I'm skeptical about how much time that will buy us. We must focus on the broader solution. And I think the government probably should get involved to spur action on this - to encourage investment in new technologies to capture energy in all its forms (wind, solar, water, nuclear, etc.) until we learn what will work best.
 
#46
#46
TennNC said:
I agree that ethanol (and other biofuels) are a phony solution too. I can't quote Obama specifically on this issue, but I think he's been more open to biofuels. I think we should use farmland to feed people.

And drilling might buy us a bit more time, but I'm skeptical about how much time that will buy us. We must focus on the broader solution. And I think the government probably should get involved to spur action on this - to encourage investment in new technologies to capture energy in all its forms (wind, solar, water, nuclear, etc.) until we learn what will work best.
Click to expand...

In theory it sounds great but when the government gets involved it anything it is a very inefficient mess and many times more harm is done than good. The two best energy options are nuclear and solar. The windmills that have been used turn out to be very costly to maintain and produce little power for all the money they cost.
 
#47
#47
BigPapaVol said:
that's why the GDP equation blows an enormous hole in your entire argument. Output does not in any way equal exports.
Click to expand...

We use 25% of the world's energy. Our GDP is about 25% of the world's. Yet, what we produce is not enough to keep our country running. So we MUST import (input) far more to produce what we do and live the way we do.

The argument isn't just about production. It's about total energy efficiency. Yes, we're efficient producers. But we're highly inefficient users. And the net result is that as a country, we're the 7th least energy efficient country in the world (at 7,000+ kg of oil equivalent per person per year).

Where's the hole?
 
#48
#48
TennNC said:
We use 25% of the world's energy. Our GDP is about 25% of the world's. Yet, what we produce is not enough to keep our country running. So we MUST import (input) far more to produce what we do and live the way we do.

The argument isn't just about production. It's about total energy efficiency. Yes, we're efficient producers. But we're highly inefficient users. And the net result is that as a country, we're the 7th least energy efficient country in the world (at 7,000+ kg of oil equivalent per person per year).

Where's the hole?
Click to expand...
then arguing that we are net energy users is probably fine.

Imports is nothing about energy inputs. Imports are about consumption in our economy, which happens to support the vast majority of third world economies in existence.
 
#49
#49
KB5252 said:
In theory it sounds great but when the government gets involved it anything it is a very inefficient mess and many times more harm is done than good. The two best energy options are nuclear and solar. The windmills that have been used turn out to be very costly to maintain and produce little power for all the money they cost.
Click to expand...

That might be true in the long run, but the Netherlands have figured out how to generate useful energy from them. Maybe we could learn something from them.

And I disagree with your point about government involvement in some cases. The government (through the military in many cases) has funded many of the biggest breakthroughs that would have had a much more difficult chance of becoming real through private funding alone.
 
#50
#50
BigPapaVol said:
then arguing that we are net energy users is probably fine.

Imports is nothing about energy inputs. Imports are about consumption in our economy, not about energy usage.
Click to expand...

Good. I'm simply talking about exploring how we can use less energy/resources and still live the same way we currently do. As a minor, minor example, look at how much more efficient cars are now compared to, say, 30 years ago. We've made huge strides there. No reason we can't make more.

On the imports/input question, what about the fact that it requires additional energy to produce the items we import and subsequently consume?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top