Another socialist hits the page of the IJ. Gee, what a surprise that America is the problem and state control of the oil industry is the solution. Anyone listening??????
Cassandra, I am not hiding behind any label, you are. You are a socialist with a rather deep hatred for this country and capitalism. What do you do for a living? Do you work for a company that makes a profit at what they do? You paint a very nice picture of Norway, maybe you should move there. I’ll be they don’t let illegal aliens in who bleed their economy dry. Is your last name Obama?
Glad they changed this to show that it’s commentary. Days of easy oil aren’t over, but days of easy decisions on how to get it are. We have enough shale reserves to power us for over 100 years.
is the solution beyond calling people names or assigning labels? Letting global oil companies do what they want without any oversight isn’t good for the environment or anyone, even BP shareholders last I checked. The cry is that regulation will stifle innovation, hurt profits, cost jobs and reduce our energy supply. Hmmm…seems that’s where we are now without effective regulation.
BTW- In IJ’s defense, this article wasn’t changed to Commentary, it was labaled as such from the start.
Another ignorant response. Arthur, how can you say there is no oversight. If this rig was allowed to drill a little closer to the shore this explosion may never have happened. Government regulation put the rig where it was. You people are pretty dense. Let the Chinese and Brazil keep drilling, that’s okay, right?
“Letting global oil companies do what they want without any oversight isn’t good for the environment or anyone…” This is simply either a statement of ignorance, or a red herring. Which is it? Oil production is one of the most regulated indutries in the globe. To wit, when was th elast time a refinery was built in the US? Why so long ago? Ah yes, regulations.
Though I have to say a good amount of regulation is required whenever a substance that can do damage is in process, to say there is no regulation is either a statement born of ignorance, or a red herring used to push to a total ban on the industry.
Oil is an issue, like all resources, of trade-offs. What do you get for the price (price being not just hard dollar cost of production, but also the various soft costs associated with production, waste, and distribution)?
With oil, we each get plastics (please go to any NICU or ICU to get a better idea as to the necessity of these various plastic products). Plastics ensure we can save food as well, driving down the requirement to use more energy to cook food more often, and lessens the need to grow more food as well. Which is the better of the trade-offs? Do we wish for more death, due to a lack of plastics for medical equipment and devices (how about your pacemaker?)?
Do we want to require more food production – thereby increasing global starvation – than is necesary, due to an inability to properly preserve food?
This is a situation of trade-offs. We get spills due to the value of oil. Not just in our “society”, mind you. I am talking about keeping people alive.
I have no truck for the oil industry. Like all production, it has its upsides and downsides. But to simply yell out “ban all oil production” is both childish and infantile in its approach. This is a question of huge trade-offs, with lives in the balance.
Are the costs associated with spills worth the trade-off of survival, longer food life, transportation, increased quality of life, etc? That is the discussion to have. Most people, it seems, like only to look at oil as it relates to cars and planes, rather than what oil does to increase our chances of survival in this world, outside of those realms.
First, I don’t think anybody here ever said to ban all production– in fact, the point was that regulation needs to take all things into consideration– not just our dependence upon oil and its jobs and benefits, but also the costs, the environment and the long-term consequences.
Second, there mere existence of laws, regulations and reporting requirements on the oil industry does not mean it is heavily regulated. The regulations have to be enforced. Every industry finds ways to water down and evade tough regulation.
Banning all production is no more of a solution than letting oil companies do whatever makes them the most money n the quickest time.
I will ask you the same question Cassandra would not answer. What do you do for a living? Do you live in a house? How do you get around? You have the speak of a socialist down pat. What you are really saying is we should destroy the American economy while the rest of the world continues to take what resources they want from the earth with far less regulation, if any, than what we require from our companies. Don’t be a part of the blame America croud. Give us one specific thing you would recommend to make things better.
One thing I tire of is the voices of those wanting to ban all oil and production, without the slightest idea of how to replace this important element of survival. Don’t offer complaints. Offer workable, efficient solutions. Examples:
– How does one replace plastic as a main component in medical devices (syringes, tubes, pacemakers, various joit replacements, etc.)?
– Please define for me a more efficient fuel (i.e. the energy emitted per unit), with the ability to step into oils current distribution networks and exploit that infrastructure. Keep in mind, wind and solar do not compare.
– What is more efficient at keeping food usable longer than plastic (plastic wrapping for food has increased the shelf life of nearly every single item available at the grocery store, thereby lowering the requirements of food production)? And, if something like that does exist, what is the cost of production and waste of that material?
Utlimately, I wonder why so many that complain about oil spend all their time complaining, rather than devising a new form of energy that can replace this resource. And, please don’t balther on about solar and wind. Neither of those even comes close to oil’s efficiency. They work for some aspects of our lives, but neither efficiently, nor from a continuity standpoint (i.e. wind cannot be counted upon, solar only does well for certain periods, etc.).
Does anyone other than me question the improbability of oil quantities consumed, known but unconsumed and yet to be discovered, all being derived from the remains of dinosaur and plant life over any length of time?
I am disappointed by the stinging (and personal) tone of some of the comments posted on this article so far. IJ commenters are usually a fairly civil lot. Whew! Can we let up on the name-calling??
That being said, I saw a lot of good points being raised in this discussion, like: 1) We don’t really know how much oil and gas is out there; 2)The mere existence of “regulations” isn’t the equivalent of an appropriate and effective regulatory program that benefits both the industry and the general public; 3)The world has benefitted from by-products of oil, too– i.e.: plastics; 4)Solar and wind power alone can’t replace oil for all purposes; 5)It is always a balancing act when weighing resource use – “renewable” energy sources and “sustainable” alternative packaging materials have carbon footprints too. Fuels and materials derived from plants require more plants to be grown and diverted from the food supply. Commercial farming is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
There’s not an easy answer to the question of how to ease back on world dependency on oil. But I do think the world needs to commit to trying. There are some promising options currently known, and other new ones that show up on the scene frequently. I think that if US residents get more educated on the whole issue of sustainability and the true importance of environmental impact costs in the resource equation balancing act, we would see more improvements/innovations happen more quickly.
I think it is very clear that the US can’t just shut off our oil spigot and expect to continue maintaining our current “lifestyles.” The solution is probably going to require a compromise between short term need-gratification and long-term viability for quality of life.
I hope that at least a few of you will agree with me. Do please keep this dialogue going, just play nicer, OK?
PS – I work for the government, live in the US midwest, and drive a Honda to get around when I can’t walk. I recycle, compost, reuse, buy local and try to keep informed of issues on both sides of the sustainability fence. And I do vote! :)
Rtrusty…wow. Temblor couldn’t have said it any better. On another note, I like to read what the commenters have to say. People are passionate about it, it gets people worked up, sometimes it’s kinda funny. No way am I ‘judging someone’s character’ because ‘negative posts speak more about the poster than facts’ what-ever. We are not all scholars sitting around drinking highballs while discussing what to do about the oil ‘crisis’ so a lot of you can get off your high horse. You call THIS dissapointing Anne Nonymus?? Try visiting Mexico or Venezuela, they have riots on these sorts of topics. This is just playful jibberjabber my friend…The oil situation is soo controversial I haven’t formulated an opinion yet. I’ll just listen and watch for now.
Hi Ana:
I am glad you weren’t as bugged by the message tones as I was. I guess I’m just not used to seeing so much name-calling over one article from this group. You’re probably right about the “good-natured” jibberjabbering point. Thanks for that!
I am aware of just how sensitive the whole oil dependency issue is. You are so right — it is a very complicated thing. I don’t blame you for “waiting and watching” — I think it is good to get as informed as possible about an issue before making a firm decision about it.
This article must have been edited by the same socialist speach writers for Obama and George Soros. Gustafson sounds like a clone of Al Gore, Obama, and George Soros.
Before you get your shorts in a bunch, recognize this: it is NOT regulation that prevents new refineries from being built so much as it is politically unpopular: “Not In My Back Yard” is the reason.
“Regarding the Gulf disaster, there is really is no excuse for the lack of meaningful effort on the part of BP”
This is a ridiculous statement. Lack of meaningful effort? You must be kidding? BP is working on numerous expensive parallel fronts (as they should) until this the problem is solved.
Wash U has had several socialist/communist cells ever since the Vietnam War when they took over then burned the ROTC building on campus. Since then they have been tolerated much like exhibitis in a zoo to be viewed by tourists. Some kids there will pay attention to them, but even the news media there doesn’t follow guys like him. Wy the IJ does unless its to generate some debate. I haven’t been there in a long time-since the late 80’s but its fun to see that there are still a few reds running around spounting govt control anti business stuff-blah, blah, blah
In the article it’s clear the Dr Gustafson believes the problem is companies and the motive for profit and Government run companies are can be more compassionate and respond to the culture. I wish the author and the Dr had done some more analysis and research.
Regarding the Gulf disaster, there is really is no excuse for the lack of meaningful effort on the part of BP and the slow response by our federal government.
As stated by Dr Gustafson,”…to portray this spill as an accident or an aberration.” Well, it is an accident unless someone purposely destroyed the equipment or was negligent. The numbers of spills and accidents around the world have no bearing on the cause of this disaster. Those events are reflections of the companies running those operations both government and publicly owned.
The spills mentioned both in Venezuela and Australia are two prime examples he mentioned. Consider this, in both events, the rigs were owned by public companies while the operations of the rigs were manned and controlled by Government owned oil companies. To make this even more interesting, the Australian spill where the rig is owned by Norwegian-Bermudan company and operated by a foreign Thai Government owned Oil Company subsidiary. So the question to ask is this: Whose cultures are we uphold and whose are we to blame? And how do you choose which National Oil Company culture to embrace?
“…catastrophes are almost always accompanied by corruption and violence tied to oil activities,” and because we are “more of a consumer than producer of oil, we are generally ignorant about this reality of oil”
Corruption of who and what violence, I ask? I have seen nothing of any public violence nor is there been shown any corruption in the gulf disaster. I would agree with a charge of incompetence by both the business and our government in response to the spill. Maybe the Dr is talking about the spills in the other parts of the world. Again, what would the violence and corruption in other parts of the world have anything to do with this disaster and our need for a government run oil company?
As to the US being a consumer more than producer that is by choice. The US has the reserves and untapped resources in such huge volumes as defined by the US Geological Survey that we could become a world-leading producer rather than a consumer if we opened them up. The only reason we are not using them are the legal restrictions imposed by our US Government, state and local governments and actions by environmental groups. So if we are being responsive to the social and governmental cultures by the current laws we have, why are we ignorant?
We in this country and as are many other countries and cultures around the world are dependent on oil. The idea that the government owned oil company would address the public and environmental concerns better is idealistic. People forget that it’s people and their wills and choices that make up our governments and businesses; they are not a machine, or an inhuman, nameless and faceless entity. Their actions are a direct reflection of the people within leading and directing. So to say that government is more responsible than a business is silly, as both are run, controlled by the wills of the people in positions of power.
Both business and governments are equally open to excellence and abuse.
Believe it or not- Like it or not-Politics or not … Dr. Gustafson is CORRECT we are willing to poison our planet for short term gain and Oil Co’s are not going to develope a conscience!
Another socialist hits the page of the IJ. Gee, what a surprise that America is the problem and state control of the oil industry is the solution. Anyone listening??????
Cassandra, I am not hiding behind any label, you are. You are a socialist with a rather deep hatred for this country and capitalism. What do you do for a living? Do you work for a company that makes a profit at what they do? You paint a very nice picture of Norway, maybe you should move there. I’ll be they don’t let illegal aliens in who bleed their economy dry. Is your last name Obama?
Glad they changed this to show that it’s commentary. Days of easy oil aren’t over, but days of easy decisions on how to get it are. We have enough shale reserves to power us for over 100 years.
is the solution beyond calling people names or assigning labels? Letting global oil companies do what they want without any oversight isn’t good for the environment or anyone, even BP shareholders last I checked. The cry is that regulation will stifle innovation, hurt profits, cost jobs and reduce our energy supply. Hmmm…seems that’s where we are now without effective regulation.
BTW- In IJ’s defense, this article wasn’t changed to Commentary, it was labaled as such from the start.
Another ignorant response. Arthur, how can you say there is no oversight. If this rig was allowed to drill a little closer to the shore this explosion may never have happened. Government regulation put the rig where it was. You people are pretty dense. Let the Chinese and Brazil keep drilling, that’s okay, right?
So what did he say that was inaccurate? The labeling and negative comments speak more about the commenters than the facts.
“Letting global oil companies do what they want without any oversight isn’t good for the environment or anyone…” This is simply either a statement of ignorance, or a red herring. Which is it? Oil production is one of the most regulated indutries in the globe. To wit, when was th elast time a refinery was built in the US? Why so long ago? Ah yes, regulations.
Though I have to say a good amount of regulation is required whenever a substance that can do damage is in process, to say there is no regulation is either a statement born of ignorance, or a red herring used to push to a total ban on the industry.
Oil is an issue, like all resources, of trade-offs. What do you get for the price (price being not just hard dollar cost of production, but also the various soft costs associated with production, waste, and distribution)?
With oil, we each get plastics (please go to any NICU or ICU to get a better idea as to the necessity of these various plastic products). Plastics ensure we can save food as well, driving down the requirement to use more energy to cook food more often, and lessens the need to grow more food as well. Which is the better of the trade-offs? Do we wish for more death, due to a lack of plastics for medical equipment and devices (how about your pacemaker?)?
Do we want to require more food production – thereby increasing global starvation – than is necesary, due to an inability to properly preserve food?
This is a situation of trade-offs. We get spills due to the value of oil. Not just in our “society”, mind you. I am talking about keeping people alive.
I have no truck for the oil industry. Like all production, it has its upsides and downsides. But to simply yell out “ban all oil production” is both childish and infantile in its approach. This is a question of huge trade-offs, with lives in the balance.
Are the costs associated with spills worth the trade-off of survival, longer food life, transportation, increased quality of life, etc? That is the discussion to have. Most people, it seems, like only to look at oil as it relates to cars and planes, rather than what oil does to increase our chances of survival in this world, outside of those realms.
First, I don’t think anybody here ever said to ban all production– in fact, the point was that regulation needs to take all things into consideration– not just our dependence upon oil and its jobs and benefits, but also the costs, the environment and the long-term consequences.
Second, there mere existence of laws, regulations and reporting requirements on the oil industry does not mean it is heavily regulated. The regulations have to be enforced. Every industry finds ways to water down and evade tough regulation.
Banning all production is no more of a solution than letting oil companies do whatever makes them the most money n the quickest time.
I will ask you the same question Cassandra would not answer. What do you do for a living? Do you live in a house? How do you get around? You have the speak of a socialist down pat. What you are really saying is we should destroy the American economy while the rest of the world continues to take what resources they want from the earth with far less regulation, if any, than what we require from our companies. Don’t be a part of the blame America croud. Give us one specific thing you would recommend to make things better.
One thing I tire of is the voices of those wanting to ban all oil and production, without the slightest idea of how to replace this important element of survival. Don’t offer complaints. Offer workable, efficient solutions. Examples:
– How does one replace plastic as a main component in medical devices (syringes, tubes, pacemakers, various joit replacements, etc.)?
– Please define for me a more efficient fuel (i.e. the energy emitted per unit), with the ability to step into oils current distribution networks and exploit that infrastructure. Keep in mind, wind and solar do not compare.
– What is more efficient at keeping food usable longer than plastic (plastic wrapping for food has increased the shelf life of nearly every single item available at the grocery store, thereby lowering the requirements of food production)? And, if something like that does exist, what is the cost of production and waste of that material?
Utlimately, I wonder why so many that complain about oil spend all their time complaining, rather than devising a new form of energy that can replace this resource. And, please don’t balther on about solar and wind. Neither of those even comes close to oil’s efficiency. They work for some aspects of our lives, but neither efficiently, nor from a continuity standpoint (i.e. wind cannot be counted upon, solar only does well for certain periods, etc.).
Stop complaining and start solving the problems!
Does anyone other than me question the improbability of oil quantities consumed, known but unconsumed and yet to be discovered, all being derived from the remains of dinosaur and plant life over any length of time?
No Rusty, we don’t. Your comment is so inane as to be laughable.
All:
I am disappointed by the stinging (and personal) tone of some of the comments posted on this article so far. IJ commenters are usually a fairly civil lot. Whew! Can we let up on the name-calling??
That being said, I saw a lot of good points being raised in this discussion, like: 1) We don’t really know how much oil and gas is out there; 2)The mere existence of “regulations” isn’t the equivalent of an appropriate and effective regulatory program that benefits both the industry and the general public; 3)The world has benefitted from by-products of oil, too– i.e.: plastics; 4)Solar and wind power alone can’t replace oil for all purposes; 5)It is always a balancing act when weighing resource use – “renewable” energy sources and “sustainable” alternative packaging materials have carbon footprints too. Fuels and materials derived from plants require more plants to be grown and diverted from the food supply. Commercial farming is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
There’s not an easy answer to the question of how to ease back on world dependency on oil. But I do think the world needs to commit to trying. There are some promising options currently known, and other new ones that show up on the scene frequently. I think that if US residents get more educated on the whole issue of sustainability and the true importance of environmental impact costs in the resource equation balancing act, we would see more improvements/innovations happen more quickly.
I think it is very clear that the US can’t just shut off our oil spigot and expect to continue maintaining our current “lifestyles.” The solution is probably going to require a compromise between short term need-gratification and long-term viability for quality of life.
I hope that at least a few of you will agree with me. Do please keep this dialogue going, just play nicer, OK?
PS – I work for the government, live in the US midwest, and drive a Honda to get around when I can’t walk. I recycle, compost, reuse, buy local and try to keep informed of issues on both sides of the sustainability fence. And I do vote! :)
Rtrusty…wow. Temblor couldn’t have said it any better. On another note, I like to read what the commenters have to say. People are passionate about it, it gets people worked up, sometimes it’s kinda funny. No way am I ‘judging someone’s character’ because ‘negative posts speak more about the poster than facts’ what-ever. We are not all scholars sitting around drinking highballs while discussing what to do about the oil ‘crisis’ so a lot of you can get off your high horse. You call THIS dissapointing Anne Nonymus?? Try visiting Mexico or Venezuela, they have riots on these sorts of topics. This is just playful jibberjabber my friend…The oil situation is soo controversial I haven’t formulated an opinion yet. I’ll just listen and watch for now.
Hi Ana:
I am glad you weren’t as bugged by the message tones as I was. I guess I’m just not used to seeing so much name-calling over one article from this group. You’re probably right about the “good-natured” jibberjabbering point. Thanks for that!
I am aware of just how sensitive the whole oil dependency issue is. You are so right — it is a very complicated thing. I don’t blame you for “waiting and watching” — I think it is good to get as informed as possible about an issue before making a firm decision about it.
Thanks for your comments.
This is a big F***ng Oil Spill!
This is a big F***ng Oil Spill!
This article must have been edited by the same socialist speach writers for Obama and George Soros. Gustafson sounds like a clone of Al Gore, Obama, and George Soros.
In fact, Cutting corners may not be the only cause of these spills.
Before you get your shorts in a bunch, recognize this: it is NOT regulation that prevents new refineries from being built so much as it is politically unpopular: “Not In My Back Yard” is the reason.
“Regarding the Gulf disaster, there is really is no excuse for the lack of meaningful effort on the part of BP”
This is a ridiculous statement. Lack of meaningful effort? You must be kidding? BP is working on numerous expensive parallel fronts (as they should) until this the problem is solved.
Wash U has had several socialist/communist cells ever since the Vietnam War when they took over then burned the ROTC building on campus. Since then they have been tolerated much like exhibitis in a zoo to be viewed by tourists. Some kids there will pay attention to them, but even the news media there doesn’t follow guys like him. Wy the IJ does unless its to generate some debate. I haven’t been there in a long time-since the late 80’s but its fun to see that there are still a few reds running around spounting govt control anti business stuff-blah, blah, blah
In the article it’s clear the Dr Gustafson believes the problem is companies and the motive for profit and Government run companies are can be more compassionate and respond to the culture. I wish the author and the Dr had done some more analysis and research.
Regarding the Gulf disaster, there is really is no excuse for the lack of meaningful effort on the part of BP and the slow response by our federal government.
As stated by Dr Gustafson,”…to portray this spill as an accident or an aberration.” Well, it is an accident unless someone purposely destroyed the equipment or was negligent. The numbers of spills and accidents around the world have no bearing on the cause of this disaster. Those events are reflections of the companies running those operations both government and publicly owned.
The spills mentioned both in Venezuela and Australia are two prime examples he mentioned. Consider this, in both events, the rigs were owned by public companies while the operations of the rigs were manned and controlled by Government owned oil companies. To make this even more interesting, the Australian spill where the rig is owned by Norwegian-Bermudan company and operated by a foreign Thai Government owned Oil Company subsidiary. So the question to ask is this: Whose cultures are we uphold and whose are we to blame? And how do you choose which National Oil Company culture to embrace?
“…catastrophes are almost always accompanied by corruption and violence tied to oil activities,” and because we are “more of a consumer than producer of oil, we are generally ignorant about this reality of oil”
Corruption of who and what violence, I ask? I have seen nothing of any public violence nor is there been shown any corruption in the gulf disaster. I would agree with a charge of incompetence by both the business and our government in response to the spill. Maybe the Dr is talking about the spills in the other parts of the world. Again, what would the violence and corruption in other parts of the world have anything to do with this disaster and our need for a government run oil company?
As to the US being a consumer more than producer that is by choice. The US has the reserves and untapped resources in such huge volumes as defined by the US Geological Survey that we could become a world-leading producer rather than a consumer if we opened them up. The only reason we are not using them are the legal restrictions imposed by our US Government, state and local governments and actions by environmental groups. So if we are being responsive to the social and governmental cultures by the current laws we have, why are we ignorant?
We in this country and as are many other countries and cultures around the world are dependent on oil. The idea that the government owned oil company would address the public and environmental concerns better is idealistic. People forget that it’s people and their wills and choices that make up our governments and businesses; they are not a machine, or an inhuman, nameless and faceless entity. Their actions are a direct reflection of the people within leading and directing. So to say that government is more responsible than a business is silly, as both are run, controlled by the wills of the people in positions of power.
Both business and governments are equally open to excellence and abuse.
Believe it or not- Like it or not-Politics or not … Dr. Gustafson is CORRECT we are willing to poison our planet for short term gain and Oil Co’s are not going to develope a conscience!