[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Is it objection to the Democrats or to climate change??

Take a few steps back, and look at it again.

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Climate change doesn't even exist. This is what's wrong with this country. People being duped into believing the atmosphere is shrinking due to cars we've had for 50 years. What the ****. More oil, more energy, ****ing now.

Hard to tell.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Climate change doesn't even exist. This is what's wrong with this country. People being duped into believing the atmosphere is shrinking due to cars we've had for 50 years. What the ****. More oil, more energy, ****ing now.

there is evidence from studies showing the climate and poles do change, but whether it is caused simply from our living environment or naturally is what is in the air. We may possibly be speeding up the cycles with our current living environments though.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by EPAPressure

Climate change doesn't even exist. This is what's wrong with this country. People being duped into believing the atmosphere is shrinking due to cars we've had for 50 years. What the ****. More oil, more energy, ****ing now.

Climate change does even exist. This is what's wrong with this country. People being duped into believing the atmosphere is not shrinking due to cars we've had for 50 years. What the ****. Less oil, less energy, ****ing now.

I just made your exact same argument for the other side. Maybe now you can see how vapid your sense of argumentation is, being void of any substance whatsoever.

[jamest91]

U coulda just left it with wat I said... U do.tt have to be an asshat about it

[TheSilentAssassin]

What you said was stupid? Why would treg repeat it?

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by custar

In short as related to this topic, I would open drilling in federal lands but include a surtax, 1/4 of which would be to develop renewable sources. In the mid-term, I would transition to CNG which burns much more cleanly. Long term, I would look to develop renewable sources, especially those in which foreign powers do not have a big lead.

custar

I remember the post. You could completely avoid the stigma associated with the idea of "tax" and require federal leasing have a minimum 5/16 royalty (or some variation thereof), then apply those royalty payments to development of alternative energy sources.

When you originally posted the idea I was behind it 100%, but I kind of fibbed. Our federal lands are held in trust for all American people, not just the couple of generations who will burn through the resource. We should be extremely hesitant to tap non-renewable resources intended to be conserved for the nation as a whole, and the only way I could justify widespread exploration of minerals on federal lands is if we actually use the funds from production to help create sustainable energy sources for future generations.

CNG seems to be the next reasonable step towards energy independence, but is it absolutely necessary to tap public lands in order attain such independence?

[F1VENOM]

CNG is no better than oil.

[custar]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

I remember the post. You could completely avoid the stigma associated with the idea of "tax" and require federal leasing have a minimum 5/16 royalty (or some variation thereof), then apply those royalty payments to development of alternative energy sources.

When you originally posted the idea I was behind it 100%, but I kind of fibbed. Our federal lands are held in trust for all American people, not just the couple of generations who will burn through the resource. We should be extremely hesitant to tap non-renewable resources intended to be conserved for the nation as a whole, and the only way I could justify widespread exploration of minerals on federal lands is if we actually use the funds from production to help create sustainable energy sources for future generations.

CNG seems to be the next reasonable step towards energy independence, but is it absolutely necessary to tap public lands in order attain such independence?

Well, you little Fibber, you.

Recall that I only advocated tapping into the oil reserves on publicly-owned land as a stop gap in the transition to CNG. I don't see any functional difference between calling it a surtax versus a royalty, but an attorney who practices in the area of oil and grease might see a huge difference because there is a well-developed body of law regarding royalties. The difference can be dealt with to achieve the desired result. Also, I proposed using 1/4 of the surtax (or royalty if you prefer) to develop renewable sources which I feel is fitting irony. The percentage that goes to such development can be adjusted, of course.

I don't know if we would have to tap into CNG on publicly-owned lands to bridge the gap to the next stage of renewable sources as the primary sources of energy. The U.S. has estimated resources of well over one hundred years of CNG IIRC.

Last, I realize we have an essentially finite amount of hydrocarbon resources and need to conserve them for future generations. We don't know what other uses science will find for those in the future, so I feel we must conserve them to the extent possible for future generations (although I expect we will find a way to produce them synthetically in the future). I don't mind a bit of tax on petroleum products to be used solely and without political preference to develop renewable sources.

Does that make you less of a fibber than you were just thinking?

custar

[sirX]

I am a Republican, however, I enjoyed Obamas speech he just gave.

[Umami]

Contrary to the rhetoric of pundits, the world is not going to end.

[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by Umami

Contrary to the rhetoric of pundits, the world is not going to end.

Bull****

Wait til december

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by custar

Does that make you less of a fibber than you were just thinking?

custar

Yeah it does

I will emphatically restate that I believe public policy should give a deep preference to exploration and development of privately owned minerals, but if tax/royalties were to actually go towards development of alternative energy I wouldn't be as reluctant.