Will Drilling ANWR Ease the Oil Crisis?
With fuel prices continuing to climb with no peak in sight, arguments have re-surfaced for drilling off the coasts of Florida and California, on public lands, and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Offshore drilling has been banned for 27 years and both presidential candidates are against drilling in the ANWR. But how valid are the arguments made for tapping into America’s oil reserves to lower our foreign oil imports and the price of oil? This subject has legions of supporters and detractors, especially when the subject of ANWR comes up.
Is there an easy, viable answer. The YES proponents say: We need the oil. It will be years before alternative fuels will be viable. We need to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. A few remote species of wildlife that will be affected can’t be as important to our quality of lives as the need for energy. Why should we refuse to denigrate our wildlands for our insatiable needs and in turn accept the cheap oil resulting in the destruction of the environment of third-world oil producers? We will never make the necessary move to alternate fuels unless we see the up-close-and-personal effects of destroying our own wildlife habitats, and polluting our own air, and water– then trying to justify our energy needs. Until alternative fuel sources have been developed we should tap into every available oil source at our disposal, including off-shore drilling.
Then the NO supporters counter: It will take ten years before any oil from ANWR reaches the market. Since the US has only 3% of the world’s oil reserves, and since the oil from ANWR is sold on the global market, it will have little effect on future oil prices and none for the next ten years. For the amount of benefit we get from the oil, disrupting migratory and breeding habits of wildlife ripples down through the environment well beyond the species directly affected. We don’t need to destroy what we have protected to make a bullet point, the effects from climate change, fuel prices, and the politics of oil serve well enough.
Take your pick. All good arguments. But the one argument that should not be taken off the table is the debate. And that debate should not be only about what is right for our country, but what is the right thing to do. When an American’s carbon footprint (mostly from burning fossil fuels) of 20 tons per year is compared to the 1 ton per person that the global per capita average ought to be (the scientific community’s consensus for stabilizing global temperature), than we must consider that shortages of oil and its resultant rising prices as well as the burning of such fuels adding CO2 to the atmosphere causing global warming are a global problem, one from whose ramifications we cannot isolate ourselves.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
No matter which of the arguments one wants to get behind none of them will solve our current problem. The problem is not just the need to produce more oil within our own country to make this country less dependent on foreign sources it is the need for alternate energy sources period.
The only answer to our current situation, as I see it, is pushing, really pushing, for alternate energy sources. There are places within this country that have an abundance of wind…put up windmills to tap this energy source. For the good of everyone those that protest against these windmill farms should be advised to “stuff it”. The same goes for solar and wave action energy generation sites.
I realize that all alternate energy sources will take time, time we do not have, to put on line and will be fairly costly. But, just sitting around complaining about the cost of fuel/energy and wringing our hands is not going to solve a damn thing.
What we are thinking is only on FUEL…lets consider that most of what we use today is a by product of oil. All the plastics and we know there is a lot of it.
So when you think only of YOUR fuel tank also think of fertilizer, all your containers that you haul stuff in…wood is too heavy and we needed to save the SPOTTED OWL so plastic became the alternate fuel!!!!
Why should the rest of the world be expected to DRILL and furnish us oil if we will not develop our own? Pres. Clinton is the one that VETOED the bill to drill in ANWAR. It is the CONGRESS now that will not let us drill. So watch whom you blame. YOU voted for them. Let them know.
Just remember it is a much BIGGER problem than just YOUR FUEL TANK!
Your last paragraph presupposes that “Global Warming” is a fact which it is not. The list is exponentially expanding on scientists that disagree. Furthermore, if you do nothing nothing will have changed. Sitting back and watching the world go by is called procrastination. As progress is made toward different fuel types we can then phase out oil for gas and diesel engines but it will still be required for lubricants. Working alternatives are still on the drawing boards and we should for the present pursue what we have. This country does have a great deal more than the 3% you state in the article if you include the oil shale in North Dakota and surrounding area as well as offshore. My understanding is that it exceeds 40%. China is going to be drilling between Cuba and Florida so why not us?
If we look at the response of the public at $3 a gal vs $4 a gal I think we can see that providing more cheap (under $4) oil will not result in any substantive change in our behavior or in our willingness to support the efforts to develop alternative renewable, low carbon footprint energy sources.
I understand there are currently over 60,000 acres of land waiting to be drilled today in existing oil producing areas. The only effect opening up ANWR will be to further increase the profits of the oil companies.
If you want to see a politician do a dance around an issue, ask for a commitment to close what is known as the “Enron Loop hole”. According to Congressional hearings this loop hole, developed by the oil industry lobby is responsible for over 20% of the current price increase due to price manipulation.
$4 is cheap when compared to the rest of the world. It’s time we acknowledge that we will not work to reduce our oil addiction until we are forced to.
Jking
You might want to check your sources on the China drilling thing. Yes there are a lot of commentators making statements but check out the responses here.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop_claims_chin.html
and here
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/40776.html
Even out VP admites he lied
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/661427.html
When an oil man makes a statement in a speach that is attempting to sway the public and sway votes and is not making statements of fact it is not a “mis-statement” it is a simple intentional lie.
You might Google China oil Cuba drilling to get your eyes opend about who is telling the truth.
Try some real photos of ANWR, that shot you put up is not ANWR. The place is a barren mud flat with no mountains in view. There are some distant gravel pile mountains but they are not visible from the proposed drilling area. ANWR is as big as South Dakota. The planned drilling area is the size of Central Park in the NYC:
This is a real photo of the area.
Honesty is the best policy.
BK
It’s absolutely amazing how the environmental nazis have conned the world (and us) into believing their propaganda. Remember when they were shouting that the North Slope would wipe out the caribou herds? Can you hear them today talking about spoiling our coastline with those “ugly drilling rigs”? Like we’re going to see drilling rigs which are 50 or more miles off the coast! How much North Slope oil found its way onto the unspoiled beauty of Alaska? The Exxon Valdez had nothing to do with the drilling in the North Slope. That was a transportation calamity pure and simple. Even today there are dozens of oil tankers moving millions of barrels off our coasts and in our harbors. When was the last time you heard of a significant spill anywhere near the US? I guess the environmentalists would rather see people suffer and perhaps die from starvation than drill for oil or even dig for coal. We had better be very careful in what “alternative energy sources” we come up with. E85 ethanol fuel is a perfect example. The environmentalists would have you believe that it’s a renewable energy source and the answer to our prayers. The truth is that ethanol is such an expensive alternative to gasoline that the federal government has to subsidize it to the tune of about 50 cents a gallon or no one would even consider using it. Wait until the true costs of ethanol are published. Remember that you have to factor in the thousands of acres of farmland which are being taken out of food production to make ethanol, leading to food shortages, and we haven’t even really started to use it. Then add in the energy costs involved in planting, harvesting and refining the finished product. And, when all is said is and done, you have a fuel with less energy per gallon than gasoline. Talk about an all round losing proposition. The idea that it will take 10 years for drilling now to have any effect on oil prices is also pure propaganda. Commodity markets are futures markets and the bet is on what the supply-demand situation will be in the future. If the US informs the world that it will start developing its own oil resources, the price of oil on the world market would start falling immediately.
I am not sure the lead article “Will Drilling in the ANWR…” has correct facts and figures. I have seen some conflicting data recently. So, consider those numbers with caution.
Like so many other “events” in our lives we tend to re-act instead of pro-act. The scenario we are witnessing right now was taught to me in a college solar-energy engineering class back in 1981. At that time a barrel of crude was about $10. The instructor predicted that in less than 50 years, a barrel would be at least $100, AND it would be so scarce that countries would be going to war for the last remaining oil.
Instead of spending astrnomical sums of our tax money and money we have borrowed from China to be in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could have been spending that money on Federal incentives to improve efficiency of existing alternative energy products and funding research for new technologies.
Back then, we had state and federal tax incentives for installing alternative energy equipment into our homes. The cost was high and the efficiency was low, but I installed a system at my home at that time. I used the tax breaks to reduce the purchase costs by about 30%. It was simply solar panels charging a bank of 12 volt batteries. The house also had many other energy saving features. I basically had a 1700 sq ft camper without wheels.
First, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. Our money spent there in one day could probably buy a hundred homeowners the “off the grid” equipment to be independent. No more electric company, no more gas, oil and coal dependency.
Second, for the short term, and with EXTREME consideration for the environment, it would be okay to drill just about anywhere. There is much oil in the Rocky Mountain shale formations for example. But it seems nobody wants drilling done in their back yard.
If you Google Earth the town of Kermit, Texas, you will see about 1000 well sites within 10 miles of that town. Zoom out and go all over west Texas and southern New Mexico – you will see at least 100,000 more well sites. The sight of all those wells absolutely blew my mind. There are active wells in half of the states of the U.S. from Pennsyvania to Alaska. If those oil well sites are pumping just 3 barrels a day that might easily be 3 million barrels per day.
Finally, the biggest hurdle right now is not the supply of oil, but the supply of refineries. Big oil has already stated publicly that they don’t want to invest in any new refineries. There have been no new refineries built in the last ten years or so. Go figure!
jking states that, “This country does have a great deal more than the 3% you state in the article if you include the oil shale in North Dakota and surrounding area as well as offshore.” According to the USGS (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911) there is only 3 to 4.3 billion of recoverable (with today’s technology) oil in the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota.
BOY, DID YOU OPEN UP A BAG OF WORMS! IF THE ARGUED DRILLING WON’T HELP FOR 10 YEARS THEN BLAME THE CONGRESS FOR NOT ALLOWING IT 10 YEARS AGO!!! MOST OF US ARE WORN OUT WITH THE DAMN ENVIONMENTALISTS HOLDING US BACK. WE HAVE THE TECHNICAL ENGINEERING TO SAFELY DRILL ANY WHERE!!! NATURE WILL CAUSE MORE HAVOC WITH WILDLIFE AND PLANT LIFE DUE TO FIRE AND STORMS THAN ANYTHING MAN COULD THINK UP!!
DRILL NOW!! DRILL, DRILL DRILL!!
I missed Mr. Dilfey’s answer. Global warming is 95% caused by water vapor. We expect 10 years of cooling? I don’t believe it will take 10 years to get oil from off shore to market. More like 5 or less. China is already drilling off our shores. When gas gets to $10/gallon I won’t change my habits much. Food, and power will go up in step. Roads will be less crowded, restaurants the same. How can anyone think more oil supply won’t help? Anyone thinking the government would be better at supplying power should try to find a public agency that outperforms private industry. Good luck.
“Try some real photos of ANWR”
This is the source of one of the ANWR photo:
http://www.lib.odu.edu/libassist/courseguides/NewPage/EnvRes.htm
The other two are from pro-drilling in ANWR site located here:
http://www.americansforamericanenergy.org/arctic+energy.aspx
I forgot to mention something about all those west Texas well sites. I wrote my U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), asking where in the heck was all that oil going that is coming out of those wells? I did not get a reply.
Here is a bit of information relating to Exxon’s profits: I am a royalty owner by inheritance with 4 wells on 160 acres in Upton County, Texas. Exxon-Mobile has a perpetual lease on the mineral rights and is the issuer of my monthly royalty payment. My monthly statement shows two oil wells, one liquid gas well and one natural gas well. These wells have been pumping every day and every night since the 1930’s. Exxon’s share per month is about $18,000 and my share is .0056% – that’s point-oh-oh-5 6, or about $100.
Like many others, I am totally wrung out from listening to Mr. Dilfey and others like him. Their doom and gloom predictions go back 30 or more years and and have been wrong, wrong, wrong. With every day that passes, the “science” behind their claims is being debunked by scientists and climatologists who do not have political agendas, do not get funding from the government and who understand that the United States of America is not the source of the world’s problems. To not exploit likely sources of oil and natural gas on our soil and offshore is to condemn our nation and many around the world to a declining standard of living, greater sickness and higher mortality rates. Depending solely on conservation and alternative energy sources, NONE of which are yet proven to be viable in the amounts needed, is the path we’ve followed since the wondrous days of Jimmy Carter. That’s the OLD way! Since “change” is on everyone’s mind, let’s start today with a nation-wide effort to find and produce more of our own oil. Yes, it will take some time to realize the benefits of this effort, but as another writer mentions, commodity prices are determined by what is forecast for the future. Prices are still driven by supply and demand (for those who either failed or didn’t take high school economics), and the prospect of significantly increased supply will drive prices down — I promise. And certainly let’s continue the work on alternatives fuels by private industry, not government, as government is inherently inefficient AND ineffective. By the time we truly do start to run out of oil, some nerd working in his garage or kitchen laboratory will have found the alternative energy answer.
If you think that taking profits from those BIG OIL GUYS or complaining about GLOBAL WARMING (suckers) or even alternate energy sources that may never materalize, just take a hike to your nearest mirror. What do you see, are you the problem or you riding the train, bus, carpooling, walking to werever you need to go or are you waiting for big brother to bail you out again?
We were willing as a country during WW2 to accept gas rationing, do you think we should try that again. I say no, h__l no, but I am willing and able to conserve whenever I can.
We have been letting this problem roll up around us since the peanut farmer was president, (maby some of you were not standing and walking then)and our own selfishness has been compounding this for years.
Yes we need to drill, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, and conserve while we search for other ways to power your toys.
I am unhappy about all of this mess also, as our Eagle travels less these days while we conserve whenever possible.
We are a nation of doers, call everyone in congress tell them GITER DONE!
For years we have been sending our scrap metal and resources to China in return for cheap consumer goods. These workers have ridden bicylces to the factories for years. Now they can afford cars. China has the fastest growing automobile sales in the world. Along with India, the world demand for oil is going to skyrocket. I keep hearing the 10 year factor and have heard it for over 10 years. If we would have started drilling back then, we would be better prepared for the future. ANWR is a place not one in 100,000 people will ever visit in their lifetime and if a few caribou get displaced, so be it. Try to buy American whenever you can, slow down, and God help us all.
I live in Wisconsin where we just went thru the worst winter in 20 years but the important point is that they tell us that we were covered by a glacier 12000 years ago and the ice was over 2 miles thick. If the earth hadn’t warmed up I’d be writing this from Texas
Whoever thinks it take 5 years to poke a hole in the ground and get oil or gas needs to visit South Texas. How about a month at the most. I know this is only crude oil and gas, but isn’t that what is now bring $130++ a barrel and imported to our U.S. refineries. The refinery issue is a separate issue and needs to be dealt with accordingly. We have in this country, sufficient oil and gas reserves that could be brought on stream in short order, if Congress would get out of the way. What turns my stomach is to see all these young and restless on TV talking about if we do this and if we do that and paint it green we will solve the energy crunch in this country. Not so, they need to be educated in science and not politics. The situation that we are witnessing has been a long time in the making and unless those that are knowledgeable in the field of science are allowed to do their thing, such as what was done in WW2, we will become the Asia of yesterday years, i.e., bicycles and motor scooters. I have worked on 3 continents and have seen most the alternatives to transportation that you can imagine. I am to old for most of them, so I beg you to contact your Senator and Congressmen to get real and let those that know how, do their job. I grew with windmills, wind generators, horses, and Model A Fords. This is not the time to go back to that mode of transportation. Frustrated, just like you!
Wow!
First, most of us are RV ers. From hauling a tent in a car, pulling a trailer, Class c to class A motorhomes, costing from a few hundred dollars to thousands dollars plus. Most have worked hard to afford an RV & upgraded along the way. We figured fuel price would go up some. Not over $2.00/gal in less than 2 years. Who has controlled the House & Senate \past 2 years?
Also, Bill Clinton was a Democrat ! and good old Bill set in motion for these “Gamblers” ( spot buyers) go uncontroled\wild. They sit at their computers & make more profit ( as a % ) than Exxon. Buy\control all the Oil today, hope some Dictator falls down causing painc and price goes up & htese folks sell. Buy low\sell high!
These foriegn countries were making money not long ago w/ Crude @ $10./Bbl. Talk about profits!
Fact : only 20% of a Bbl. goes to Gasoline. Problem now is the impact on everything else ( yes we are a country based on Crude Oil)
Wait till you see 2009 taxes ! School busses use fuel . Police use fuel & now cutting down on your protection. E-85 fuel here is $3.75 + and underwritten by the politions/Govt. Even the 11 million protected illegal folks in this country can no longer afford to send US $$ out of USMaybe they will all go home and lower demand for fuel plus their cost to tax payers ( far more then cost of all wars—check ##) Food prices ! Eat out lately?
GM ?? proposing clean electric “plug in cars” How is your electric bill? Texas already had “orange power” alert & it is not even summer here.
Yes we need to do much & stop these “knee jerk” solutions. As ststed above this is a large issue & not just the cost @ pump. Sure hate to junk my fine Motor Home & buy some ??? TX Brad
George Miller says, “Global warming is 95% caused by water vapor.”
CO2, Nitrous oxide, methane, and yes, water vapor are all greenhouse gasses that trap heat near the earth, rather than letting it escape. But these–including water vapor–are caused by what we on earth do in industrial operations, burning fossil fuels (oil an coal), and deforesting the Amazon jungles. You can read more in the article, Global Warming Fast Facts, on the National Geographic’s Web site at:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
jking says, “Your last paragraph presupposes that “Global Warming” is a fact which it is not. The list is exponentially expanding on scientists that disagree.”
Global Warming is as much of a fact as it is possible to make. Disputing it is taking a denial position that could be disastrous. Eleven of the last twelve years have been the warmest in 650,000 years. You may take the position that the earth has been warming since the last ice age without any help from man, but that doesn’t deny the fact that global warming is happening–regardless of what you think are the causes. Check out the Web site: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html (mentioned above) for some quick “facts” and if you can refer us all to a Web site or other source supporting “exponentially expanding on scientists that disagree,” it will continue the debate, which is what this is all about. And thanks to you all for this stimulating and cogent conversation, one we can all learn from.
TXBrad says: “Fact : only 20% of a Bbl. goes to Gasoline”. Just for the record, according to this Web site, 51.4% goes to gasoline. It also shows where the rest of it goes.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
And I think you hit the nail on the head as to the effect oil speculators (spot buyers) have on the price at the pump.
Another thought, if the oil drillers in ANWR do extract oil, do you think that will lower the price of gas. why wouldn’t they sell what they get on the futures market for the best price they can get, and if they distill it themselves, they will still wholesale the finished product at market value. I don’t think there is enough oil in ANWR to affect global supply and therefore world oil prices, except for maybe a quick blip.
Thanks for your comments.
Bob,
You refer to National Geographic as if they were the infallible source of information regarding the world climate.
They are not. NG has a radical agenda not far removed, in my opinion, from Greenpeace. (Nice pictures though.)
The alarmists have one thing, and one thing only, working for them. The shrillest voices. Science is not settled on whether or not global warming is happening, and if it is, what is the cause. Period.
Nevertheless, should we be good stewards of our planet? Absolutely.
Should we continue to study the issue? Yep.
Should we ruin the world economy (causing all of the unpleasantness that it would bring) chasing a (possible) phenomenon over which we likely have no influence at all? I think not.
calypso says, “Science is not settled on whether or not global warming is happening, and if it is, what is the cause. Period.” There are many of you out there who feel the same. To add balance to your opinions, read the report of the UN’s study of climate change, where 2,500 scientists from many nations, contributed to the report. You can read a summary of it here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
And I’m not sure why you describe the National Geographic as having a “radical agenda.” But as far as being good stewards and continuing to study the issue, I couldn’t agree more–though I think it is time now to act (just in case) as we continue to study.
DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! We gotta drill.
Congressional Research Service estimates are 86 Billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is right now accessible for extraction on the outer continental shelf.
Anware has 10.4 billion barrels (est) located on 2000 acres out of 9 million acres.
US Geological survey assessment of North Dakota of 3 to 4.3 billion barrels recoverable at this time.
That is 100 billion barrel of oil and this is not counting the oil wells in America pumping at this time.
Then we can build nuclear plants as France has seen to do with no ill effects.
Also, how about coal?
Finally, this web site has over 31,000 scientists who do not support global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
It’s so funny how many of us are fooled by the government and are so gullible when they basically tell us what we need to accept to better our country.
As far as alternate fuel, you pro-drillers need to watch “who killed the electric car”. We’ve had options for alternate fuel for years. But guess what, this alternate fuel would interfere with the fatting of pockets for some people so these options were cut quick way before we the public had a chance to choose!
But now we have a choice, drill or not to drill. How convenient when we had a cheaper, cleaner, and safer alternative for fuel, we were kept in the dark. But now the “need” to drill for oil is everywhere!
Here are some FACTS for you:
Oil companies
“Fearful of losing business to a competing technology, they supported efforts to kill the ZEV mandate. They also bought patents to prevent modern NiMH batteries from being used in US electric cars.”
Car companies
“Negative marketing, sabotaging their own product program, failure to produce cars to meet existing demand, unusual business practices with regards to leasing versus sales. The film only explains this behavior once, saying that electric cars needed fewer expensive repairs and would hence not make the car companies as much money over the long term as gasoline-powered cars.”
Government
“The federal government joined in the auto industry suit against California, has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and require increased fuel economy, has promoted the purchase of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency through preferential tax breaks, and has redirected alternative fuel research from electric towards hydrogen.”
Wake up people!
Bob\All: The 20% figure was my error. Should have been 20 gallons of the 42 gallon barrel ( 1 barrel of Crude = 42 gallons) goes to gasoline.
ANWR is Federal land from what I know; therefore the minerals ( oil\gas) belongs to the Federal Govt. ie us Americans. Normally the owner gets a % of the selling price of the Crude & an “oil \ company ” gets the balance. This balance covers many costs to drill, deliver,etc. the crude.
If our Govt. would pay the costs to drill, etc. ( competion ) and store it same as they buy\store “federal” reserve. Then, if prices get too high\ supply goes down, mid-east boy-cots US, sell the stored crude.
Electric cars: Seems Calf. also now has problems supplying elect. w/ heat wave. Again, need cheap\ clean elect. before we all go Elect. Vech.
I would feel more comfortable about this if Exxon and all the other record profit oil companies were not doing the drilling. They have no obligation to send any of this oil to the U.S. . They send the oil from the Alaskan pipeline to other countries and probably would do that with any oil from these sources. Our governement has zero credibility, especially on this subject.
We need to find alternatives to oil and should look in all directions. How about a Sputnik type approach to this problem? More drilling is the lazy way out of this situation and does nothing to solve the problem, it only delays our solution – but that is the way our current administration thinks. And we fall for it! Sheeez! We will be out of our misery pretty soon.
WHY sell OUR oil to other Countries? The way I see it. If the comes from USA wells then that oil should stay our country, maybe we wouldn’t have such a problem then. Insteed of using USA oil to supplement reserves, maybe we shoud us foreign oil to supplement reserves.
TXBrad says, “Again, need cheap\ clean elect. before we all go Elect. Vech.”
What about removing the corn subsidies and pay the farmers instead to grow celulosic crops, like switchgrass, which would then replace the inefficient corn for producing ethanol? Switchgrass grows about anywhere, replaces itself annually (sustainable), requires little fertilizer and water, and could replace corn in one growing cycle. It also produces way more energy per acre than corn. And most cars can be converted to flex fuel (meaning they can burn E85–85% ethanol) for a few hundred dollars, also drastically reducing CO2 emissions.
Bob,
I want to address your question of why shouldn’t we do something while we wait for more research. First if you look at the research that already exists, and I’m talking about actual science not computer models then you will see that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a human component to climate variation. All of the alarmist chest beating is based on computer models not real data.
If you look at the real data, satellite temperature data for example you will find no evidence of much warming at all.
Yes some years are warmer than others, that’s weather. But for the last 10 years global temps have been trending down. Looking at historical data, carbon dioxide went up in the 1970’s but global temps went down. They were talking about new ice ages back then not global warming. During WWII CO2 went down, but temps did not do down.
If people are claiming that CO2 is controlling temps then when CO2 goes up temps must go up, and when CO2 goes down temps must go down. That’s called cause and effect in science. But looking at the real data we se no such releationship. Indeed the world has seen times when CO2 has been much higher than it is now and the world has been much colder.
So why not do something anyway? The reason is that this ’something’ will cost trillions of dollars, will disrupt the global economy and throw millions of people out of work. It will probably kill people in third world countries. It will have all sorts of other effects—the end of long distance RVing for one. It’s like saying ‘I might get an infection in my foot someday, so I’ll have it amputated now. Just in case’. It’s senseless.
And if it made any sense why don’t people like AlGore do something. He lives in a house that uses as much electricity as 250 regular homes. He flies all over the world in private jets. And he has made well over $160,000,000 telling global warming lies and selling fake carbon credits.
Thinks about it. It is entirely posible that we should be worrying about 50 years, or more, of global cooling. The sun right now is a quiet phase that if it continues could lead to another ‘little ice age’. It is too soon to make predictions for people who prefer to use real data tho.
Watch this video these are the projects they won’t fund! This is where we should be going.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS7mHc_Tdzo
See if you ever hear any big ideas for alternate fuel from the government!
This has been a great discussion. If we (that’s a general “we”) all participated, looked at the data, facts, etc., and tried for as much transparency as possible–as we did in this discussion, it would seem that many of our problems–and disagreements–could be worked out. I thank you all for participating and for the terrific comments. I will keep trying to catch up on the comments, adding my own. Keep the comments coming. Bob
Wow ! 1st the politions will keep this Oil cost going up@ do nothing as they have in the past. . The demodrats have the House & Congress the past 2 years & gas has gone up about 2$/ gal ! They voted a pay raise for themselves, “cleaned ” up baseball, changed light bulbs & last year spent 3 Billion $ of our money (taxes) to farmers for corn to produe Ethanol ! Results food prices up, food animal feed gone up & gasoline & Diesel up. Plus, we now have bigger “dead zone” in the Gulf.
My son has a 2008 pick up running on E-85. How about 11 MPG pulling nothing & bed empty!!! My class C ( 31 foot +2 people & loaded) gets 11 mpg w/ this sorry 10% ethanol gasoline. 12+ w.o. 10%
Indy Racing cars burn 100% ethanol. After a race or shipping an engine to Calf. they run un-leaded gas thru engine after running all the ethanol out. If not the engine is ruined. So again “knee jerk” and politions.
All RV’s need to work together on this issue or sell these high$ rv to who will buy one & spend thousands $ for bio fuel, elect power, or ??? new RV Here in TX, finding oil in Shale & old wells producing again. Lots high Tech. stuff & maybe renewable oil ?? Anyone proved it is not ? TXBARD
“Indy Racing cars burn 100% ethanol. After a race or shipping an engine to Calf. they run un-leaded gas thru engine after running all the ethanol out. If not the engine is ruined.”
TXBARD – Could you identify your source for the above statement?
Indy has been running 100% ethanol for over a year and other race venues are considering it also. If there is this problem with ruining engines, I wonder if they would even consider it.
Brad replied to my request on my email, which I have copied below.
Bob: I work w/ them when in Texas. The engine runs great on 100%. It is very hard to see when on fire; however water does good job putting out fire. Static Elect. is more issue w/Ethanol. Thse engines are built w/ Alum, & other metals,
coated parts, sealers, gaskets, etc. The Ethanol remains on parts & actually soaks in. Which is very corrosive. Unleaded Gasoline acts as a flush/cleaner.They don’t flush each nite, but week(s) down is a problem.Flames @ a crash is oil.
The 10% added in most Texas gasoline, Tankers will not haul it mixed, unless short haul. They add ethanol @ delivery.I’m sure some truckers can coat tankers/ go w/SS.
Bottom line: Like most things today = Knee jerk look good in Media & people stupid \ care? The above can be solved, but will take $$ & Time.
Like Electric cars are fine, but need low cost power. Issues w/ batteries. weight, etc. How many batteries for 40ft. class A buss to run 8-10 hours ?? on\on need to be smart Brad
Thanks Brad. Bob
I understand that there is a great deal of land already leased by the oil companies on which they are not drilling. Why not? We are being steadily brainwashed by those who do NOT want us to become free of our dependence on oil. And I believe that “W” – despite his comments about our addition to oil – is one of them. Instead of using windfall profits to find alternatives, oil companies are doing everything they can to avoid it. And making every rationalization in the book as they pocket the profits.
Oil has dropped in price ever since the president dropped the white house laws against drilling off shore. No matter how long it takes to get oil from Anwar, off our coasts (like nearly every other country does), the price will go down immediatly after congress drops the off shore ban, since the market will respond and speculation and other factors will act on the price as we have seen recently. Congress is trying to imply some of their non actions has caused the recent price drops, but any fool can see that the market is reacting to the moves toward using our own resources. We have enough resourses to dramatically lower our use of foreign oil, but enviromentalists and elitists will block attempts to do so. If a vote is forced they know that a no will cost them their jobs, hence every effort to block a vote. Watch your congressmans votes and actions and let them know what will happen to their job if their actions continue to block the US from using our own resourses like we need to.
G Shea
I understand that there is a great deal of land already leased by the oil companies on which they are not drilling. Why not? We are being steadily brainwashed by those who do NOT want us to become free of our dependence on oil. And I believe that “W” – despite his comments about our addition to oil – is one of them. Instead of using windfall profits to find alternatives, oil companies are doing everything they can to avoid it. And making every rationalization in the book as they pocket the profits.
The so called leased areas that the oil companies have are democratic talking points they use as an excuse to not even allow a vote on drilling in areas that have oil for sure in large amounts. The refered to leases have little oil and the democrats know it. They simply pander to the enviromentalists rather than supporting responsible drilling. Blaming W is what the Dems want, so they don’t have to face voters who will kick them out of office if they vote against new drilling. The effect of simply allowing new drilling on the price is apparent after the president started the process to allow it. If you really want to see lower prices, contact your states congressmen, and tell them to allow off shore drilling, and the market will react as it already has. They should also add to the law that any oil they get is sold, refined for sole consumption in the states. If those laws passed, the price would drop significantly.
It was George Bush who encouraged Honda to get their fuel cell car going, which could also provide a big part of the solution.
G Shea
There are just as many opinions that the drop in the price of oil was due to people driving less, thereby reducing demand, and to speculators taking profits. The problem I have with your scenario, is that you absolutely know that your opinion is the only right one. What will you say when (or if, if you prefer) oil goes right back up to where it was before? And how do you know (if you have inside information, please tell us all) that a lot of the experts in the field that say that increasing our domestic oil production will both take too long to impact current needs and will have a minor effect on world prices are all wrong?
I would agree with you on making lots of pronouncements about finding new oil, opening drilling options, etc. if that would curb speculators driving up the price. But sooner or later, the speculators know that that is long term, and in the short term, prices will still be high. And the purpose of the oil companies is to make profits for their shareholders. They, and the OPEC states, know that the way to higher profits is to sell less at higher prices. So why should they release more oil on the market (finding it and hoarding it is another matter).
And by the way, fuel cells are at least 20 to 25 years away from becoming mainstream vehicles, while in the meantime, biofuels and electric vehicles offer shorter term respite. .
I sure hope I didn’t imply that my opinion is the only right one, although americans did cut back on driving long before the recent drop in price which apears to be more related to the moves towards drilling. I support an all out attack which should include alternative sources, hybrids, drilling and nuke power. My problem is with those who continue to block any efforts to drill where we know there are large deposits of oil off our own shores as if it would hurt the enviroment while apparently not opposing others doing the same. What is wrong with the US developing it’s own resourses? In my opinion it is the left that pander to enviromentalists and elisyists who always seem to know what is the best for the US despite popular opinion. 75% of those polled favor off shore drilling, and yet congress won’t even allow a vote on it. Could it be that they don’t want to be forced to vote no and loose thier jobs? I think so, but I could be wrong…
The hydrogen fuel cell cars are being tested in several states now, and don’t need to be mainstream to have a big impact on oil prices. Honda is talking about big numbers being available and sold in the next few years, and as thier use grows, the demand for oil is reduced. I work for a bus agency that converted thier entire fleet in less that a year to use natural gas rather than diesel. Big changes can happen fast in America when we want them badly enough, and rather than trying to find reasons to not take any paticular action (like off shore drilling), our congress seems to be content to just sit on thier hands and do nothing. Yes, some or all of the approaches will take some time, but we must start somewhere and sometime. I just hope our leaders don’t wait until we grind our entire nation to a halt while they debate over it.
G Shea
I agree that electric cars and bio diesel are a part of the answer. I do not feel that ethanol is as the effect on food prices is seems to be too large. Many other nations are free of oil (brazil), and I find it hard to believe that the same nation that went to the moon, developed the shuttle, and so many other amazing things cannot also at least start to take some actions to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation efforts, wind, solar, are all great ways to attack the problem, but are long away. Many experts have said that if allowed, drilling could begin much quicker than we are being told. The impact on the price of making efforts toward that goal could begin, in my opinion, long before the drilling yeilds any oil. While I could be wrong, wouldn’t a large new source of domestic supply lower the price? While the debate rages on, why not try it? One thing is certain, the approach we have taken for the past 40 years has not worked, and I can’t see why congress won’t at least consider taking any actions that could lower the prices short term?
G Shea
G Shea – Maybe the answer is to not wait for the government to make a move. We all know that getting anything done in an election year is difficult, as every utterance by either candidate or party affects votes in some area. I like what several local governments and municipalities have done, like Toronto, where they converted all there busses to electric. And where California has passed laws forcing car manufacturers to improve mileage well over the federal guidelines. As for fuel cells, right now they make the most sense as a local fleet, like taxis, busses, delivery vehicles, etc. where they can return each night to a central filling station to refill. The problem with fuel cells is the delivery of fuel to far-flung filling stations and the conversion of these stations to handle hydrogen. Some estimates place the current cost of conversion to a million dollars each. I agree with you on trying every avenue toward fuel independence, including oil drilling. But I have an innate distrust of taking anything the oil company spokespeople say about where there is or is not oil, and why they are not drilling now on the leases they have–maybe there is little oil, but I would want an independent panel to make that decision. And unfortunately, no one wants to make drastic moves in an election year. Your points are all good and make sense, as long as we know who is lying and who is not. Thanks again for your thoughtful and pertinent comments.
To G Shea – Oops. I was signed in on my wife’s blog when I wrote the above comment. But, I can assure you they are my comments, not Lynn’s.
I also distrust the oil companies, but I do beleive vast oil is off our shores, and we should go get it. Be that as it may, I am encouraged by all the innovations folks are trying now. The bus fleet I drive for converted all thier buses to CNG in no time and thier equioment was bought and conversions made ten years ago. The entire fleet now buys new buses already to run on CNG. There are many bus agencies and big fleets doing this, and the equipment is expensive, but costs can be far less than one million as CNG can be transported in large amounts to areas with little more than a glorified propane tank to dispence it. Honda also makes a home unit for thier cars than makes hydrogen in car tank sized amounts, with loads to spare each day. The excess could be used for home heating and such I would think. I hope Americans put thier awesome resoursefullness and creativity behind these new ways of doing things. If we do, I bet we can come up with seriously viable ways to reduce our need for foreign oil in a major way, and much faster than most critics predict. No one thought we could go to the moon as soon as we did, we just have to want to do something bad enough. That is the hidden benifit of the greed of the oil industry, that it might actually spur thier own demise. One can wish anyway….
G Shea
Gerry – I too am a believer that a lot of the progress you mention in alternative energy can be accomplished faster than that reported. The will to do it and the force of the populace behind it can accomplish wonders, compared to the estimates of accomplishing the same thing when projected along the lines of “doing it the same way we have always done it.” As you point out, putting a man on the moon is a good example. And also, converting your bus fleet was accomplished with the speed it was by doing it on a smaller scale than nationally–and it was done quickly and efficiently. I think also that with the will of the people, more private money in the form of venture capital gets thrown at entrepreneurs, inventors, think tanks, etc. that will make advances much faster than government. But when the government (members who are elected by votes) see that the people are behind something, then they all of a sudden get on board and start allocating money for the same purposes and that’s when everything speeds up. I think that’s what we are starting to see now, and why you see oil companies talking (and some doing) about alternate energy and figuring out how they can participate. And that’s a good thing–when everybody connected sees that there is money to be made from popular projects.
On the Honda home fueling unit, that is also a good thing, but at present costs about $10,000–more than individual can justify–but right for small municipal fleets, delivery vans, and taxis. But even Honda says that with distribution and mass production that figure will come down. Bottom line. We should pursue all avenues of alternate energy, and the best thing about that is that we as consumers will end up with a choice, something we don’t have now with oil being the only choice. Thanks again, Gerry, for your input.
We had an interesting experience in Alaska a couple of years ago that said something to me about the “global warming” conversations which have become less and less positive with the passage of time. Like any of you who have traveled to Alaska the glaciers were of special interest to us and on one of the visits we had a Park Ranger as a guide who knew a lot about the area and shared some of this knowledge as we were on our walking tour.
On our trip into the park we were puzzled by the signs along the highway with what appeared to be year markers. Only after we were on the tour did we come to understand what their purpose was. As we walked up to the glacier the ranger explained that the signs were an indication of where the “toe” of the glacier was at that particular time in history. She said that the glacier had receded to the point where it was over the years and the distance was considerable. She also explained that the position that it was presently in was just about the same position that it occupied 400,000 years ago. I wondered and asked who caused all the “global warming” at that time? How many SUVs were to blame then? By some reading of various blogs and a little study it is apparent that there have been times where the temperature of the earth has increased and times when it has decreased without the intervention of people or industry to cause it. From what I have read most of the panic generated now is derived from computer models which have become more and more suspect as scientists who do not depend on funding from the government have looked at the results.
It is obvious that there has been a gradual increase in the temperature of the earth over the last few decades. It has also been noted that over the last ten years or so there has been a cooling trend. I cannot help but wonder who is getting paid to say what as we listen to the terrible things that are going to happen to the planet if we don’t make some major changes in our lifestyles. I also cannot help to wonder what happened to all the scientists who were so alarmed only a few years ago with the impending ice age that was upon us. It sounds something like a nursery rhyme that I read as a child: “Chicken little and the sky is falling”. Like every prediction of “worst case situations” that I am aware of none of them have materialized.
Should we conserve, of course, that goes for everyone and is only good practice that everyone except governments understand. Except in rare instances most people understand the fact that their incomes only go so far and decisions as to how the disposable income will be spent has to be made. Should we take care of the planet, of course. Should we go back to the horse and buggy of course not nor could we if we wanted to.
JJ – No one disputes that the earth has natural, non-man-made heating and cooling cycles, as evidenced by previous ice ages and periods of warming. It’s a rather flip answer to ask, “How many SUVs were to blame then?” The difference between a natural warming period and what we are experiencing now is that the average global temperature is increasing at a much faster rate than it ever has during a natural warming period. One reason for that is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which incidentally is the highest it has been in 650,000 years. This is called a greenhouse gas because of its obvious effect of retaining heat in the atmosphere. This excessive amount of CO2 can only have been caused by man and is a fact accepted by the scientific community.
Also, your comment, “over the last ten years or so there has been a cooling trend” differs with what I have read, that eleven of the last twelve years have been the warmest in a hundred years. You are right to be skeptical about information put out by governments and institutions with agendas to promote, but we would all be remiss if we only read the information–from whatever source–that supports positions we already have. That’s why forums and blogs such as this, where we can all air our thoughts and feelings, and legitimate sources of information, should be read with an open, un-politiced mind. Then check out the facts presented, and look at who supports those facts, then take an intelligent, thought out position. To systematically and completely dismiss the educated analysis and predictions of the vast majority of our scientists is like the ostrich burying its head in the sand.
[...] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to our E-mail Digest. We will then send you the stories that are posted each day in an e-mail digest. We use a service called Feedburner for delivery of these emails. You will receive an e-mail from Feedburner after you subscribe and you must click on that email to activate your subscription. Thanks for visiting and enjoy all the information! RV.Net Blog AdminToday I am going to dip my toe in to test some turbulent waters. This blog is not meant to discuss whether we as Americans should drill for oil or not, and it’s not meant to discuss fossil fuels versus renewable energy. Just for the record though, I personally feel we should drill for oil in the shorter term and I feel we should continue to seek cost effective alternative fuels for the long term. If however you would like to discuss and/or comment on the topic of the US drilling for oil see Bob Difley’s blog titled, Will Drilling ANWR Ease the Oil Crisis? [...]
Is it true that both candiates are against drilling in ANWR? I am pretty sure if that was true in July, now in September, Palin has influenced McCain differently. No?
Lisa – Officially both presidential candidates are against drilling in ANWR. Howver, vice-presidential candidate Palin is for drilling and has said that the hopes to influence John McCain to change his mind, but it hasn’t happened yet. Both pres. candidates know that drilling in ANWR will not make any meaningful changes to either the price of fuel or to energy independence. It’s primary value is political, pandering to the mistaken beliefs of most Americans that drilling ANWR will make a difference.
John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview.
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html
Sorry Bob, I’ve done a lot, and I mean a lot of reading on the subject and I’ve come to the conclusion that:
1. Any global warming is caused by man nor can it be stopped by man.
2. Do we know what the “perfect” temperature should be?
Others have gone into many of the arguments. Just call me skeptic that uses biodiesel, wind turbines, and solar panels for reasons other than GW.
Oops, I mean GW is NOT caused by man.
lobosolo – I’m sure you know that you are going against the majority of the world’s climate change scientists, and the United Nation’s panel of experts that studied the issue, and a lot of hard date that indicates the opposite.
Point number 2: It’s not a question of what is perfect. The world we live in has adapted to the temperature range that exists, and we will adapt to any future changes in this average temperature. The point is, are we willing just to accept what Mother Nature will dish out to us, more severe weather–stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, etc.–which will change where we can effectively farm, what species will disappear, how much of the rest of the planet will turn into deserts, how much of our coastal areas will be under water, whether the Gulf Stream will change directions–all these things that could, I said COULD, happen. We don’t know whether will this will happen or not, but there are plenty of very bright scientists and thinkers feeding mountains of data into supercomputers that indicate that they are extremely possible if we don’t cut greenhouse gas emissions. Do you have the knowledge and expertise to justifiably disagree with them?
However, if everyone did what you are doing–using biodiesel, solar, and wind–we wouldn’t have to have this debate. It would resolve itself. I congratulate you on the moves you have taken and would urge all of us to follow. Then if the climate change people are wrong, it wouldn’t matter–we would still be ahead of the game, which I’m sure you already know you are.
lobosolo – Related to your comments, the following story came out yesterday, September 25th, from Reuters:
“By David Fogarty
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Global carbon emissions rose rapidly in 2007, an annual study says, with developing nations such as China and India now producing more than half of mankind’s output of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming.
The Global Carbon Project said in its report carbon dioxide emissions from mankind are growing about four times faster since 2000 than during the 1990s, despite efforts by a number of nations to rein in emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
Emissions from burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to the increase, the authors said in their “Global Carbon Project (2008) Carbon budget and trends 2007″ report (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index_new.htm).
India would soon overtake Russia to become the world’s third largest CO2 emitter, it says.
“What we are talking about now for the first time is that the absolute value of all emissions going into the atmosphere every year are bigger coming from less developing countries than the developed world,” said the project’s Australia-based executive director Pep Canadell.
“The other thing we confirm is that China is indeed now the top emitter,” he told Reuters, adding that China alone accounted for 60 percent of all growth in emissions. The United States was the second largest emitter.
The project is supported by the International Council for Science, the umbrella body for all national academies of science.”
That’s pretty strong. You can read the entire article at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE48O3KZ20080925.
I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I work on the North Slope of Alaska so I know more about this subject than all the so-called experts down in the lower 48. Anyone that says it will take ten years to get oil from ANWR is not only wrong but they are lying to presude people against drilling there. And the pictures they show you to prove how pristine the area is are pictures taken far away from the flat tundra where the oil drilling will take place. Again, an attempt to mislead people, more lies.
If the oil companies were allowed to go after the oil and given the proper incentives to do so, we could have oil flowing out of ANWR in a couple years. The amount of oil we pump from ANWR would help this country lower the amount of oil we are buying from people that don’t like us.
Furthermore, opening ANWR would provide good paying jobs at a time thay are needed by people in this country that are hurting. People from all over the country travel to the North Slope of Alaska to work so the added jobs would not only help Alaskans.
Finally, the companies operating on the North Slope spend millions each year to protect the environment and are carefully watched by state and federal agencies. If an oil spill happens, and they do, teams of people contain and clean up the spill as soon as possibile.
Ken – The bottom line is that we need to replace oil as a prime US fuel, not only to avoid the problem of buying it from countries that do not like us, but also to combat global warming. The theory is that with so little oil available (the US has only 3% of global oil supplies yet uses 25% of the world’s supply), let’s instead take that money that would be spent to develop more oil out of ANWR, including the subsidies paid to the oil companies, and put it into alternative, clean, renewable sources of energy that will not become exhausted in a few years (as the oil in ANWR will) but will continue to produce energy on and on as well as solve the two problems of buying foreign oil and combating global warming.
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.
Bob,
I don’t know where you get the 3% number but I’m sure I could find numbers higher than that. Maybe if you only count the oil that is currently available for drilling and ignore the vast areas that are off limits it would be 3%. But that isn’t the point. The piont is that anything we can do to reduce importing oil from other countries, especially those that want to destory us, will help our country. And if we would have gone after the oil in ANWR ten years ago we would be better off today.
I’m all for finding other fuels we could produce to lessen our dependence on oil. I think we should be encouraging companies to invest in nuclear power and hydro power as these technologies are presently available. I also think oil derived from algea shows promise if we can get the cost down. I don’t think the money for these projects should come from the government as that is not how capitalism system works. The only help the government should lend to the private sector are tax incentives to develope the technologies and build the facilities. Doing so would have the added benefit of providing jobs to the economy.
As for global warming, I haven’t bought off on that yet. To do so would require me to ignore the evidence to the contary. I believe there are scientists on the side of global warming that have too much invested in the theory ever be honest about the subject and therefore I question their creditablity. The scientists that are speaking out against the global warming theory are being ridiculed and even condemned by the people promoting the theory. People willing to risk that kind treatment should at least be heard, in my opinion.
So, in the words of our now famous govenor from Alaska, Drill Baby Drill!
(These opinions are mine alone and are not necessarily shared by my employer.)
Ken Gordon
Fairbanks, Alaska
I for one am irritated beyond belief at the following “Buzzwords” :
1 – Global Warming 2 – Climate Change 3 – Carbon Footprint 4- Oil Shortage
5 – United Nations’, and their “Committee’s of Concerned Scientists”.
Global Warming is a theory – it’s not a fact. Climate Change has been happening,and will continue as long as there is a climate. Carbon Footprint is what I’d like to leave on Al Gore’s front door (on at least ONE of his mansions).
Oil Shortage….they’ve been happening since the 1920’s. Do you think their something to do with money?
UN and their activities : A worthless bunch of self – professed “World Leaders”, who do nothing but posture and preen for the camera’s and each other. Most of the UN nations’ aren’t friendly to the USA, but this country gives them millions of dollars and a place to meet,security; and “Diplomatic Immunity”. I’m sure they are a trustworthy bunch….”Food for oil”?
If the UN provided an all – expense junket to a conference,Business – class airfare,gourmet meals,and a few speeches….to an ‘amenable’ group of Scientists….do you think the experts would sign a paper? Maybe accept some research money? Accept another invitation if they’re doing a bit of research?
At one time it was believed that the Sun rotated around the earth. Galileo was imprisoned for insisting that the Earth rotated around the Sun…The Fool! All Scientists,and Enlightened people (the ones in power) knew that it was a FACT that Galileo was wrong,he was a HERETIC!
The world is Flat “Fact” . Just a couple of examples of Science. I say,we should all be digging caves to live in….and paint the inside (With only environmentally acceptable coatings) GREEN.
Someone’s gonna make a lot of GREEN!
Remember,bicycles aren’t GREEN. They may be Greener than other modes of transportation,but compared to walking;they have a HUGE Carbon Footprint.They have rubber tires (oil),lubrication (oil) a seat cover (oil) a helmet (oil),and they’re made of steel (Coal). How toxic to the planet.
If people wouldn’t exercise,there would be an incredible decrease in their Carbon Dioxide Emissions. In fact, if we got rid of 80% of all people,this world would become more balanced…plenty of oil,less of a Carbon Footprint.
If you’re really worried about Carbon, plant a tree. Plant several trees.
[...] Photo Credit. [...]