free oil , why are we hurting the environment ?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by dmek25

probably the reason we don't drill because who is to say where to draw the line, and stop. Americans are creatures of excess, you know?

Slingin Sammy touched on it, Dmek -- and let me chime in... We are nowhere near a replacement for the internal combustion engine, (you and I will not see it in our lifetimes) and like it or not, we are still dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a long time to come.

Faced with this reality, would you rather see wildlife temporarily displaced with more offshore drilling and in places like ANWR if it meant that we would no longer have to send our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to the middle east to fight and die to ensure the free flow of oil?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Slingin Sammy touched on it, Dmek -- and let me chime in... We are nowhere near a replacement for the internal combustion engine, (you and I will not see it in our lifetimes) and like it or not, we are still dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a long time to come.

Faced with this reality, would you rather see wildlife temporarily displaced with more offshore drilling and in places like ANWR if it meant that we would no longer have to send our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to the middle east to fight and die to ensure the free flow of oil?

First Offshore Drilling does not displace wild life it actuall attracts wild life and becomes a ecosystem of its own. Just as bridges and other obstructions in the ocean.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Slingin Sammy touched on it, Dmek -- and let me chime in... We are nowhere near a replacement for the internal combustion engine, (you and I will not see it in our lifetimes) and like it or not, we are still dependent on fossil fuels and will be for a long time to come.

Faced with this reality, would you rather see wildlife temporarily displaced with more offshore drilling and in places like ANWR if it meant that we would no longer have to send our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to the middle east to fight and die to ensure the free flow of oil?

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

I haven't seen that film, and I will check it out -- but let me guess; it's basically a conspiracy between the auto makers and oil company executives scheming to remove the production of a car that doesn't require gasoline as a way to keep the oil companies in business?

Is the film trying to tell us that there was a perfectly efficient all-electric vehicle that would have revolutionized the auto industry and could have completely eliminated the need to extract fossil fuels forever?

Let's think about this -- if there were such a car that was so productive, so efficient, so inexpensive, that it would have enabled GM to leap ahead of the technological innovations of the rest of the world's automakers -- why would they deliberately ball it up and throw it in the garbage? For nothing more than a favor to the oil companies?

I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone, but to believe that General Motors willingly walked away from such a visionary, pioneering vehicle that would have turned the automotive world on its head, it's a little too much to take. If there was a way that they would have made a lot of money at it, trust me, they would have built it. There was a reason it didn't go anywhere -- it just wasn't going to be profitable, which means that not nearly as many people would have bought into it as the filmmaker would have us believe.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

You should watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car?" In the late 90s there was an efficient electric car (not a hybrid) with no ICE. It was killed off for numerous reasons.

Well if they could build a car in the 90's that was an efficient car whats stopping them from producing this car in 2009?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if they could build a car in the 90's that was an efficient car whats stopping them from producing this car in 2009?

They gave the plans to NASA, but they erased them in order to tape Hubble signals.

[dmek25]

i think we could. but like i said above, a new administration would change the rules, and go alittle farther. then we are left with what?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i think we could. but like i said above, a new administration would change the rules, and go alittle farther. then we are left with what?

So we shouldn't do the right thing in fear that someone may do the wrong thing in the future? That is govt. at its worst.

[jsarno]

Considering oil is a finite resource, I would think part of the reason we look elsewhere for it is cause we know it will eventually run out, and our tanks and jets don't run on corn. We are getting as much as we can elsewhere so we will have a stock pile when the time comes. But that might be just a paranoid comment. haha.

[BaltimoreSkins]

If you truly want to support in house drilling, support companies that take their oil from the U.S. such as Hess. In the long run it will be more environmentally sound. Personally I am against off-shore drilling (mostly for selfish reasons), as for ANWR it would barely supply enough oil for 6 months of U.S. consumption. However, the fact remains that known oil reserves will last less than 70 years (subject to a 2% increase a year in usage). We need to find an alternative and support developing it, whether it is to protest oil drilling or willingly pay more for a new technology so that it continues to develop.

[BaltimoreSkins]

It does have a conspiracy in it, but I also think it does a good job blaming the consumer, as the LA Times reporter who won the Pulitzer for the story states "GM would sell you a car that ran on pig shit if they thought it would sell." For a documentary throwing the blame I do think it does a good job of showing most sides. You are correct if you ran a company and could sell 25,000 models and make $2,000 a piece or could sell 500,000 models and make $4,000 a piece as CEO what are you going to do?

[dmek25]

probably saying that the oil companies and car companies conspired to NOT mass produce it