Bush Suspends Environmental Gas Rules

Would you like to live next door to a family who has no rules for their children? Life in industrialized world is complex. Today's waste is not the waste of past times, throwing an apple core in a river is not the same as dumping chemicals or sewage. We need rules so we don't end up choking behind surgical masks outdoors or consuming/bathing in polluted waters. Remember Love Canal. Remember the choking smog in Los Angeles. We have the genius to create pollutants/toxins, but need wisdom to deal with them. If in the end, rules don't work, we need alternatives.

Originally posted by Jakomo
George Bush hates black people.

Er, I mean people.

Er, I mean all human life.


Astronomer:

U.S. energy policies, for the most part, have been anti oil company oriented since the 60's & 70's.

Omfg I died laughing when I read that. Thanks for the smile!

While I applaud and approve of most of the actions of the various environmental groups, there is no doubt of their impact on the oil companies.

That too! LOL! You damn evil environmentalists are hurting the generous, life-affirming oil companies! Wheee!

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]
[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]

Finally someone else who goes huh? I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing a Bush Lover defending his God by blaming people who have nothing to do with oil while ignoring OIL men in the whitehouse. Although as said Bush really doesn't know much about OIL as he couldn't find oil in Texas...

I can't believe Seekerof and anyone else blaming enviromentalists, its like blaming the Mormons for Catholic Priests who rape kids while ignoring/defending the Bishops and Cardinals who covered up for the priests, or blaming Canadians for drug problems in Miami while ignoring the 5.5tons of coke caught on a plane owned by republican officials, they have nothing in common and doesn't make sense!

Seekerof response? I'm not a republican, I just defend Bush even when the arguement I use is so whack only Faux News could spin it in Bush's favor.

I know a really quick way to bring down the cost to fuel to an average consumer that does not involve supply or demand: remove any federal or state taxes on gasoline. In California alone, it would knock of .50 a gallon. What does that mean to us? Assuming 3.00/g, paying 2.50/g results a little more than a 15% decrease in cost to average consumers.

Reducing production standards will help also, I'm sure -- but everyone is forgetting the most obvious method to reduce the cost to us at the pump: remove the taxes.

For fuel taxes by State: source

Originally posted by StarkMan
I can't believe Seekerof and anyone else blaming enviromentalists, its like blaming the Mormons for Catholic Priests who rape kids while ignoring/defending the Bishops and Cardinals who covered up for the priests, or blaming Canadians for drug problems in Miami while ignoring the 5.5tons of coke caught on a plane owned by republican officials, they have nothing in common and doesn't make sense!

Your analogy is misleading, off, and incorrect, StarkMan.
I am not soley and only placing blame on environmentalists. Hello?!

Seekerof response?

For? I have given a number of responses in this topic. As such, Your asking for a response to what, exactly? What you have just said? To what Jakomo said? Clarify.

I'm not a republican, I just defend Bush even when the arguement I use is so whack only Faux News could spin it in Bush's favor.

Again, since your having problems comprehending this: I am not defending Bush on this matter. I have consistently faulted our, those who do live in the U.S., energy policies, past and present. Impeding some of the energy policies that have been brought forth in the past and present has been environmentalist groups and organizations, among other interest groups and organizations. You, as with others, can continue to deny such, but is does not change that factoid. Comprende'?







seekerof

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by radardog
I know a really quick way to bring down the cost to fuel to an average consumer that does not involve supply or demand: remove any federal or state taxes on gasoline. In California alone, it would knock of .50 a gallon. What does that mean to us? Assuming 3.00/g, paying 2.50/g results a little more than a 15% decrease in cost to average consumers.

Reducing production standards will help also, I'm sure -- but everyone is forgetting the most obvious method to reduce the cost to us at the pump: remove the taxes.

For fuel taxes by State: source

my opinion is that any and all tax reduction legislation that is introduced should include it's own plan to reduce an equal amount from the corresponding budget, preferably through non-essential, stupid pork projects. to decrease the taxes while allowing this spiraling freespending is in actuality costing more in the longterm..

and cutting the welfare programs won't do the trick, unless of course, you wish an increase in the lower end of the wage scale, or to live in a more not so pleasant america...

I completely agree with seekerof.

As for the greener fuels argument, right now there is no good "green fuel" that could be implemented on a large scale. Maybe in 10 or 20 years we can reduce the oil consumption with some new fangled technology, but then again how long have we been saying that?

Starkman, why do you keep twisting Seekerof's words? He is not blaming only the environmentalists. But he's pointing out that they too, have a role in the current morass.

BOT, I have heard several times that the lack of refineries is partly a "NIMBY" problem. This puzzles me, since so many people are constantly complaining about the number of jobs that are shipped overseas. But still, this is a classic example of where the environmentalists have put roadblocks in the path of progress.

On the other hand, the auto & oil co's, as well as the gov't, have been lax at developing alternate fuels. And where is the famous US entrepeneur in all this? Are there not enough tax breaks to encourage them?

As far as ethanol, it's my understanding that many stations on the east coast are being retrofitted to accept Ethanol, so it seems that we are closer than it seems to using it as a partial substitute for gasoline. And I saw a report that Detroit has had ethanol-ready vehicles for several years now.

As to the statement that ethanol burns dirtier, is harmful to older cars, etc., maybe someone can expand on that? Is this just an attempt by the oilcos to hinder something that might cut into their profits?

Can someone tell us what the price of a gallon of Ethanol 85 would cost today?

And from the main article

With gas prices climbing, Democrats hoping to win control of Congress in November have used the issue to slam White House energy policy and Republicans' ties to big oil companies.

I think that there are people who will actually fall for this ridiculous argument. But some will, no doubt.

Finally, I agree with Bush relaxing some environmental regulations. There is no reason for so many "boutique blends" of gas; I think that we can get away with 6 instead of the 15 that now exist.

Lower gas taxes. Close the tax loopholes enjoyed by the oilcos. Stimulate alternate fuel R&D. Build more refineries asap. Drill in ANWR, in the Gulf, and off the pacific coast.

It took us decades to get into this mess, we won't solve it overnight, or with one magic solution.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by jsobecky]

Ethanol eats at the hoses and gaskets on older (pre1995?) vehicles; newer vehicle hoses made of different material. Engines can be rejetted to accept ethanol. (I'll bet we could have retrofitted for free everyone's cars with the $ spent in Iraq--but, then, Cheney's not in the car business.) Re gas taxes--how do you recoup the revenue if you get rid of them--pay for roads, etc.? Maybe this is why there is the push to put a gps on a vehicle and pay per mile.

Why drill in ANWR and not around it? You do know that ANWR is not on top of the major oil bubble right? It is off center to it, the area on top of the bubble is not protected yet republicans seem to ignore those lands where it is perfectly legal to drill, a better place to drill, but seem focused on ANWR.

Again, How Can You Blame People WHo Have No Control! Enviromentalists DO NOT OWN OIL BUSINESSES! OR HAVE SEVERAL FORMER OIL MEN IN THE WHITEHOUSE/CONGRESS!

They are making BILLIONS!!!! THEY ARE GOUGING THE PRICES!!!!! It costs less then a dollar to make a gallon of gas yet they charge more then 3 dollars all over the country, why? BECAUSE THEY ARE GOUGING THE PRICES!!! If oil was getting so scarce how could one company make 12 billion dollars profit in 3 months! BECAUSE THEY ARE GOUGING THE PRICES! And how do they get away with this? Several members of congress, the President, the Vice President, and Rice are all former OIL Men/Women.

Originally posted by StarkMan
Why drill in ANWR and not around it? You do know that ANWR is not on top of the major oil bubble right? It is off center to it, the area on top of the bubble is not protected yet republicans seem to ignore those lands where it is perfectly legal to drill, a better place to drill, but seem focused on ANWR.

This is the first time I have ever heard this. Not saying I don't believe you, but can you provide a link to a supporting source?

Again, How Can You Blame People WHo Have No Control!

They don't have to own an oil company to have influence. They can obstruct progress with lawsuits and overly restrictive laws and regulations. They are the major reason why more refineries are not being built. They are not the single cause, but they are part of the problem.

They are making BILLIONS!!!! THEY ARE GOUGING THE PRICES!!!!! It costs less then a dollar to make a gallon of gas yet they charge more then 3 dollars all over the country, why?

It costs more than $1 to pull that gallon of crude out of the ground, half way around the world, and deliver it, refined, to your car's gas tank.

And how do they get away with this? Several members of congress, the President, the Vice President, and Rice are all former OIL Men/Women.

This problem has been decades in the making. To blame the current administration for it all is naive. And blaming the republicans for it is just as naive. You risk blowing all your credibility when you make such statements.

from desert
(I'll bet we could have retrofitted for free everyone's cars with the $ spent in Iraq--but, then, Cheney's not in the car business.) Re gas taxes--how do you recoup the revenue if you get rid of them--pay for roads, etc.? Maybe this is why there is the push to put a gps on a vehicle and pay per mile.

This doesn't take into account the fact that today's major energy players will very likely be tomorrow's major energy players, simply because they will have the necessary resources to make it happen.

And what's this about a gps?

JSO Becky, we have oil drills in Texas, Lousianna, Gulf of Mexico, not just the Middle East. Why the "Barrels are at 70$ each" is misleading because it doesn't account for the oil the companies get out of the ground through their own pumps/drills. Also Canada helps out and provides more oil then the ME.

Also, I will probably be back soon with links on the ANWR stuff. Google has been making me disappointed lately with how they search things. Like the 5.5 Tons of coc aine found on a plane owned by Republican Officials, used to get Bin Laden family out of country after 9/11, and used by GWB when he was Gov. of Texas, google? Nothing on it, still!

Not sure what words to use to search but some things on it.
uwstudentweb.uwyo.edu...

Hey! Why not drill more in Prudhoe Bay? Oh because its legal to drill there, is the 18th largest oil field, has billions of barrels just waiting to be pumped up, but instead of adding more drills lets go south to ANWR!!!! In fact Prudhoe bay is the largest oil field in our nation yet Republicans ignore it and will yell and scream if you even think of mentioning it. Why not drill more in a legal oil field, largest in our nation, instead of wasting time and money to try and drill in a place where it is illegal to drill?
www.columbia.edu...
ludb.clui.org...
www.d.umn.edu...

[edit on 27-4-2006 by StarkMan]

What a shock!... Bush is screwing up the world one day at a time.. And this is just something else we can blame on him.. Why did he do it? OH! Cause it's going to BENEFIT HIM!.. that's right.. He doesnt do anything unless it helps him out.. The man is a blatant tool.. And dont come back and say "But he's working on alternate fuel sources" Yeah.. Like .. Coal? Good idea.. OR how about Biodiesel? Dont they already exsist? I KNOW they do.. the man is a joke and those who voted for him not once but twice should be ashamed, maybe they'll think about that when their kids grow up with defects and birth defects from mercury vapour in the atmosphere from the fuel refineries..

Originally posted by Seekerof
I highly doubt he is laughing, but you can best be assured, I am not laughing.
Furthermore, I am not laughing at the antics of environmentalist, who are partially to blame for the situation that 'we' are experiencing in the U.S.

I would go as far as to say that without modern environmental protection we would have had energy in far more abundance and that we could have THEN focused our attention on saving the enviroment AFTER all humans are living above the bread line. Humans first THEN the environment.

How so?
The environmentalists have steadily and continually impeded and blocked any and all attempts to drill for oil and gas of the East and West Coast and in areas of the U.S. known to have super large quantities of oil and gas, such as ANWAR.

We should start asking who is funding these maniacs who would starve their own country of cheap energy. At best they are in league ( if not fully funded) with big oil and at worse they are being employed by foreign enemies.

This can be debated which ever way is blue, but it does not, in no uncertain terms, remove what blame there is to be placed upon those environmentalists.

And i only wished you were always this open minded.

And Marg, this is not all and solely about just oil companies--this is about U.S. energy policies, past and present, that have put this country in the position that it is currently in over our oil and gas needs.

A government will always aim to restrict energy production as energy = freedom and truly free people can take care of themselves without the daily interference of government.

Stellar

Originally posted by StarkMan
JSO Becky, we have oil drills in Texas, Lousianna, Gulf of Mexico, not just the Middle East. Why the "Barrels are at 70$ each" is misleading because it doesn't account for the oil the companies get out of the ground through their own pumps/drills. Also Canada helps out and provides more oil then the ME.

And let's not forget the role of oil speculators in driving up the price:

To achieve their targets, speculators use ?future? and ?forward? markets to sell risky products. ?Cashable oil shares?, which began to be traded in the London Stock Exchange, have become tools of increase in the market. By increasing prices, the aim of the oil giants is to make $ 60-70 seem normal, an amount unimaginable before.
Professor Abdurrahman Satman says: ?The production cost is about $ 10 a barrel. The price can at most be $ 35-40 a barrel. However if the price comes close to $ 70, this is called speculation.?
www.gasandoil.com...

Hey! Why not drill more in Prudhoe Bay? Oh because its legal to drill there, is the 18th largest oil field, has billions of barrels just waiting to be pumped up, but instead of adding more drills lets go south to ANWR!!!! In fact Prudhoe bay is the largest oil field in our nation yet Republicans ignore it and will yell and scream if you even think of mentioning it. Why not drill more in a legal oil field, largest in our nation, instead of wasting time and money to try and drill in a place where it is illegal to drill?

I have no idea why not. Unless it has something to do with accessibility? I can't see how it could be political, though.


[edit on 27-4-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We ARE spoiled brats! We should be paying 6-8 bucks a gallon and riding our bikes, walking, carpooling and taking public transportation, but no. We have to have the Jimmy to go to lunch and the Hummer to make us look like we have big units.

Well imo Americans could be even more spoiled and could stop working the longest hours in the industrialized world if only they worked less and spent that time pressing the government to act rationally and thus produce energy in excess of demand. Would you not rather have that billions of dollars spent on aircraft carriers and overseas bases invested in environmentally friendly refineries ( whatever the cost that entails; at least its on American soil and thus subject to American standards) and oil rigs? Imagine the independence in terms of foreign policy Americans could demand from their government if the ME was just another third world region?

And it's the antics of the environmentalists that are to blame? Yeah, that's so funny, it's not. Shame on them for not letting us suck the planet dry!

We could suck oil from this planet for centuries to come and if we did not stumble on something more effective- by accident- in that time we deserve to stop existing as a species. It is not logical to prevent human progress by denying ourselves the spoils of our technological breakthroughs, and prowess, anymore than it is to let the third world consume itself( and learn to hate their oppressors) in a effort to support the flagging powers of western nations.

That's just like blaming the liberals for the situation in Iraq. And yes, there are plenty of people who do.

Well if America had another party of substance there would be no war in Iraq as any truly competitive party would have DESTROYED their opposition with the opportunities the Iraq debacle presented. The fact that America got involved in Iraq pretty much proves there is one party called two different things by a ignorant public.

Bush is famous for stunts like this. Air too dirty? Then lower the standards and call it the Clean Air Initiative! There all better! Next?

I can't believe people are still defending this moron!

Well i know Seekerof tends towards this but i surely do not and i am just here to suggest that America's( and much of the west really) energy policy was insane long before Bush arrived on the scene.

Stellar

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
If only security guards didn't exist...it would make robbing the bank a whole lot easier...

Unless all the clients of the bank and the entire staff was armed with automatic weapons. If people took personal responsibility for even just their immediate environments we would not need out lying cheating governments for anything more than doing some math and balancing some books.

What blame? The blame for keeping NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVES from being pillaged by a group of people that have a hard-on for the Texas "T" black gold and who could give two #s about the environment.

Oil companies are just trying to make a profit ( like everyone else) and if their consumers demanded a certain standard of environmental protection inherent in the scheme then , provided they could be held accountable without a government covering up their crimes for it's own reasons, there would be no reason for them not to do as is expected as they are just suppliers and they can not create demand out of nothing. People do not realise the control they have over their supply system......

If it weren't for environmental regulations and the legal repercussions that come with them you think these people would choose a clean environment over higher profits?

At angry mob&gunpoint they surely would as they are profit driven and not ideological driven and do not really care what they must do , if they have no option, if it yields the best profit they can manage without getting into warm water. Ideologues are people we find in government , if at all, as industrialist can not ( without help from their own or foreign powers&governments) afford to hold anything above profit when they have no options. Do you really believe that the oil company executive likes the dirty skies any more than you do and that he pollutes because he wants to and not because the competition ( and stock exchanges) forces him to do whatever it takes to stay ahead of the competition? In the end they live on the same planet we do ( and so does his children) and if we hold them ALL accountable, while protecting our own markets so that foreigners can not decide our industrial policy for us, and to certain standards then they would probably clean up the skies and streets just because it makes for good PR. These are things we could manage if we not all educated to be submissive hard working drones slaving away to consume endlessly.

If it weren't for those past and present energy policies that you feel are hurting this nation our skies would be choked with black smoke, our waters would be polluted with chemical runoff, and our forests would be quickly receeding if not utterly destroyed.

Have you ever even been to a third world country?

How can you be sure what our skies would look like or that there would be any change at all? Where is the evidence that air pollution (human related at least) is the major factor in climate change? I live in a third world country and i can tell you i fear pissed of poor people with guns who have no worthwhile present, and not much hope for the future, far more than i do lung disease or lack of trees.

America has 30 million people who do not eat as much as they should each day and probably as many who are not at all sure where next months rent will come from and until such problems are resolved it is complete INSANITY for Americans to allow our their governments to restrict energy production that could do away with all that.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
...
Oil companies are just trying to make a profit ( like everyone else)...

How can you be sure what our skies would look like..

Stellar

I think that the oil company's profits are in a different league than the gas station owner's profits. How can I tell about the skies?--the choking, everyday thick brown smog of 40 years ago I breathed is gone.
An oil co's family can escape to a mountain retreat.
Increasing energy production will decrease poverty?
I do agree we consume too much (we are an overdeveloped country), but let us be an example of the better way to balance energy and consumption, proactive rather than reactive as we are at the moment.

gloabal warming is just one danger that may be associated with our pollution, another one is the effect it has on human and animal life.


--------------------------------------------------------

"They found greater deficits in lung development in teenagers who lived in communities with higher average levels of nitrogen dioxide, acid vapor, particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (about a tenth the diameter of a human hair) and elemental carbon.

“These are pollutants that all derive from vehicle emissions and the combustion of fossil fuels,” said Gauderman."


www.usc.edu...

---------------------------------------------------------

if you ever get a chance, glance into the medicine cabinet in your school's nurse's office. I was blown away by just how much of the medicine that is needed for our kids is in the form of inhalers for asthmatics. our kids can't breeth without medication now, lowering the standards seems to be a great way just create a need to purchase another medicine cabinet to store more inhalers in...

So Seekerof, how is it the Enviromentalists are to blame again? Are they the ones buying SUVs or the ones loving the smell of their own farts as they drvie hybrids? Do they own any Oil company? Do they own any politician sitting in the White House as we speak? No? So...

ALso, WHat about Prudhoe? Largest in our country, 18th largest in the world, yet republicans keep hyping on ANWR drilling when we could just add more drills to a place where it is already legal, has roads going to it, and is set up for drilling. A lot easier, less costly, and effective then having to build new roads, new equipment, after wasting time trying to drill in a place where it is illegal.

Yeah, I'm real convinced it's the environmentalists to blame...

“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.” --Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.” --Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995

Source.

And...

... A significant part of the supply reduction was caused by the investment decisions of three firms ... One firm increased its summer-grade RFG [reformulated gasoline] production substantially and, as a result, had excess supplies of RFG available and had additional capacity to produce more RFG at the time of the price spike. This firm did sell off some inventoried RFG, but it limited its response because selling extra supply would have pushed down prices and thereby reduced the profitability of its existing RFG sales. An executive of this company made clear that he would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower margin. Another employee of this firm raised concerns about oversupplying the market and thereby reducing the high market prices. A decision to limit supply does not violate the antitrust laws, absent some agreement among firms. Firms that withheld or delayed shipping additional supply in the face of a price spike did not violate the antitrust laws. In each instance, the firms chose strategies they thought would maximize their profits.

2001 Midwest Gasoline Price Investigation

And does anyone want to talk about the deregulation of the industry that enabled consolidation of the refineries in this country over the past 25 years???