Slashdot Mirror
Obama Blocks Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Arctic Areas (npr.org)
Before the new administration takes over next month, President Obama took new action Wednesday to place large sections of the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans off limits to oil drilling. NPR reports: The Arctic protections are a joint partnership with Canada. "These actions, and Canada's parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth," the White House said in a statement. "They reflect the scientific assessment that, even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region's harsh conditions is limited," the White House added. "By contrast, it would take decades to fully develop the production infrastructure necessary for any large-scale oil and gas leasing production in the region -- at a time when we need to continue to move decisively away from fossil fuels." Obama's action designates 31 Atlantic canyons "off limits to oil and gas exploration and development activity," totaling 3.8 million acres, according to the administration. It provides the same protections to much of the Arctic's waters, covering the "vast majority of U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas," totaling 115 million acres. Canada is doing the same to "all Arctic Canadian waters," the joint statement adds. Obama took these actions by invoking a law called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which gives the president the authority to withdraw lands from oil and gas leases.
Why didn't he bother doing this before now?
Congress will overturn it one way or the other.
He really needs to fuck right off. Get this failed presidency over with already.
should last until January 21. Drill baby, drill!
an ill wind that blows no good
*this will be overturned in 20 days, by hook or crook
I was planning on putting in a fleet of oil wells there next week! /sarcasm
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
FYI, it costs $150 to drill, process, and ship a barrel of oil from the Arctic. If you want to cover costs. Labor isn't cheap either.
So, putting it off for at least five years makes sense. Increases short term price for all oil, which helps Norway, Scotland, Canada, and the US (and that rogue state Russia), and when the time elapses the demand may be at prices where it makes sense, if we need it for lubricants or some other need.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Trump will undo the stupidity.
can we maybe slow down our use for business reasons? I'd rather have moderate-speed sustainable growth, at slightly higher fuel prices that help drive commercial advances in solar and wind, than find out in fifty years that we've drilled out all the easy-to-get wells and don't have nearly enough commercial investment in other fuel sources to keep up our demand for energy.
Besides, petroleum has some pretty nifty properties besides energy production that I'd really love to keep having easy access to. Like, cheap plastics. Burning it for energy is kinda like using our limited helium reserves for toy balloons.
I don't think there's going to be any kind of peak oil civilization-ending disaster...just that prices will go up. But if they go up a little right now, they won't have to go up by a lot later.
Oh yeah...and from a foreign policy standpoint. We have a ton of oil here in the USA. Energy independence is nice, but it's not critical right now. Wait until Russia closes its borders, the Middle East falls apart and turns off their spigots, and Europe is begging for fuel at any price...can we maybe use our massive national reserves then instead of now? (needing to have the infrastructure in place ahead of time does complicate things I'll admit)
Honest question. Do you actually believe that more than 90% of climatologists have somehow been bribed to lie?
If "yes", wouldn't "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" imply that one should find clear evidence of mass bribery before dismissing the climatologists' conclusions?
It would also mean that within a typical sample of scientist, that 90%+ are bribe-able. I also find that an extraordinary claim. It's never before happened on any other topic.
Table-ized A.I.
Slashdot: News For Angry Partisan Echo Chamber Recitation Practice
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
. . . China is building yet even more artificial military base islands in the Arctic waters, to add more weight to their claim that the Arctic is part of China's territorial waters. This claim is not recognized by any other nations . . . yet.
The Chinese navy also announced that they have captured a US Navy drone in their waters. It is very large and coated with a blubbery black skin, that is probably "stealth" technology. The drone appears to be armed with a water jet weapon, that sporadically spews from the top of the drone. It is powered by bottom dwelling sea crustacean critters that it scoops up with a toothed dredging device at the front of the drone. Chinese scientists plan to disassemble the drone to discover how the crustacean critters are converted into energy.
Chinese navy crew members have claimed to have seen a "white" version of the drone, but the Chinese Admiralty brushes this off as sailors who have been out to sea too long, with too much rice wine, and too little women folk around.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
... Congress can take away.
Obama has the authority to declare land off limits "permanently" only because Congress granted that authority. This authority can be revoked by a future Congress. Both houses of Congress will be controlled by the Republicans so I expect this "permanent" executive order to go away right quick.
What bothers me about the Democrats fanatical desire to free us from oil and coal seems to come with more words than actions. Obama only now made this declaration, only days before he is to leave office. If CAGW is a real problem then I'd think this should have been done much sooner.
We see the same with nuclear power. Obama during his debates with McCain talked about how we need to see more research and development in nuclear power to lower CO2 output. It took the Obama administration only 7 years to figure out how to issue a combined construction and operation license even though there were dozens of applicants. Don't tell me all of those applicants didn't know how to build a safe nuclear power plant. The federal government knows how to build safe nuclear power plants, they've been doing that for decades for the Navy. If the problem was a bad design, and the federal government thought nuclear power was a good idea, then the federal government had the ability to give the nuclear power industry all they needed to know on how to comply with the safety regulations in place.
What a bunch of hypocrites, they talk big about reducing CO2 output but they hold up nuclear power reactors, don't ban off shore drilling until now, what was stopping them for so long? Makes me think that CAGW is in fact a hoax. If the Democrats believed that nuclear power is a good idea, and drilling for oil is a bad idea, then they'd have made these fixes when they held the Senate, House, and Presidency.
Only when they see that the Republicans could possibly replace them all in the federal government do they do a dash to issue nuclear power licenses, and bar drilling for oil. Makes me think that they wanted to hold on to as many "fixes" for CAGW as long as they could, holding them up as "prizes" for the voting public to hand out for voting them into office, and then blame any thing holding up their fix on CAGW on the "evil" Republicans. Well, there were no Republicans to stop anything when the 112th Congress was in session. We should have seen those nuclear power plants and drilling bans then.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing so badly in November.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Most of these new regulations and acts will have little or no meaning. True it's symbolic but under The Congressional Review Act:
Congress is given 60 legislative days to disapprove, after which the rule will go into effect.
For the regulation to be invalidated, the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the President, or must be passed over the President's veto by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress.
While a 2/3rds majority of both houses won't happen, a mere majority resolution of disapproval that the new POTUS signs would nullify this. I believe this mainly on the grounds to revitalize domestic production after Saudi Arabia went on it's production glut.
I'm all for nature and renewable energy but our current POTUS has had a royal feast of land grabbing, this included. Not including the Waters of the United States.
Besides drilling offshore is not a really good idea anyway.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
How is this any less reasonable than Obama's actual actions?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
How about blocking the offshoring of US jobs.
I bet a lot of folks thinks it's partisan bickering. Environmentalists who just want to stop the planet from being destroyed.
But it's also businesses. For one, the fishing industry isn't exactly a fan of the oil industry. They team up with environmentalists and whoever they can - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And there is also tourism. Yes, tourism. The last thing the arctic cruise companies want is have their mega-buck paying passengers who want to see pristine wilderness and whales and glaciers is some big dirty ugly oil platform.
Industry loves to place all the blame on the environmentalists but remember, we're talking about the commons here.
In addition, we should consider that industry has no concept of the future. It's profit now and the future be damned.
He needs to have EVERYTHING he has ever done in office reversed ( and be forced to pay every dime he ever makes back to the citizens he and his family has screwed ). Hes done so much damage to this country its going take generations to undo it.
1. Obama does not actually care about this or he would have done it years ago, not a few days before leaving office. This is one of those things presidents do knowing full-well their successor will reverse and then they will have another talking point about their obviously evil successor. Bill Clinton did the same thing with drinking water standards - right before leaving office, he set new federal standards for drinking water that were too expensive for cities to meet. Bush43 then got into office and reversed the Clinton Policy, setting the standard back to exactly what it had been for Clinton's entire presidency, and the left pushed the meme that Bush wanted arsenic and lead in our drinking water. Lefties still use this as evidence (and for fundraising) that Republicans want "dirty water"
2. Obama DOUBLED the national debt (he called Bush "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" for adding far less debt) and the nation has a relatively painless way to knock-off a chunk of that debt by allowing some of this drilling and collecting the associated fees from the oil companies, like is currently done with Alaskan oil. By putting all that oil off limits, all the associated federal income is off limits too.
3.While this MAY be good for Obama's image with liberal supporters, in the long term it will only further fuel the desire of people on the right to just throw the baby out with the bath water and trash a huge swath of more-sensible eco regulations just to block this sort of garbage in the future. This sort of stuff is part of how the left is losing the American working class voters, and doubling-down like this particularly in such an obviously deceptive and very political manner will only make things worse for Democrats.
Will wet yourselves as he yet again destroys more jobs. Cant you all just GTFO of the country? Ignorant ass-hats.
This is an easy win for the Obama Administration on the way out. Arctic drilling is difficult from the climate and frankly oil prices are low, there's a glut of supply, and there's massive amounts of shale oil available that's cheaper to extract than Arctic oil thanks to fracking technology. It's easy to declare a bunch of land off limits to drilling that no one's going to go drill in anyways, but it qualifies as a win from an environmental perspective.
Of Vladimir Puting shouting "I drink your milkshake! I drink it down!"
The oil is not going to go away.
This generation is not going broke or without toys if we save it for later.
There has already been a remarkable surge in oil production during his presidency.
(Perhaps due to economics, but thes a bit of everything energy policy didn't hurt.)
Offshore drilling, even with the best of companies is not without risk. (See BP)
So, what about the Gulf and Pacific?
I like driving big vehicles and walking on a clean beach.
Seems like this decision is in concert with that.
I think the easiest way to use less oil, is for people to drive small cars. A big SUV is effectively two compact cars. Double the passengers, double the oil consumption, and double the PRICE. It is tempting to use government power to ban big vehicles.... but I think that has problems. I think that there are many people whom use a big SUV for less than 10 percent of their trips. I think good vehicle rental systems, for when people really need that SUV, will make people more willing to buy a compact car instead of a SUV.
In particular Home Depot renting trucks by the hour, and ride sharing services, such as Uber, for those times when you do need an SUV.
It's not just for lower oil consumption, it is also lower depreciation. I'd like for Uber to push this.
No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?
Champagne corks are popping.
I think if we just put an end to anyone who is a climate change denier, we'd reverse climate change really quick, so much hot air coming out of that group of people.
With global warming, the Arctic coastline will be the new Florida beachfront, and nobody wants an oil spill on their beach.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is a big scale move, i wonder what could it means?!
Slashdot: News For Angry Partisan Echo Chamber Recitation Practice
NFAPECRP? Seriously? That sounds like something gaseous that swooshes out between your buttocks about an hour after eating way too many beans. I thought you Americans were supposed to be masters of inventing silly names for things to get a cool acronym?
Initially thought about what is stopping an immediate reversal once Trump comes in, however I think it is a moot point.
Key:
"By contrast, it would take decades to fully develop the production infrastructure necessary for any large-scale oil and gas leasing production in the region."
So unless he is just doing it for optics, there really isn't much drive to do anything about it. Indeed, the act itself on Obama's part is pretty empty when you think about the fact that the basic infrastructure just doesn't exist to do it in the first place, it would take a very long time to build it, not to mention being expensive, never mind the actual technical difficulty of drilling in the first place (never mind the obvious political realities, one being the very large elephant in the room: Russia). So you aren't going to have companies lining up to do it anytime soon, there are plenty of cheaper and easier places to drill. Sure, at some point some will start to look seriously at the region, but it won't be in the next 4 years, nor likely in the next 8 years... Meaning why would Trump care one way or another about an act that prevents an action no one is trying to do, and won't for his foreseeable tenure as President.
Will not even have time to take effect before revoked by Trump.
For me, the main problem with the church of AGW is not that the science is questionable, although there is always a responsibility to be rationally skeptical of any claims, but that the solutions are not scientific. Rather, the "solutions" are always cached in socialist propaganda. It has stopped being about the environment, stopping pollution, providing clean energy, etc. It is generally far more of a watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside)--control of money, punishing the wealthy, redistribution of wealth. Without a doubt there are many above-board climatologists and environmentalists for whom the science is key, and finding real solutions (e.g., fusion power) are the most important thing. But they have let their science be co-opted for political purposes.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC : “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month [back in 2010 actually] is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
"I’m Camille Risler. I’m from France but I’m living in Thailand. I’m working for a feminist network that is called Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development and I’m working for the Climate Justice Program...So what we want to highlight here is that Climate Change is a clear symptom of an unequal and unjust world...So if we are to address the Climate crisis we need to challenge the structural causes of the crisis which lies on unequal distribution of wealth, of carbon, and of power. Whether it’s political power, economic power, or even military power."
Christiana Figueres, who serves as the Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Welfare reform from the Clinton administration was supposed to be bulletproof but Obama managed to find a way to kill it. If Trump wants to reopen these areas, he will find a way.
. . .check-fucking-mate, bitches!!
And not a very good one. The "waterboarding" you are talking about consisted of shoving a hose down a persons throat and then waiting until their belly is full of water and then beating them in the belly until it burst. Not even close to the simulated drowning that was briefly used by the US.
Even if subsection (a) does not contain a provision for reinstating formerly withdrawn lands for leasing...
1341. Reservation of lands and rights
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President: The President of the United States may, from time to
time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
Obama is hanging his hat on the fact that there is no counterpart for reinstatement (i.e., it doesn't say "withdraw or reinstate").
However, subsection (d) provides a nice easy workaround:
(d) National defense areas; suspension of operations; extension of leases : The United States
reserves and retains the right to designate by and through the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the
President, as areas restricted from exploration and operation that part of the outer Continental Shelf needed
for national defense; and so long as such designation remains in effect no exploration or operations may be
conducted on any part of the surface of such area except with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense;
So SecDef and Trump could just designate the lands Obama withheld from disposition as "national defense area" then get the concurrence of the SecDef to allow operations.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The most common solutions I've seen proposed are geoengineering and a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and the latter is an attempt to harness the free market into coming up with a solution. There are indeed people who co-opt science for political purposes, but the science is pretty clear. If you want to push for a free-market solution, go ahead. What is likely to happen if we do what is a scientific question. What we should do in the light of that is a political one. What bothers me is all the influential idiots who deny the science for their own political purposes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Decisions themselves are not science and cannot be science. Science cannot say one should do X instead of do Y; at best it can only tell you the consequences of doing X or doing Y.
As far as which side has the most "propaganda", well, that's a long and messy topic.
Also note there are idiots who spew stupidity on both sides of the argument. Thus, pointing out specific cases of stupidity of one side doesn't tell us anything about the aggregate. It's generally not useful information. At best it's one sample point when thousands are needed before a statistically useful statement can be made.
Table-ized A.I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So this will be in effect for what? 25 days before Trump rescinds it? Way to go OB-moron...