E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Lucas Jackson / Reuters, file
U.S. Navy safety swimmers stand on the deck of the Virginia class submarine USS New Hampshire after it surfaced through thin ice during exercises underneath ice in the Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska March 19, 2011.
YOKOSUKA, Japan -- To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead.
Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain.
The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the seven main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland — are to gather at a Canadian military base in May to specifically discuss regional security issues.
None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival claims.
High stakes
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic.
Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
UK report analyzes risks of Arctic development
What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue.
Russia, Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none.
Lucas Jackson / Reuters, file
U.S. Navy watch a display in the control room of the Virginia class submarine USS New Hampshire as it surfaces during exercises underneath ice in the Arctic Ocean north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska March 20, 2011.
Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower.
Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity.
Huebert said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic.
Some Himalayan glaciers are actually growing
"We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time goes on."
Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict.
Climate forecasters eye 3 million years ago
"We want to maintain our edge up there," said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It remains very important."
US 'inadequately prepared'
But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications.
US sees record for warmest March -- and first quarter
The findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources."
He added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.
US: 56 coral species face extinction danger
Acknowledging the need to keep apace in the Arctic, the United States is pouring funds into figuring out what climate change will bring, and has been working closely with the scientific community to calibrate its response.
"The Navy seems to be very on board regarding the reality of climate change and the especially large changes we are seeing in the Arctic," said Mark C. Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences University of Colorado. "There is already considerable collaboration between the Navy and civilian scientists and I see this collaboration growing in the future."
The most immediate challenge may not be war — both military and commercial assets are sparse enough to give all countries elbow room for a while — but whether militaries can respond to a disaster.
Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the London-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said militaries probably will have to rescue their own citizens in the Arctic before any confrontations arise there.
"Catastrophic events, like a cruise ship suddenly sinking or an environmental accident related to the region's oil and gas exploration, would have a profound impact in the Arctic," she said. "The risk is not militarization; it is the lack of capabilities while economic development and human activity dramatically increases that is the real risk."
Leave a Comment:
That oil belongs to U.S. bitc*es.
Interesting statement, considering that only a fraction of the Arctic Ocean lies within U.S. territorial waters.
But, all U.S. citizens have the right to make such statement, although I sometimes suspect they've forgotten that they are only voicing their own, personal opinion.
Oh ma god, happy days are a coming! We are entering a boom like we could never imagine! I'm going to hop into my SUV right now and take the dog for a hike in the mountains, its 100 miles away, allowing me to do my part in contributing to this oasis! Dont hold your farts in people, this cannot come soon enough!
i think the smart thing to do would be to protect that the oil stays where it is under the surface have we not destroyed enough just oil and white would not look good together
Just made a contribution to the cause...oh, wait, theres another one...
Something just dawned on me, with this extra energy we can harvest, we can ignore the ME all together while roasting their asses to raisins all at the same time! These are good and promising times people!
This clearly debunks all the "Talk" of Alternative Energy use and Go Green Bull@!$%#. BIG OIL will never allow clean fuel until they have sucked the world dry.
Kornfed needs to switch to decaf.
Now we know why the oil industry spends millions to deny global warming and the health hazards of sucking in too much CO2.
The article didn't even mention Greenland - I guess if you don't have any military might, you don't get a hunk of the pie. China should buy Greenland and really make this interesting.
You sheep are so easily manipulated hehe. Cackle for thine Sheppard sheeples!!! BAaaaaaaaAAaaaaa!!! BaaaaAAAaaaa!!
Military preparation does not solidify your lib fantasies. Maybe we should get Carter back in office, and go back to the ice age! He is still alive!
sham; nah, it just means places like Brazil will be even farther ahead of us when we finally do get off the oil crapper.
Kornfed - Just what does military preparation solidify? This is America, I don't know where you come from, but in this country.. if we can't BUY it, we take it. The mere fact that the military is 'training' in this region of the world cements that we "WILL" use our military to 'keep' what we deem as ours...
Maybe we can get BUSH back in office.. I am sure there are million year old weapons of mass destruction somewhere under all that ice right?
Remember, there is no global warming. Those oil tycoons will convince the idiots of our country that there is no global warming and at the same time develop plans to exploit the Arctic because of GLOBAL WARMING.
Here's your sign.
Dont you see where you are even being led? This is meant to solidify your belief in global warming. There is no new news as to what other countries have been doing exploring the Arctic for energy sources. They have been exploring these areas for years. Add speculation about what a melting ice sheet could mean, and batta bing! A fun little lib propaganda article is born!
Bush, O'bama....what is the difference? One is a foreign warmonger, one is a social warmonger. Neither one is particularly attractive to me.
KornFed - Global Warming is a reality wether you agree w/it or not. Has it happened in the pass absolutely. However, anyone who thinks we can continue to burn fossil fuels and increase the "pollution" in the atmosphere without repercussion to the planet is either absurd or on the OIL GOP money train. You choose.
Please give examples on how Obama is a social warmonger. I can't wait to hear this one.
War on women, racial war, class warfare.
Let me ask you something ItsAboutTime...How in the hell are you going to get the rest of the world to go back to horse and buggy after America is conquered?
Kornfed,
I feel very sorry for you. You are in the 15% of global warming deniers but somehow believe that the other 85% are not as smart as you. Too bad. The problem is with your vision, not with what you perceive. There is no "belief" --- it is just observational science, the kind that is virtually impossible to refute. There has not been a serious scientific debate about global warming in over forty years. The current debate is to what extent methane will worsen the situation. The current debate is whether the determinists in NOAA will be chunked out on their ear because their models always predict changes that are far more modest than what actually happen.
And the oil will not be ours --- it will be almost entirely Canadian and Russian.
No, no, no...we asked for examples of Obama being a warmonger, NOT reasons NOT to vote for republicans...try again.
Kornfed,
Well, I feel sorry for me too, for having to live amongst such gullibility. Might I suggest reading Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" Although he was of general liberal persuasion, he possessed great brilliance. The book delves into cultures and human thought in general. It really sheds a light on how the human brain can be manipulated.
BTW, I do not suggest that we are not causing global warming, I suggest that I am not arrogant enough to say what causes these fluctuations in our climate. You cannot deny that there is a political persuasion to any data we get regarding our climate. I will remain skeptical, while open minded, about the factors that go into climate change.
He is the grand Maestro on all 3 fronts. It is a fact, not something to be debated.
Ahhh...the GOP "brain-trust".
I don't think this development will change Jim Inhofe's hoax view on Climate Change...
James M.Inhofe is the top recipient of oil money. .... and HUGE DOLLARS from coal contributions .
He'll ignore the warming reality research and evidence, and go after the drilling opportunities.
Kornfed - I am going to ignore your comment about Obama and "Social" warmongering. I believe the Republicants are more interested in social war mongering than the Obama. If you get any of those GOP clowns in the white house, we might as well throw out the Constitution and replace it with the Bible..
Okay please explain what you trying to say here.... America has already been conquered. Corporate America runs this country, not the people.
What an answer! You sir, are a problem solver!
lol Kornfed, I hope you're being sarcastic. If so - well played.
I am actually in the same boat with you on global warming. Skeptical, but very open minded about it. You're right when you say that a lot of what comes out of scientists these days needs to be looked at with skepticism - since we are in the era of Big Science, it's important to look at things like funding, political orientation, etc. Even in the medical world, there's been several recent issues with people ignoring data that is proving their research wrong, but they just straight up ignore it.
And all of that's very sad.
Kornfed - LOL. What a tool. Read with comprehension, it's fundamental.
kornfed- did you get that way from teabagging too much?
it used to take days to visit the zoo and see all the animals. republicans and tea-baggers see this as a true waste of time. they hope that within 20 years the zoo will consist of carp, roaches, mice, rats, squirrles, sparrows, crows, cats and dogs. that way a 15 minute trip will suffice or better yet, all the pictures will fit on a double sided 8.5X11 piece of paper. somehow they will find a way to blame it on the progressives/democrats.
Kornfed said:
The irony being that the book was about the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of critical thinking. Remaining "skeptical and open-minded" about something in the face of overwhelming evidence and informed opinion is not critical thinking, in fact it is EXACTLY the sort of pseudo-intellectual wish fulfillment that Sagan was warning against.
You pull a classic pseudo-science rhetorical trick by claiming that you are not "arrogant" enough to claim that humans are causing global climate change (which you yourself imply is a myth a few posts up). This phrasing has the dual purpose of making you appear humble while the (doubtlessly liberal and conspiratorial) scientific community is displaying hubris by claiming to know what the cause of global climate change is. While this is neat attempt at rhetorical Judo, I'm afraid it falls flat (to overextend a metaphor).
Scientists are not being arrogant when they make claims about how the universe works. In fact, science it at core a discipline of humility. The basic guiding principle of modern science is FALSIFIABILITY. When a scientist comes up with an idea, he throws it to the piranha tank of peer review to be torn apart.
Usually about this point in the debate, someone says: "Yes, yes, but all scientists are in league in an evil liberal socialist Kenyan plot, so they ALL collude to promote certain ideas like global climate change!"The fact is, however, that individual scientists have significant ethical (due to their philosophy of their profession) and practical (due to the realities of their profession) reasons for VERY critically analyzing new ideas. The idea that 95% of ALL scientists, EVERYWHERE would be in cahoots is, frankly, laughable, and betrays your lack of knowledge about science and the scientific community.
Scientists can be an easy target. They're over-educated, often strange people whose work seems esoteric and arcane to many people. But as with anything else, its important to know a bit about what or who you're picking on. Otherwise you're just making things up to satisfy your pre-conceived notions and inherent prejudices: in other words, pseudoscience.
Having more oil is not going to change anything. There is plenty of oil available now. Exxon, Shell, and BP throttle the production to fit whatever price point they feel the world economy can sustain. We need more oil companies, not more oil...
Very well-written Blah. Except for two points of spin:
#1. You're referring to the % of scientists that believe the global temperatures are changing, not the % of scientists that believe humans are MOSTLY to blame, nor do they go as far as to say that they are certain it will lead to an overall negative affect (greenhouses use CO2 emitters to actually pump more CO2 than what is provided naturally because it actually increases the rate at which plants grow). Of course 95% of scientists believe in global warming because the earth naturally goes through cycles of climate change.
#2. All you folks who are spinning climate change into human-made global warming doom to end mankind conveniently fall silent whenever there is any news that counters your bias. Much of the US last year saw record average cold temperatures and snowfall amounts. How easily we forget that. Much of Europe THIS YEAR has experienced the same thing. Record low average temperatures while we're warm over here. Is that getting an equal amount of attention as the warm months here? You are lying if you say yes. And what about the fact that while the north pole ice is melting, the south pole ice has been expanding? I don't hear any of you mentioning that either.
That doesn't mean I'm denying that the earth overall is getting slightly warmer. I just believe that the verdict is not out yet as to how much the human race is to blame for it, and second, I also don't think the verdict is out yet on whether or not it's a bad thing. For example, I like the warmer weather (not that a degree warmer is really noticeable), but any opportunity for women to dress lighter and show off more skin is awesome in my book.
But I believe what Kornfed is trying to say is that we as the human race tend to be arrogant in our belief of how much we impact the universe, because it makes us feel better when we have a sense of purpose. And that liberals / progressives tend to be ruled and swayed by emotion rather than reason.
I am all for reducing pollutants and picking up after myself, but the overwhelming percentage of people in these threads need to come back down to reality and realize just how miniscule human impact on the world is relative to how much they think it is. Just look at the percentage, for example, of man-made pollution in the form of particulates in the atmosphere vs the amount made by the earth itself (wind, volcanic ash, etc.). Do a little research on that and it might help you to gain a little perspective.
You global warming folks would gain a lot more credibility in your arguments if you weren't so blatantly biased in how you respond to varying data. But that's human nature. We gravitate toward things that validate our beliefs and ignore, or even attempt to silence, viewpoints that contradict us.
It would also help if you guys spent a little time learning more about how the planet works and its history as far as all forms of cyclical changes, not just global temperatures.
Of course, the average person isn't interested in spending the time. It's far easier to cherry pick what 'experts' to listen to and what media sources to follow.
Bottom line, take both extremes and realize the reality is always somewhere in the middle and that the overwhelming majority of us have been programmed to be polarized in our viewpoints and we ALL need to practice seeking balance and emotional control in how we view everything in life.
For example, 99.9999999% of people who hate Fox News never watch it. They are told to hate it and they are given broken clips taken completely out of context as 'proof' to hate them. Yet NBC completely distorted the truth about the Trayvon Martin case (purposely edited the police recording to portray Zimmerman as a racist which later they had to apologize for, purposely showed side-by-side photos of Zimmerman in prison garb and an old innocent-looking photo of Trayvon as a boy, not the gangsta gold-ladden grilled current photo). Yet people here call Fox News "Faux News."
What makes more sense:
#1. Convicting (not just saying he should be arrested and tried) Zimmerman as guilty and declaring he should be given the death penalty.
#2. Reporting the latest discoveries of the case as they come in and holding off judgement until the investigation is completed and a trial is had.
Much of the liberal media (not all) was doing #1. Fox News is just as passionate about justice being done, but using reason instead of emotion, declaring that we must get the facts first. And unfortunately that takes time and time doesn't work for people who are emotionally hijacked. So Fox News is looked at as being racist.
I watch Fox news and read MSNBC... EVERY DAY. I see the night and day difference on how global warming is handled, the Trayvon Martin case is handled, and every other major news story. You all should try achieving a balance in your media sources of both liberal and conservative so you can be better suited to understand the real truth.
Fox News makes mistakes, and I don't agree with all of there correspondents and anchors. I'm an atheist social liberal and fiscal conservative who believes in power redistribution, not wealth redistribution (small government, power to states, founding fathers, personal accountability and responsibility and self discipline).
I read these threads and I have a great concern for the welfare of our country and hope that we will soon cross the threshold that will finally get the majority of Americans to spend more time learning how the world works first-hand, instead of being spoon food their paradigm from only one side of the politically polarized propaganda machine.
Blah:
I can tell you're not formally educated in any science, or reading comprehension, or you wouldn't spout such rubbish. Skeptical and open-minded is supposed to be the very nature all scientists should embody. Sagan was wrote that book to explain the scientific method and the importance of skepticism and rigorous questioning.
Pro-tip: While true that climate change is occurring, it's not so determined that it is anthropogenically caused. Do not jump the gun from hypothesis to theory. This doesn't mean that anthropological climate change is pseudoscience nor junk science, just that it's not there yet to be a theory.
To say otherwise is stepping beyond scientific skepticism and into the realm of faith. And how far you campaign that faith can lead you to zealotry. (Hmm, that sounds almost like Yoda's description of the path that leads to the dark side... lol)
What Kornfed is trying to say is that he is not arrogant enough to say he knows whether man is responsible or not for any warming we may be experiencing. What Kornfed is skeptical about is how we go about gathering this information. It is that simple folks. I am also not arrogant enough to say I know what, or who, or if God even exists! Global warming is nothing more than blind faith at this moment, just as religion is. Climate is cyclical, in which an ice age was feared just 25 years ago during the Carter era. I know most will hate me for being so logical, but thats your problem!
Thank you Observer_1, explained in a way that I could not.
Beautifully said
I just read Vglance's entire post....well written with excellent logic. What a refreshing change of pace hehe
Observer_1:
And here is was about to say how nice it is to have an online debate that doesn't devolve into ad-hominem attacks and lobbing rhetorical hand grenades. Oh well.
Anyway, kornfed implied, more than once, that global climate change as a phenomenon is a fantasy. Note that I put "skeptical and open minded" in quotation marks. This is because that's not really what he means, if my previous experiences with his line of reasoning are any guide. Of course the core of science skepticism, that was the point of my post. However arguing that climate change is a myth when the vast majority of the scientific community disagrees is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. That was also in Sagan's book, if memory serves. You're correct that I came off as a bit dismissive, and for that, I apologize to kornfed. However, my point stands. As for the anthropogenic nature of global climate change, I agree that that the degree of human impact is a valid point of debate. I never said otherwise. I was responding to the all too common knee-jerk assertion that climate change of any sort is a myth.
Edit: kornfed now seems to be saying that global climate change is, in fact reality, but is questioning the anthropogenic component. If I misrepresented his views, I apologize. However, there are still a lot of people who DO seem to think that climate change is a hoax, so the debate is still relevant.
vglance:
Thank you for being civil! Regarding your points:
1) You are quite correct that this is approximate percentage of sceintists who consider global climate change as a whole to be real, regardless of causal factors. However, as I noted above, I was primarily responding to the notion that climate change does not exist. That said, some 80% of scientists overall (and 97% of climatologists) do believe that humans have played a statistically significant role in global climate change, thus still constituting a large majority.
2) I never argued that global climate change was set to doom all of humanity. In fact, I agree that such assertions are overblown. Humans are an adaptable, technological species, and I have no doubt that homo sapiens as a whole will wheather (if you'll pardon a pun) global climate change. However, while some places may become more temperate and hospitable, others will become noticeably worse. That's the nature of averages. Rising temperatures are strongly correlated with increased drought, and many of the places that are likely to bare the brunt of global climate change are those places that are least prepared to deal with it (e.g. equatorial Africa). The island nation of Kiribaati, for example, is already making efforts to move its population due to rising sea levels. Thus, ultimately, the issue is not one of science, but of people, and how we can make sure that the number of people displaced or harmed by climate change is A) knowable (in whatever direction) B) reduceable, if it is an issue.
Regarding your other points, I fully recognize that there is bias in the media on both sides. MSNBC has in fact stated that it views the news through a progressive lens. As you say, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
You note that:
I realize that your main point here is about media bias, but I do want to address this to avoid potential obfuscation of the issue. As you know, most global climate change models in fact predict that temperature changes will be uneven, and that some regions (especially North America and Europe, incidentally) will experience more severe and erratic weather. Just because one place is unusually cold doesn't "disprove" global warming. I realize that's not the argument you made, but its a common misapprehension, so I wanted to clear it up.
Finally, you state:
While you are correct that the amount of human-derived particulate amtter in the atmosphere is small comapred to naturally-sourced stuff, this doesn't address the impact of those anthropogenic particles. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex dynamic system. Many things in nature do not react linearly to inputs. A major point of debate in climate science as I understand it (disclaimer: I am NOT a climatologist, merely an interested observer) seems to revolve around just how un-linear, and how close to the knife's edge the global climate is. We just don't know to what degree small changes in atmospheric composition might have strongly non-linear effects on climate. Small changes can make big things.
Kornfed, I restored many of your comments, but this one I can't. It is a personal attack and grenade troll. You should know the rules by now.
You are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Address the issues, don't insult other users.
Blah:
You're right and I apologize. I can't on one hand put Sagan's work on a pedestal while speaking with animosity, which Sagan was strictly against.
You're right. That part I do not understand. Climate change is real, absolutely.
I guess I'm so used to discussing climate change with the anthropogenic element included that I sometimes forget they do not always go hat-in-hand when speaking with others.
Ahhh, suspended...my familiar friend! I suppose suspension now encompasses general attacks as well.
It appears we have different definitions of "personal"
ItsAboutTime-3704531
Example of a personal attack. Here is another...
bill-1260019
Care to explain your bias Sally?
I didnt think you wanted to address this. That is ok, I will save this thread and use it in my later arguments to display MSN bias.
There ya go. Squeeze every last drop out of mother earth. And while you're at it, fight over it.
Bet you don't say that when you are driving your car all over the place.
Funny that Fossil fuels caused this and now because of it we will consume MORE fossil fuels, sort of like pouring heroin into an open wound...I kids will hate us for f-ing up their planet.
i think this generation needs to worry about it not just our kids
"F-ing up THEIR PLANET"? Try God's planet who gave man dominion over it, and not some lilly livered, panty waste, tree hugging, windmill touting, Solyndra supporting, EPA loving, Greenpeace activist, sixties flower power love child, liberal loser!
I recently heard that Santa Clause was paid $3.8 Billion dollars by BP for the rights to the North Pole oil. As part of the contract, Santa has contracted out the eleves to run the arctic drill rigs. Meanwhile, Santa's workshop has been relocated to China and is now staffed by underage "little helpers" that make 50 cents a day. The reindeers were laid off, and their positions are now staffed by minimum wage temps and FedEx.
Dont worry guys, our crushing debt will spell our doom way before the global warming kicks in!!! Rejoice at the new shot of carbon we get! We can just get the desert regions addicted to air conditioning, and provide them energy to run them with our new discoveries! This could be an opportunity of a lifetime!
Plus, we are going to need access to the arctic oceans once the Gulf has a die out from the BP oil spill! God works in mysterious ways! The glass is half full!
TheTruthIsOutThere - Very typical christian Taliban republican/fascist response. Who said it's god earth? YOU? The earth belongs to everyone who lives on it and not just those who follow a "dis-organized religion". I guess we should go with your view huh? DRILL DRILL DRILL until there is absolutely no oil left? Continue to pollute and destroy another ecosystem until we kill all other living things in the Arctic.. because Man has dominance on the planet? If a war breaks out in the Arctic because of oil, I nominate you to go up there and personally fight for it. That way, you can sleep at night knowing you did your part.
I do not discredit our user of fossil fuels, but its 2012. We have the technology available to develop renewable and cleaner energy resources without destroying yet another ecosystem.
God's planet who gave man dominion over it- why do people like you assume God will prevent us from doing something irreparably stupid with the planet? If that is true and we were given dominion it does not mean invincibility, just that we were made the worlds stewards, you know who else is a steward of God's creations- parents. yet God allows parents to kill and destroy them. God has never stopped people from reaping the consequences of their actions.
Ok couple thingfs here:
1. If it were gods planet why do you ADVOCATE poking holes in it and sucking out its resources to pollute the air, I mean why are you trashing gods planet?
2. In the real world, not fairy tale land, it is a naturally formed object in a much bigger universe than your god could have ever imagined.
3. When we discuss scientific topics with evidence, WHY would we care what someone who thinks god made it has to say?
4. Insults, how mature and christian...
We have to stay on the "renewable path". The teck. is here now, Solar, Wind, harnessing the oceans currents, our cars have better gas milage and better batterys for Hybrids.
Their will always be oil but it will be needed fore plastics roads tires etc.. If I we're the president we woul'd be off of oil in 20 years.
If US or China(recently) get somewhere you can wager that it has something to do with Oil.
Don't worry, everyone... Only the radical right Christians (like the less than 1% of all Christianity) go with the "dominion" idea. The actual theology is supposed to be "stewardship", which is a vastly different approach than dominionism. But, just like a host of other things, my fellow Christians fail to adhere to it...
Unfortunately, the radicals are also the most vocal and, for some reason, get the most air time with the media. I guess Muslims have the same problem, if you catch my correlation.
TheTruthIsOutThere, remember, God made the earth and it's plants and animals before he made man. If man continues to try to destroy them, what do you think God will sacrifice: the earth and his first living creations, or Man?
You should be thanking the lilly livered, panty waste, tree hugging, windmill touting, Solyndra supporting, EPA loving, Greenpeace activist, sixties flower power love child, liberal losers, for they are the ones trying to stay on God's good side.
Now, if we can only strap spiked laser helmets on the polar bears and nuclear tipped torpedoes to some killer whales.
"While the world is runnin' down, you make the best of what's still around."
TheTruthIsOutThere, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
US might need the submarine fleet to evacuate the coasts due to ice melt and sea level rise. We could hasten the process by more drilling. Good Job!
You do know that the north pole melting would result in no sea level rise because it is already floating sea ice right?
russia was first to start that trend by planting flag under water in the north pole... she wants to be agreesive with her dictator sytle government so i say add some money from bad forign aid polices and give it to navy for artic or lose out on its spoils i mean russia has enough oil fields in her country and wants more for what to control world i saw no to russia aggression.
What's to worry about? Russia's efforts are all a waste of money unless global warming is real, and the oil companies and Republican legislators assure us that it isn't.
Kinda shoots down that whole " no such thing as global warming" argument when our own military is preparing for how to deal with it. Not to mention the corporations getting ready to carve up territorry. It's happening right now. Today.
Oh good Lord! People know that the earth has been undergoing a warming period just as it has gone through cooling periods. Warming and cooling of the planet is cyclical.
The contention is that we did or did not cause it. I have no doubt that man has added a LITTLE to this apparent current trend...BUT...we did not cause it. If man were the cause, what caused the warming before man showed up on the scene?
NC,
Seriously do some reading, if I were you I would start with the basic tab, the others actually require the ability to read, do math, and think...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov - born October 27, 1940 in Samarkand, Uzbek SSR, Soviet Union is a Russian astrophysicist. He is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a global warming skeptic.
Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity." He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.
Freedman,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
And I guess the worlds military leaders are in on the whole, climate change is a hoax, along with the all the scientists! LOL - Or maybe Senator Inhofe is just a corrupt politician who made up the, climate change is hoax bit, for his paying lobbyists.
Oh but he has proof that it is a hoax: because God is still up there and in control. Yes people this is where the hoax bit came from. According to him, it is the second biggest hoax right after that whole separation of church and state thing. I am sure he would have made a nice feudal lord faithfully torching suspected witches.
corporate -
http://tinyurl.com/89cj6t7
krohleder ~ I'm not that up on Inhofe, however, there is quite a bit of disagreement amongst scientists whether and to what degree humans are responsible for climactic events.
p.s. You might be interested to know that skeptical science is the creation of an evangelical christian. John Cook is a physics major, not a climatologist.
Despite the vast number of scientific organizations that say global warming is real, and that human activity is causing it, despite the fact that this article is about the world's navies preparing to adjust to global warming, there are STILL a large group of posters who want to say: 1. there's no such thing as global warming; and 2. if there is global warming it's not mankind's fault (and frequently they say both), and we mustn't discuss doing anything about it. The problem is not confined to the Arctic regions, nor does it merely concern the price of oil. The world's amount of arable land is decreasing due to the drought caused by global warming. A large portion of this country is suffering from that drought. And the price of your food is going up, and unless we start taking steps to slow down and halt global warming, the price of your food--YOUR food--is going to continue to rise until you can't afford it. We just had the warmest March on record, and the Midwest is being chewed up by tornadoes, but you might not be near a tornado, and you might love the unusual warm weather, so I'll stick to the effect on your food.
This actually proves why the super business friendly GOP would fight so hard to try and debunk any efforts to mitigate climate change and feed the hoax about global warming being fabricated for some nefarious purpose. It's definitely real, but they don't want anyone doing anything about it.
Screw the majority of the world's population living at or near sea level and the impacts to growing food that wouldn't be priced out of most people's means. Forget about monster storms, droughts, and floods. So what if it impacts the sources of fresh water most of the planet depends on. They can buy bottled water if they can afford it. There's profit to be made cornering the world's oil and gas market.
Freedman,
You used an astrophysicist to explain global warming in one post, then called someone out for using a physicist as his source. Funny.
Also, to everyone who keeps saying, "everyone knows there's global warming, the argument is over whether it is caused by humans," that is a fairly recent concession, and there are still those out there, who haven't gotten the memo that you've conceded global warming, but have just move the goal post a bit.
You know I think it's so cute how people argue that the rapid warming of the planet over the last few decades is no different than the periodic warming periods of the past that took hundreds or thousands of years.
There's no sense in trying to explain this distinction or ask them to actually think about what they're saying since they get all their information from talk radio, and they'd surely call you a Communist or some other term for trying to confuse them with the truth.
As it turns out, hambone johnson, there are a lot of astrophysicists who challenge the carbon induced greenhouse effect. From what I can ascertain, that is due in part from them having spent so much of their careers looking at the bigger picture. At any rate, a part of what an astrophysicist does is study the sun, and its effects upon not only our planet, but also our solar system.
For instance, the Giant Red Spot is thought to be an anticyclonic storm on the planet Jupiter which has been ongoing for at least 340 years. Now it is disappearing and at the same time that the equator region of Jupiter appears to be warming up. Any good astrophysicist would begin to look for cause and effect regarding that situation. Their vision is by definition less myopic than those who only study earth weather patterns.
What will the costs be to our ecosystems for going after these resources? Does the US want to take responsibility for irreversible damage? This is one dance we need to sit out.
WRONG. We NEED this oil. I can't afford any more $4 / gallon gas. Let's work together to get it back down to less than $2!!!
No offense, but that is the most immature statement I have heard regarding energy issues. WE need to do something so YOU can afford it? Seriously?
If you can't afford gas, too bad, you need to adjust YOUR behaviors to things you can afford. This latest gas price surge is conditioning by oil companies to accept $3 to $3.50 a gallon gas a regular price. Gas will never be $2 a gallon, and should never have been to begin with. It is a finite resource and its real price should be high to persuade immature children from living 30 miles from their job and driving Hummers for commute...When Americans as a whole grow up and mature, this planet will be better off.
do u honestly think the greed would stop and gas prices go down come on and we are going to another planet when this one is not fit to live on and if u look at cancer rates its getting there and many other signs and the other planet thing good luck
Great! So we can scrap Obamacare. Don't need it just because a few million can't afford health insurance. Change your behavior! A nice and tidy summation the Supreme Court can give when they rule against the Constitutionality of this ill advised boondoggle corrupt law! I am so with you man! Seriously!!!
Thank you for showing you know NOTHING about insurance economics OR energy economics in the same post...thats pretty rare to undermine your credibility on the same post. But you accomplished it, good job. Now the rest of us who can think will go on without you.
Makes me wonder, why do we even talk with people who thought climate change was a hoax until we found oil, now HURRY up and get it.
RUSS-0267:
I would add (to We the Corporations' comments) that oil prices are determined by the futures market, which, in turn, is affected by PERCEIVED risks to the oil supply. Some of the price increase in oil/gasoline in the past 12 years is a result of uncertainty created by the 2 wars we started in the Middle East and -- more recently -- by all the sabre rattling we're doing toward Iran. You can see short-term perturbations in the average price resulting from the 2008 crash, from talk of eurozone default (which comes and goes), talk of US economic health (as soon as news articles report favorable US economic news, gas prices start creeping up and, as soon as the news turns sour, the prices start creeping down), etc. None of these considerations relates to the longterm actual supply of oil or to refining and distribution issues, which are also significant.
ANother important factor for us as US residents is the fact that, worldwide, oil transactions are settled in $US. If another currency ever gets chosen, our prices could go up a lot further than they are now, depending on our perceived value of the dollar versus that other currency. And, as the US standard of living continues to go down, the effect of that currency difference could become quite large.
Russ: "We NEED this oil."
Haven't you been listening to all of the Republican politicians? We have more than enough oil in the U.S. right now, if only Obama would let us drill for it. And it's a lot closer than any oil located under the North Pole, which will remain unattainable since global warming is all a hoax. All those other countries are just wasting their money.
Why stop at $2 a gallon, Russ? Let's rip up the entire planet for every available resource we can get as fast as we can. Surely you'd think we could get it down to less than a dollar.
Since you don't understand the global market for oil and how that sets prices, I won't say a word to pop that bubble you live in.
Ah, what the heck? Just put BP in charge...
I hate all these greedy and arrogant bastard... they are going to destroy what is left of the few pristine spots on earth, all for oil that will eventually run out.. then what ? our beautiful earth will end up polluted beyond repair and once the oil and gas is gone then what ?
This is non sense and what I feel is anger and despair. How many species will go extinct because of this ?
oh, get real. We NEED this oil. I say, we need to be agressive here and get our hands in the door on this one.
1st, no we don't NEED this oil
2nd, Your comments remind me of a crack addict sitting on the corner whining about NEEDING your next fix and man if your neighbor just left his door open long enough you could steal the money to get your next fix.
Don't worry, responsible people will eventually prevail, and we will take care of you too.
We the corporations?
We don't need this oil??
What alternative do you have that is actually viable today?
Really? You can't think of any on your own?
From walking to mass transit...
Thats like asking what alternative do you have for your crack addiction...and regressives offer heroin.
do you really believe in this finite resource of fossil fuel b/s...do you not know energy is not ever destroyed just transformed... did you learn that fossil fuel is form from living things dying over time...tell me when living things are going to stop dying. Tell me when we will drain this world of oil...never because life works in a cycle just like the air we breathe...or is that a limited resource..stop the retarded epa propaganda and use your brain for once people..we cannot remove all the oil from this world period..I said it...prove me wrong..haha your brain can't because like rain it will always come back duh!...so drill till your hearts are filled people and get over it.
Walking is fine if you live in an urban area. Mass transit is again fine in an urban area.
What about the suburban and rural areas? Myself, I live 40 miles from where I work. Should I walk or maybe bike to work? Oh, and before you say live closer, I actually live right across the street from the edge of the facility I work on. The main entrance is 40 miles away.
And what about the people that can't afford to live in the urban areas? What do people do that don't have mass transit available, or if it is is not a viable option? The mass transit in the DC area is a joke. It is great for those that work traditional hours of say 9 to 5, at least when it operates, but what about those that work outside of those hours? The DC metro shuts down at night.
It's easy to chastise others who don't live or want to live your lifestyle, but did you ever consider their circumstances? Or is that beyond your ability to think of?
OMG Jose, poor poor Jose,
Did you learn that in 4th grade that all life cycles on earth?
Do you ave any idea how long it takes for the correct types of deposits that are required for oil take to form? Just the deposits of marine plankton required, not even counting the 100 million years of successive sedimentation, just the original deposits of plankton. Any idea?
Every time people like you open your mouth about science, I am reminded why you don't believe in it, because your grasp of science is so fundamentally WRONG it seems unbelievable. The entire human existence is 1/1000th the time needed for oil deposits to form...I am so stunned by your lack of scientific knowledge, heck common sense for that matter, I can hardly begin to converse with you, call me when you get to Middle School science...until then, yes air too is a finite resource.
Spoken like a true socialist...?
What about them, they can change their behaviors or technologies too...not everyone could afford a combustion car when they came out either, but we didn't abandon it.
Overcome and adapt, thats what we evolved for, I don't plan on stopping now, do you?
Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold published a case for abiotic oil. In a nutshell, the theory holds that hydrocarbons existed at the time of the solar system's formation, and are known to be abundant on other planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and some of their moons) where no life is presumed to have flourished in the past.
The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.
http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf
Good response, We. Maybe a bit over the line on the pejorative side, but perhaps necessary in this instance.
I think it's interesting to note that a majority of people in the early to mid 20th century understood that they didn't comprehend the vast amount of detail in science, so they usually just took scientists' words for it. I wonder what happened in the last 60 or so years...
Though, you could make an argument that it was an inevitable evolution based on how the Western world treats all other forms of authority and progresses more and more towards individualism. But I digress.
As someone who lives in Oklahoma, I'm very irritated with how our capital city has been laid out. It's soooo spread out, so much so that it's probably unlikely that there'll be a cost effective, efficient mass transit. Outside of OKC, the distances to the nearest cities are quite far.
I get your analogy about the car, but you should also remember that it wasn't until the automobile's technology progressed quite a ways from its original conception before it was widely accepted.
Our country is very vast and if any technology is going to come along to replace fossil fuels, it has to be able to deal with that vastness, as well as being marketable to people in states like Oklahoma, Texas, and all the other states in between California and New England.
So, unfortunately and logically, you really have to consider people in all parts of the country and not dismiss them outright.
Freedman:
The abiotic theory holds that there must therefore be nearly limitless pools of liquid primordial hydrocarbons at great depths on Earth, pools that slowly replenish the reservoirs that conventional oil drillers tap.
I have a novel idea, and stay with me on this...
Why don't we just get off our dependence on fossil fuels and come up with a better, longer-lasting, more efficient energy source and solve this problem once and for all? Oh, and one where the byproduct isn't causing issues with our home world.
Just a thought.
Darnit, there should be quotes around Freedman's sentence. My fault.
Sounds like an excellent idea, Observer.
I have not met many people who advocated waste, litter, gluttony.
I'm not convinced that fear promulgation is the best path towards achievement.
You might be interested in this BBC article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17694928
Absolutely! Talk about a set of countries that could really benefit not only from weening themselves from fossil fuels but then marketing that energy elsewhere, it would be Latin America and Africa.
Their countries' infrastructures would be ideal for the conversion because the majority of their citizens aren't dependent on oil anyway. Unlike the US, they could swap over fairly easily, cut what oil importation they have, and then market electricity to others.
Chile itself is a great country, with a fairly solid and reliable government, and though not quite 1st World, if it moved entirely over to renewable energy, it could be so overnight based on what it does export (copper). IMHO.
...an inescapable subtext to this emerging international conflict over oil resources in the Arctic Ocean, is how it confirms that our climate is growing indisputably warmer. The the idea of navigating these perennially frozen waters, let alone setting up drilling operations in them, was unthinkable a generation ago.
Today it is accepted as a practical, near-term opportunity.
I know that the people who steadfastly deny that human activity is a prime cause of this change will dismiss this evidence, with talk of the Carboniferous Era, and Medieval warm period, but the sun has not grown any brighter in my lifetime, so one must ask, what has changed?
There has to be a reason.
Oh good Lord! People know that the earth has been undergoing a warming period just as it has gone through cooling periods. Warming and cooling of the planet is cyclical.
The contention is that we did or did not cause it. I have no doubt that man has added a LITTLE to this apparent current trend...BUT...we did not cause it. If man were the cause, what caused the warming before man showed up on the scene?
The sun has not grown any brighter in your "long" life span? Has it become dimmer? If not, what caused the cyclic ice ages that we know the Earth has experienced? The answer is that the Earth cools and warms.
NC, try climate balance. Deforestation of huge areas, not only in the U.S., but especially in Brazil right now, are slowly taking away those OXYGEN causing things people call trees. Fracking, which at one time was an easy but messy way to retrive non-renewable resources is now at an all-time high, though the loss of natural resources, animal habitat, water pollution/air pollution via carbon-based toxins seems to mean nothing as long as OIL is gotten. The World's population in 1700 was app. 610 million, today it is 7 BILLION, but your logic dictates that humans and their 'machines' have had 'little' impact. When natural and non-re-newable resources are used up be ready to pound sand, because that's all you'll have to show for your and everyone else's 'I want it now' attitude.
NC - first off, people don't know any such thing, at least not as it relates to the warming of the climate over the last 50 years. Nobody disputes that the Earth has experienced variances in its climates and will continue to do so. But most people also realize that such variations do not just happen without a cause. From observances of sun spot activity, it is known that solar radiance has at times varied sufficiently to cause observable changes in climate.
But, in the last half century, there has been no such change. The sun's radiance has varied on an approximate 11-year cycle, but the peaks and troughs of these cycles have not significantly varied. Today we receive about the same amount of energy from the sun as we did in 1952. So, leaving aside the Ice Age, now 10,000 years in the past, what is warming our planet if sun radiance is a relative constant?
Good lord, indeed.
I totally agree. We need this oil, like a crackhead needs crack. Like a junkie needs smack. Like the secret service needs.......crack?
Can't we just have one region of the world not raped and pillaged by humans. Everything we touch just gets ugly and polluted.
ugly is in the eyes of the beholder..stop discriminating...
Mark440, MoreBroke, Cathy V., poodlefan007,
While I agree that ecological damage will likely happen by drilling in these regions, what alternative would you suggest?
If the United States is not involved, do you really believe your protests here on the vine, or even in the streets will stop the Russians? Or the Swedes? Maybe the Chinese or Canadians will be swayed by your banter.
Until there is a VIABLE alternative, oil will remain king. Currently, the only alternative for ocean transport shipping is nuclear, and I don't know of any ships, outside of Naval vessels that use nuclear power. Air transport still requires fuel, although bio-fuels are a promising possibility, those bio-fuels diminish food stock. And when it comes to vehicular transport, oil based fuels are and will remain the predominant fuel source for a long time. Other fuels, while feasible do not currently allow the distance or time permissions to be viable.
So, I'm open to suggestions. Got any?
Spending money on military for oil should produce some high dollar crude. This may be the golden opportunity of where you go to the bank and get a loan to buy a gallon of gas.
If we do see a large amount of oil enter the market, can we please, please stop the subsidizing of a profitable, mature industy and use any savings and profits from the sale of a natural resource to begin development of alternative sources of energy.
When mac and cheese gets to expensive for your family, do you attempt to lobby to lower the price of mac and cheese, or do you instead seek out an alternative food, such as ramen noodles.
oppie...
How about this. We stop subsidizing ALL industries and use tax dollars for what they were initially intended for. Let the INVESTORS risk their dollars for the profit potential.
One item left out from this report is ESPIONAGE. There is a spy trial ready to go with 'closed doors' for secrecy relevations in the trial of a Finnish Professor of International Political Science at the Copenhagen University,Denmark. Allegedly furnished 'planning, oil,gas,minerals etc' for Russians (diplos in Kopenhavn). Denmark has a large zone thanks to its Greenland. Chinese millionaire tried to purchase real estate in Iceland to qualify for the Arctic zone exploration; turned down not resident -China is trying to purchase real estate in all the countries -so far to no avail. The espionage re: Arctic Zone findings,plannings y each and every nation is the new phenomenon in the ancient craft. Russia already drilled the deepest to extract 'pure water' a couple of months ago.The Arctic should be left pristine.
id say the world has gone crazy
there's any question?
A little over a hundred years ago oil was considered a nuisance. What a profound effect it's had on world civilizations. It boggles the mind. Maybe oil should be banned. Just don't ban coffee. I need my mind boggled in the morning. And after reading some of these posts, please don't ban anti-psychotic medications.
Maps and photographs could increase the quality of presentation. Some discussion as to how the precessional motion of the earth is affecting the polar regions would be appreciated.
Hmmm, looks the entire world is still betting their energy security on oil and gas while we (liberals) dabble around with golf carts, windmills and solar panels. The rest of the world is much more practical and not wasting their money on silly fads. In his fourth years, the Obama economy should be roaring, but instead the GDP is 1.7%, the lowest since Jimmy Carter, another green energy nut and one termer.
You actually believe the things you write, don't you? Perhaps all those silly e-newsletters you get from Michelle Bachman and Paul Ryan make you feel "informed", right?
Oil is an unfortunate necessity in our society. The USA only makes up 6% of the worlds population yet we consume 25% of its natural resources. China is set to surpass us in car ownership the next 10 years and Chinese automobile market is the biggest now in the world. The USA and Europe are a saturated market meaning we simply replace our aging cars with new ones while China has years of pent up demand. Unless something is done with electric cars such as what Tesla is attempting to do with the Model S we will see peak oil soon if we are not all ready there. Peak oil is when oil production can not keep up with demand and despite greater amounts of drilling we still can not keep up with demand. Lets hope long range electric cars (150+ mile range) are introduced in the next 5 years or so can reduce our dependency on oil. I would rather use innovation and technology then sending our children off to die in a military war to find a short sighted mirage of a solution to this problem. The arctic is the most sensitive to AGW because CO2 although a trace gas is now at 394ppm and rising about 1ppm every 2 years or so. Left unchecked it will devastate the arctic areas because a large amount of permafrost will melt and decomposition of frozen organic waste will release million of tons of methane into the air and methane is a much stronger green house gas than is CO2 so we need to roll out the electric cars and renewable energy while we still have a chance to do something about it.
Enough of the lefty talking points already. You have been brainwashed quite well. Stop parroting Barack Obama. We Americans are tired of the guilt trip Obama is putting us through. How about mentioning that the USA only makes up 6% of the worlds population yet we export 70% of the staples we grow such as corn and wheat? It takes energy resources to grow, fertilize, harvest, package and transport the food around the world.
Actually, Peak Oil is defined as:
Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.
Brought to you by "Wiki".
Btw, I'm all for pushing the alternative renewable market. It faces an uphill battle against those who do not care what is left of the planet after they are gone.
With all the tornadoes and hurricanes, I would say our wake up call may come in time for the green gang to at least say "I told ya so" before we're all washed off into the ocean from which we arrived. Who'll have the last laugh? The tree hugging hippies, or mother earth herself?
Wow, thanks for the class professor. Did it ever occur to you that we have starving families right here in our country? This is what the capitalist crazy, right wing ditto heads do not get. So much effort and waste go into shipping Shi+ around the world when we need these things right here, right now. But if there's a nickel to made form it, and we can put more Americans out of work then hell or highwater, dig up the necessary oil to get my boats crack-a-lacking.
Why do farmers get paid not to grow? Look into the issue before you spout off with more "talking points" professor.
Really Tea Party? We have an epedemic of starving people in the US huh? Did you know that 1 out of 7 people in the world will go to bed hungry tonight, 98% of them life in developing nations. Almost that same amount, 1.3 billion, live on under the equivelant of $1.25 a day (that is 50% of sub saharan Africa and 40% of SE Asia). 30% of childen in developing nations are undernourished, which directly or indirectly results in over 5 million children's death per year.
In the US, where a supposed 30 million people life in "poverty," things are quite different.
Among those living under the US's own federally determined poverty line, 99.6% have a refrigerator, 97.7% have a TV, 78.3% have AC, 54.5% have a cell phone, and 29.3% have a video game console (and 31.3% of the entire nation has video game consoles, a 2% drop in supposedly poor people).
Specifically on the subject of food, 92.5% of those living in "poverty" in the US report ALWAYS having enough food to eat, 5.9% sometimes do not have enough food to eat, and 1.5% often do not have enough to eat. and that is among the already poor in the country, not the whole population.
In 2009 only 643,000 people in the whole country spent even ONE NIGHT homeless, and over 400,000 of those people spent that homeless time in a sanctioned shelter or transitional housing. And yet the average shelter in the US on the average night has a 10% vacancy rate, so they could have taken in more. So in 2009, only .08% (8 one hundereths of a percent) of the population spent even just one day homeless and without official shelter. In any other nation of our population size those kind of numbers would be beyond historic, and yet instead we get complainers like you. The fact is that those 1.3 billion people living on under $1.25 a day, most with no access to even the most basic of amenities such as running water that we take entirely for granted. They would have an exponentially better quality of life even becoming amongst the "poor"est in America.
do you really believe in this finite resource of fossil fuel b/s...do you not know energy is not ever destroyed just transformed... did you learn that fossil fuel is form from living things dying over time...tell me when living things are going to stop dying. Tell me when we will drain this world of oil...never because life works in a cycle just like the air we breathe...or is that a limited resource..stop the retarded epa propaganda and use your brain for once people..we cannot remove all the oil from this world period..I said it...prove me wrong..haha your brain can't because like rain it will always come back duh!...so drill till your hearts are filled people and get over it.
Incredibly disturbing to me. Now that the ice is melting in the Artic, let's drill there to find more oil and cause more destruction to the planet. Great idea! Alternative clean energy is never going to become a reality when we continue the same old habits. But, I guess some things never change.
its a cycle what you didn't hear about it...
CERN is investigating low energy nuclear fusion. So too are numerous universities all over the world are carrying out their own studies to determine if there is limit on the amount of sustainable energy a gram of nickel can produce. This energy is quite cheep and completely without pollutants including any form of radiation. In the next 12 to 24 months it will be available to heat and air condition our homes. Shortly thereafter it will be used to power all forms of transportation and completely replace oil, gas, coal and all other forms of green energy. Oil will then be used exclusively for making plastic and as a lubricant. There will be an enormous reduction in CO2 when LENR becomes available to entire world. I invite all posters to investigate it. Mitt Romney appears to be the only candidate for the Presidency who has specifically mentioned it in one of his campaign speeches and appears to be ahead of every one else in this one aspect. This one invention will forever more change the economics of certain oil nations in the world. It will cause the GDP of these nations to plummet as we hopefully smile at their short sightedness.
It doesn't matter if the US claims part of this oil and gas or not. Obama will restrict the US from drilling while the rest of the world sucks it dry thru horizontal drilling.
Proof or assumption?
Assumption only.
Unless Obama creates a law that is read by Congress where Obama will restrict drilling just like you said he will you are doing nothing more than speculating or assuming you know what will happen.
Where is the law that says Obama is going to restrict drilling?
How sad that you assume that anyone with less than a fifth grade education and understanding of how the government works would actually listen to your nonsense.
drug addicts jones for one last big fix.
There just isn't enough to go around, folks. Get used to it.