Unless I fell asleep and missed something, I think this was it, as far as any attention to the most important issue of our time, on the Fox News “Debate”.
Unless I fell asleep and missed something, I think this was it, as far as any attention to the most important issue of our time, on the Fox News “Debate”.
Didn’t watch it, so I can’t help you on whether you missed anything.
A pretty crappy answer, IMO. The one Repug candidate who ever made the slightest bit of sense on AGW is now pandering to the ignorant in the hopes that he can rise in the polls. He spouted the same old “energy independence, we need to find MORE oil and gas, we will destroy jobs and the economy” BS, and used “cap and trade” as a boogeyman.
I never liked Graham much—-his appearance and demeanor always set my crap detectors vibrating—-but did appreciate him more when he began to make some semi-intelligent comments on science and AGW. He’s now cooked his goose in my eyes, and IMO, he never will be trusted by the Repugs no matter how much he waffles and panders—exit stage right.
And that will leave more room on the stage for the biggest clown ever to enter the circus—-The Donald! Can he win the nomination? Or have his ego so pumped by a near miss that he runs as an independent? Let’s hope so, or at least hope that he drags the last man standing so far into the swamp that he can’t get out in time. Romney Redux! OOH-Rah!
Trump.
https://youtu.be/vBFgbK6wrH4
“The one Repug candidate who ever made the slightest bit of sense on AGW”
It wasn’t so long ago that many of them trusted the science on AGW but I think your opinion about Graham & AGW isn’t correct.
IMO, Jon Huntsman is the only sane GOP candidate wrt AGW that I can recall since the end of the Bush years.
What’s “incorrect” about my opinion about Graham & AGW?
Jon Huntsman is a GOP candidate I might have voted for in 2008, and he disappeared very early in the campaign in 2012, but he is NOT a candidate in 2016, and not even much of a Republican any more—-I was speaking about the 2016 Clown Brigade, and those among them who ever made the slightest bit of sense on AGW have long since recanted.
You are insulting clowns.
Clowns do funny things to entertain people, and don’t take themselves too seriously.
On the other hand, the Repugnant candidates do and say stupid things that are not entertaining to anyone but the right wing-nuts, and they DO take themselves far too seriously.
I may have mixed it a bit, but I was speaking metaphorically. Apologies to the clowns.
Some of what he said made no economic sense. He’s going to drill more, use less. Doesn’t work that way. More oil means lower prices. Cheap oil encourages its use (unless the economy is tanking and deflation takes hold, which may be happening now). But cheap oil discourages production (which is happening in North Dakota). So does that mean the Koch Bros. need more gob’mint subsidies to “encourage” them to drill?
This would all be laughable if it wasn’t for the economic illiteracy of the audience watching the debate.
It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s all “bullshit”—-see the Jon Stewart post for details.
Per the EIA we’ve peaked on unconventional fuels and the amount coming out of ‘conventional’ fields continues to decline. Enviro issues aside, there’s no way the fossil fuel carnival can continue–oil prices high enough to support shale and tar sands oil kill the economy. But nobody else is talking this way, either.
That doesn’t make sense, so please link your source on that. Unconventional oil has decidedly NOT peaked, and on the supply side, it probably never will. On conventional oil, it is still early to call an absolute supply peak, but the evidence points to that being the case.
There is no unconventional coal, really, and coal has neither hit a demand or supply peak. Neither conventional or unconventional natural gas have peaked on the global scale.
The global economy ran for several years with $100 oil after the recession. It could probably do so again. High energy prices do, however, slow economic growth. This should be considered a good, rather than bad, thing – as it forces energy conservation in toto and causes alternatives like renewables to become more attractive – and that’s what few consider or discuss, preferring to think growth coupled with lower and lower prices are only positive things.
I’ve blogged about this on numerous occasions. I’d direct you to http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/01/08/us-oil-boom-could-ease-in-2015-eia-says/#4168101=0&9854103=0
You’ve “…blogged about this on numerous occasions…”? And? This link to an 18-month-old opinion article doesn’t tell us much. In fact it’s confusing.
“In its first forecast of the nation’s energy position in 2015, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected Tuesday that oil producers will INCREASE production by about 750,000 barrels of oil per day in 2015. That’s a drop from an expected daily increase of 1.03 million barrels in 2014 and the growth of the past two years”.
So a drop in the rate of increase means we have peaked? Am I missing something?
You’re right. I missed the date on that at first glance. I haven’t been watching the U.S. shale oil numbers closely the past two months, because I figured output would slow or drop anyway with the current price, and that once the prices rose the numbers would bounce back up again:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/shale-oil-producers-ready-to-raise-production-1431556302
It does look like shale oil output will drop a bit in 2015, but again, this is purely due to price. It’s rather surprising that it won’t drop further – the rig count had plummeted, but the actual production is only slightly down. This has been credited to much better technologies and efficiencies in shale oil extraction:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-5584
Jammers is seeing something that isn’t there, because he wants to see it. From his January 2014 article:
‘Last month, the EIA predicted that U.S. oil output would peak in 2016 at 9.5 million barrels, just shy of the nation’s record in 1970. Production will begin to drop in 2020, according to the agency.
Oil production is “ultimately based on how good those investments look,” because even though production rates at North American shale plays are declining rapidly, there’s still plenty of oil there, said John Lee, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston. “These big shale plays they are by no means fully developed.”’
That means we’ll likely see a supply peak in just the U.S. by 2020 (probably later now due to current lowering production from the price and from the technological advances in the field), but this certainly doesn’t indicate a true global peak in oil as of now.
That’s nowhere near a supply or demand peak on oil, and that’s just the U.S., not the global story. The EIA is just pointing out that the shale boom in the U.S. is slowing in growth (not even in total amount) in the immediate short term due to the current prices. Once oil prices rise again, and they almost certainly will, there’s a ton of it that just needs to be turned back on. It will ramp up again, and pretty quickly.
I’m one who thinks shale oil is mostly a mirage, but by all signs we’re years away from it peaking in the U.S. – then there’s the global story after that, with Saudi Arabia remaining strong, the tar sands in both Canada and Venezuela, a ridiculous amount of other sources that can be converted to oil, and the Arctic as a big question mark.
Additionally, that’s just oil, which virtually everyone agrees is the only one of the fossil carbon sources anywhere close to a true supply peak.
I agree with your conclusion, that we don’t really have a choice about whether or not we have to move away from fossil carbon, but it’s just untrue that we’ve peaked yet on any of the three sources.
“Cheap oil encourages its use… ”
Yes, I know when gasoline drops a few cents, I see an opportunity to go for more and more and more scenic drives. Just because I can. Not.
The reason “cheap” oil encourages its use is because oil is expensive as hell, and most people don’t use as much of it as they really would want. The high price of oil means that to some degree, most people are suffering discomfort. When the price goes down, they can afford to ease some of that discomfort. (Salt is cheap – I use as much as I want. If truffles were cheap, I would use more of them in my cooking)
This, I think, is a really important point.
Gasoline, heating oil, natural gas etc are EXPENSIVE. Something we don’t talk about nearly enough is that these a**holes who defend “drill, drill drill”, these people who talk about the evils of “cap and trade” (huge Republican talking point) or “ruining the economy” (huge Republican talking point) are telling people that it is in their best interest to keep paying through the nose for their fossil fuels.
This talking point – that renewables will “wreck the economy” is not addressed enough, and not challenged head-on. Renewables will save us all a titanic s**t-ton of money. Getting off of fossil fuels translates into more than $3000.00 for each member of every household not disappearing from their pockets every single year. That’s $8000.00 per average household.
When you can drive your electric car for 300 miles, and you spend a couple of bucks for electricity, instead of $40.00 to $80.00 for gasoline it becomes pretty clear.
I have had some success confronting anti-AGW folks on blogs who rant about conspiracies, “wrecking the economy” etc by accusing them of being shills for the Exxon Mobil. That being pro-environmental reform actually equals not wanting to “pay through the nose” for fossil fuels any more. And it works.
The economic argument works. Which is why we see Republicans arguing for rooftop solar. Most anti-AGW trolls are conspiracy freaks. Let’s give them a new conspiracy to get behind. And it is easy because the arithmetic is completely compelling for our case. This is not smoke and mirrors – it is changing the framing of the argument.
If he wasn’t so trigger-happy to start the next war, he would really seem like a relatively reasonable guy.
You need to listen to Jon Stewart’s “bullshit” clip and rethink what “relatively reasonable” means re: Graham
I had actually watches Stewart … and I was very careful about including the work “relatively”.
Would you rather have Santorum?
Santorum is gone—-he has been replaced by Trump.
The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2014 were Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Iraq.
I didn’t think Canada hates the U.S guts, least no-one told me when I last visited for a holiday. I spent 15 years in Saudi and neighboring U.A.E, a lot of the young men had attended University in the States and spoke with strong U.S accent and idioms bub. I worked with the U.S C.O.E and they were pretty popular in the part of Saudi I worked in. A lot of management in their industries were U.S nationals and they bought a lot of U.S goods (A/C’s, fighter planes etc). Can’t speak for Mexico, maybe not so popular after listening to Donald Trump’s insulting speech . .
Just saying . . . . . .
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
Yes. Yes we do.
And we’re just biding our time until the moment is right.
You won’t see it coming.
Was it the South Park Episode that upset Canada ?
Biding your time? We won’t see it coming LOL
You better get moving before we roll across the border some weekend and make Canada the 51st state. And we have never properly punished Canada for burning Buffalo to the ground in 1813 either. So watch your mouth!
I believe Hillary will win the 2016 election not despite taking climate action, but because of it.
I would rather see Bernie Sanders than Hillary in the Oval Office.
And it would be awesome if either Sheldon Whitehouse or Elizabeth Warren would vie for the nomination but that’s not at all likely.