• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hearing that the best way to stop Vladimir Putin’s aggression is to ramp up fossil fuel production in North America hmmmm terrible idea

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
21,076
Reaction score
6,100
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mail



Even before Russia’s tanks started rolling into Ukraine, we were already hearing that the best way to stop Vladimir Putin’s aggression is to ramp up fossil fuel production in North America.

Within hours of the invasion, every planet-torching project that the climate justice movement had managed to block over the past decade was being frantically rushed back onto the table: every canceled oil pipeline, every nixed gas export terminal, every protected fracking field, every Arctic drilling dream.

Since Putin’s war machine is funded with petrodollars, the solution, we are told, is to drill, frack, and ship more of our own — no matter the cost to our planet and our future.

Oil CEOs and politicians like Sen. Joe Manchin are advocating for more drilling at home to help supply European allies like Germany, which just announced its own construction of two huge import terminals that could lock in emissions for decades to come.

With politicians and pundits scrambling to bring back the failed oil dreams of the past, I’m more committed than ever to The Intercept’s ongoing investigation of climate criminals and corporate polluters. Our reporters don’t just lament rising temperatures, they name names and follow the money, from the billionaire donors that obstruct climate action to the front lines of protest against pipeline construction and fossil fuel extraction.

There are no corporate advertisers bankrolling The Intercept’s ongoing coverage of the climate emergency.

We’re told the push for new fossil projects in North America is about helping Ukrainians and weakening Putin. But the real reason all the old pipe dreams are being dusted off is far more crass: This war has sent the price of oil soaring and has made them vastly more profitable overnight.⁠

We need journalists to have the time, resources, and editorial encouragement to expose who profits — and how we all suffer — from the continued destabilization of our planet.

Just as urgently, we need to tell the stories of the social movements and insurgent politicians who are fighting for a world no longer based on extraction and the fantasy of endless growth.

These stories are being told with rigor by The Intercept — and almost nowhere else. The Intercept’s nonprofit newsroom looks beyond the surface to challenge the corruption and self-serving orthodoxies of the powerful.

NAOMI KLEIN
Intercept
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Renewable investment is increasing rapidly, meaning less investment going into oil. The oil industry has no reason to increase production to new highs, which had been trending down since 1985 until rapidly increasing during the Obama admin. Oil companies will concentrate at getting the most efficient production from existing wells and look to keep prices high, as OPEC countries are doing, to return the best possible profit to shareholders and thus maintain appreciable stock prices and dividends. Domestic production will not increase for the sake of production only. Not by the willing and desired choice of the oil industry.
 

Gateman_Wen

Official disruptive influence
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
17,357
Reaction score
17,907
Location
Middle of it all
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Renewable investment is increasing rapidly, meaning less investment going into oil. The oil industry has no reason to increase production to new highs, which had been trending down since 1985 until rapidly increasing during the Obama admin. Oil companies will concentrate at getting the most efficient production from existing wells and look to keep prices high, as OPEC countries are doing, to return the best possible profit to shareholders and thus maintain appreciable stock prices and dividends. Domestic production will not increase for the sake of production only. Not by the willing and desired choice of the oil industry.
Exactly. I haven't figured out why all these conservative types think the oil companies want to lower the price, nor can I understand what they think the President can do about it.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
15,076
Reaction score
3,202
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Intercept

Even before Russia’s tanks started rolling into Ukraine, we were already hearing that the best way to stop Vladimir Putin’s aggression is to ramp up fossil fuel production in North America.

Within hours of the invasion, every planet-torching project that the climate justice movement had managed to block over the past decade was being frantically rushed back onto the table: every canceled oil pipeline, every nixed gas export terminal, every protected fracking field, every Arctic drilling dream.

Since Putin’s war machine is funded with petrodollars, the solution, we are told, is to drill, frack, and ship more of our own — no matter the cost to our planet and our future.

Oil CEOs and politicians like Sen. Joe Manchin are advocating for more drilling at home to help supply European allies like Germany, which just announced its own construction of two huge import terminals that could lock in emissions for decades to come.

With politicians and pundits scrambling to bring back the failed oil dreams of the past, I’m more committed than ever to The Intercept’s ongoing investigation of climate criminals and corporate polluters. Our reporters don’t just lament rising temperatures, they name names and follow the money, from the billionaire donors that obstruct climate action to the front lines of protest against pipeline construction and fossil fuel extraction.

There are no corporate advertisers bankrolling The Intercept’s ongoing coverage of the climate emergency.

We’re told the push for new fossil projects in North America is about helping Ukrainians and weakening Putin. But the real reason all the old pipe dreams are being dusted off is far more crass: This war has sent the price of oil soaring and has made them vastly more profitable overnight.⁠

We need journalists to have the time, resources, and editorial encouragement to expose who profits — and how we all suffer — from the continued destabilization of our planet.

Just as urgently, we need to tell the stories of the social movements and insurgent politicians who are fighting for a world no longer based on extraction and the fantasy of endless growth.

These stories are being told with rigor by The Intercept — and almost nowhere else. The Intercept’s nonprofit newsroom looks beyond the surface to challenge the corruption and self-serving orthodoxies of the powerful.

NAOMI KLEIN
Intercept
Klein does a nice rant.

So much for the extreme left view. At the risk of being redundant, do you have any thoughts of your own?

Renewable investment is increasing rapidly, meaning less investment going into oil. The oil industry has no reason to increase production to new highs, which had been trending down since 1985 until rapidly increasing during the Obama admin. Oil companies will concentrate at getting the most efficient production from existing wells and look to keep prices high, as OPEC countries are doing, to return the best possible profit to shareholders and thus maintain appreciable stock prices and dividends. Domestic production will not increase for the sake of production only. Not by the willing and desired choice of the oil industry.
If all goes well, in a generation or so we will still be dependent on oil and gas, just not as dependent.

It makes more environmental sense to orient toward methane. Its use produces almost no toxic byproducts.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Exactly. I haven't figured out why all these conservative types think the oil companies want to lower the price, nor can I understand what they think the President can do about it.

Because they are against anything and everything Democrat. Even democracy. Dems haven't quite come to that full realization and certainly not saying/doing barely anything about it.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
15,076
Reaction score
3,202
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because they are against anything and everything Democrat. Even democracy. Dems haven't quite come to that full realization and certainly not saying/doing barely anything about it.
You show a clear lack of understanding and no desire to correct the defect. That's understandable. If you dehumanize Republicans you can treat them badly with less guilt.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Klein does a nice rant.

So much for the extreme left view. At the risk of being redundant, do you have any thoughts of your own?


If all goes well, in a generation or so we will still be dependent on oil and gas, just not as dependent.

It makes more environmental sense to orient toward methane. Its use produces almost no toxic byproducts.

While still dependent, it's better to be less dependent.

Methane displaces oxygen and increases warming.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You show a clear lack of understanding and no desire to correct the defect. That's understandable. If you dehumanize Republicans you can treat them badly with less guilt.

What did I say, exactly, that you can refute? I'm not dehumanizing Reps. If anything, I'm humanizing them as what, in general, they are.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
15,076
Reaction score
3,202
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
While still dependent, it's better to be less dependent.
I'm not sure I agree. Methane and liquified gasses are as clean as it gets.

Methane displaces oxygen and increases warming.
Your science is off. Methane is much lighter than oxygen and nitrogen and does not linger. To displace air you need an enclosed space, like a kitchen.

What did I say, exactly, that you can refute?
You claim that they are against democracy.

I'm not dehumanizing Reps.
Yes, you are. You treat them like obedient zombies of their leadership.

If anything, I'm humanizing them as what, in general, they are.
Of course, you would say so, but you do not engage their ideas. You only ridicule and disparage. It's rather Trumplike.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
22,220
Reaction score
7,939
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm not sure I agree. Methane and liquified gasses are as clean as it gets.


Your science is off. Methane is much lighter than oxygen and nitrogen and does not linger. To displace air you need an enclosed space, like a kitchen.


You claim that they are against democracy.


Yes, you are. You treat them like obedient zombies of their leadership.


Of course, you would say so, but you do not engage their ideas. You only ridicule and disparage. It's rather Trumplike.

Methane is a considerable contributor to global warming and is released during the cycle of natural gas production/extraction.

An increase in atmospheric methane raises the temperature of the atmosphere and deprives the oceans of, oxygen, which in turn is less released from the oceans into the atmosphere.

There is nothing more democratic than voting. Limiting voter access is anti-democratic. That is against democracy. What facts do you have to refute that?

What, exactly, did I say that dehumanizes them, and why?

I will ridicule and disparage ideas that are unsupported by fact and harm others and/or deprive them of their rights. What can you quote of what I said that supports what you accuse me of?
 
Top Bottom