I remember predictions back in the 50's (probably around the time of IGY) that we were heading for another ice age.  So much for predictions.

My personal take on this is that what mankind is doing to the planet is not good and I do worry about what things will be like for future generations.  Forgetting about global warming, which I believe we are at least contributing to, we are effectively polluting and poisoning our air, water and land as well as over-harvesting many of our natural resources. 

While alternate energy sources are certainly going to required, I would like to see much more emphasis reducing consumption on the "intake" side and reducing waste and pollution on the "exhaust" side.  This is true for water and all our resources.

I don't consider myself a "tree hugger" or a "gloom and doomer", but we DO need to change our behavior.  How do we do that?  It seems that people voluntarily change their behavior only when it is cheaper or more convenient to do so. 

I live in near the center of a major European city and I walk or take the Metro because is cheaper AND a lot more convenient than driving.  I find myself walking more when I am back in the USA, too.  For good or for bad, there is a LOT more regulation in Europe than in the USA.

Everyone should look at their own lifestyles and look for ways we can do things better.  On the political side, make your voice heard to your elected representatives  ....whatever your viewpoint. 

Bruce

Let's say for a moment that global warming is a fact and that it's indisputably caused by CO2.

How does a tax scheme that allows the trading of pollution credits solve the problem? By raising the price of everything (find me something that is not somehow dependent on energy) and hoping that consumption will decline. We are talking about the govt: why don't they just regulate pollution directly, more than they already do.

We're talking about the end of the earth. Right? We're all going die when the earth spontaneously combusts from the rise in temperature. Or, are we all going to die from powerful hurricanes (Katrina). Because we all know there were never any deadly hurricanes before global warming.

So if things are so dire. Why not take a direct approach?

Follow the money!

While we're at it why not ban cigarettes? We're all going to die from cigarette smoke, even if we choose not to smoke. Ans: Govt makes more in taxes on cigarettes than the entire tobacco industry combined.

How about soft drinks? Nope, this is the new piggy bank for pet pork projects.

I almost got kicked out of a Sunday School class years ago when I said, "I don't know why we are getting so concerned about pollution and the environment. In the end Mother Nature is going to win anyway!"

I do agree that energy conservation, resource recycling, and pollution control, do enhance our relationship with nature, and makes the environment more enjoyable to live in. I sometimes think the end result will be nothing more than a delay of a thousand years or two in the eventual demise of humankind from off the face of the earth.

"My personal take on this is that what mankind is doing to the planet is not good and I do worry about what things will be like for future generations. Forgetting about global warming, which I believe we are at least contributing to, we are effectively polluting and poisoning our air, water and land as well as over-harvesting many of our natural resources."

These thoughtful words by Mr. Bruce Frey are well spoken. Does anyone on this forum disagree with the aforementioned paragraph??? As to "our" (American) carbon footprint - at 20 tons per capita (vs 10 Tons for our European counterparts) we sure do have big feet!

"While alternate energy sources are certainly going to required, I would like to see much more emphasis reducing consumption on the "intake" side and reducing waste and pollution on the "exhaust" side. This is true for water and all our resources."

BINGO give this man a cigar!!! THE BEST ENERGY IS THE ENERGY THAT WE DO NOT USE!!! And yes - this can and HAS been accomplished. 1.) more energy efficient methods of construction. 2.) Efficient use of the Sun (not just photovoltaic) for hot water and heat energy storage BELOW the foundation (or crawlspace). 3.) Flow/counterflow freash air exchange in-ground (near surface) using the Earth itself as a temperature moderator....RESULT: Buildings that ARE ACHIEVING less than 10kw/h/m2 per year...with out - and for much less than a $40,000.00 photovoltaic systems, heat pumps, wind turbines; or any combination thereof.

Cap and Trade is a start - an attempt to address a concern - not a final solution by any means.

The question this thread posed was "Will it help the ICF industry?" I believe as I mentioned earlier: It,s a start...but we still have a way to go.

While oil is a valuable resource, we have the ability to limit its uses for purposes for which there are no reasonable alternatives.  For example petrolium is a valuable componant to EPS products that have extremely high insulation values and long life spans, while on the other hand their are elecrtic alternatives to vehicles, landscaping equiplemt, etc. that can be powered through harnessing solar, wind, nuclear, etc.


"OUR" oil companies?  While 95% of the workd oil reserves are controlled by state-owned oil companies, the other 5% are almost exclusively controlled by ExxonMobil, RD Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total S.A., and ENI SpA.  Of these only ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are based in the U.S.  Do you think that any of these companies are going to voluntarily change their normal drilling practices when drilling in the U.S. because they have an inherent "respect" for the land?

This is a very broad statement, would you like to give examples of whay they do different any those "number of reasons" why?

Rio

Is "Drill baby Drill" really a solution? Should one not concentrate on REDUCTION (of energy use) rather than PRODUCTION? Will drilling for oil today produce oil tomorrow, next week, next month or next year? What is the up front cost before one would even see the first barrel of crude? How does this address climate change?

Building energy efficient (as well as thermomodernizing existing structures) REDUCES energy usage from day one - at far less "upfront investment"; no risk to the environment; as well as a garanteed return!

[b]"Black Sea oil spill blamed on Russia's lax standards"[/b]

"Amnesty International said environmental pollution in Nigeria's southern oil region, the Niger Delta, had deprived tens of millions of people of their basic rights to safe food, clean water and good health."

Above are two examples of the lax oil pollution controls in other countries.  As far as "Drill Baby, Drill" and the so called climate change (notice how it's no longer global warming) I'm all for a reasonable and measured move to be more environmentally sensitive.  Unfortunately what we have going on now is neither.  There are plenty of reputable scientists who have well founded questions about the conclusions that have been arrived at by other scientists, many of whom are being paid well to generate a crisis.  We are going to need oil for the foreseeable future for a myriad number of reasons besides burning it up. If we need oil and we have oil why don't we be responsible consumers and keep what we can under our control?  We should be working towards stabilizing that market which just the talk of increasing domestic production will do.  What do you think the consequences were to the poorest nations when oil spiked to $140 a barrel?

"Russia's lax standarsa" Your statement affirms that governments and not oil companies REGULATE oil exploration in any country, even ours.

Exxon still hasn't paid a dime of the $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages they were to pay following  the 1989 Exxon Veldez oil spill off the coast of Alaska. ( $5 billion is the equivalent to 1 years profit by Exxon in 1989).  As of June 2008, almost 20 years later, the Supereme Court has heard the case, vacated the already reduced $2.5 award and decided to kick it back down to the 9th circuit for further consideration. 

Like most companies, oil companies are first and foremost concerned with the bottom line, not with responsible exploration/extraction. 

Another vague, unsubstantiated, conspiracy theory like, piece of propaganda:  "many of whom are being paid well to generate a crisis."

You're continuing to miss my point entirely.  We are living in one of the most regulated places on the globe and that goes for any industry that is in place here.  On the propaganda claim you are making please see the below quote.

"Well, I’m exposing another lie: there is no “consensus.” There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in the human-caused, catastrophic global warming theory. However, many are afraid to speak out because they will lose research grants -the U.S. alone spends an estimated $4 billion a year on climate research - and possibly have their careers ruined by their “consensus” colleagues."

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=73

The above is the page it was taken from off the net.  It is a very interesting set of articles written by a dissenting scientist on the climate change, or is it global warming, charade.

I want to also re-iterate that I, along with many other skeptical people, are all for being responsible environmentally and moving towards reducing our carbon footprint and to attempt live in harmony with our surroundings.  What we would like is to have an open, honest, and unbiased discussion on the subject and also as we change over  to do so in a manner that will not gut our economy, and that will not increase the power of the state over us, all of which the current system is designed to do. 

How do you know?  From my experience in the industry this statement is little more than a mistaken assumption.  There asre no facts or evidence to back it up.   There is little difference between "our" oil companioes anf foreign ones.  They all have access to the same level of technology -- especially among the major and large companies.   Further, what do you mean by "best techniques"?  Best from what perspective?  From "respect for the land" or from a cost perspective?  These are not the same.   Further still, even when the best techniques are employed in the development of a field, the companies often bypass them to save costs -- yes, they disregard regulations when they think they can get away with it.  Regulators don't live on oil platforms.  Sometimes they get caught.  Even the oil companies perceived as the most environmentally conscious get caught contravening regulations to save a buck.  (search regulatory history and lawsuits at both the state and federal level).  I would also say that there is no guarantee that the "best" technologies actually get employed.  They will forcefully argue and negotiate against using them -- in fact the best, from a respect for the land perspective almost never gets used.  There are also hundreds of domestic oil companies in a wide range of sizes, with variable levels of resources and capabilities at their disposal.  It is easy to see that "most" of the companies are not using the "best", and they aren't.  At any size, few of these companies are the conscientious, virtuous companies you seem to assume they are, and certainly no more so than foreign companies -- even if it is their own country.   Finally, even if you assume (however wrongly) that the best technology get used, the vast majority of wells in the US are not using the best.  They are using what ever the company could get away using them the wells were first developed -- they technology used on all these existing wells doesn't often get upgraded when there is an improvement in technology.  So with all this old technology being used everyday, and the impossibility of continuous oversight, means that the best interests of the land is hardly assured regardless if they are domestic or foreign oil companies.  As was pointed out, the oil companies' interest is the bottom line and they will abuse the land and regulations to enhance it whether it is their home country or not.  Don't buy into the propaganda advanced by they industry, and don't kid yourself, that the situation is any different.

<!--Session data--><!--Session data-->

"It was taken off the net".  Wow.  I guess that makes it credible!

But even still, the title of that page is "Confessions of a (fictional) ‘consensus’ climate scientist".  Yes, "fictional".  Not a real scientist.  The author is an ex-journalist and writer.  Just another guy with a website spouting off to whoever will listen (looks like he found you).   I guess the fact that he has a website is supposed to make him more credible on the scientist than scientists!  Or, say, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among many others.   Seems to me this guy is just another run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist with a website.  Sorry, but this guy's ramblings have no credibility, even when writing as a fictional scientist.

<!--Session data-->

Do a little research on the subject and you'll find plenty of scientists who agree that we are being sold a bill of goods.

Rio

In all due respect; please answer the aforementioned questions which I have posed on this thread earler; thereby educating us on the basic economics of "Drill Baby Drill"?

1.) Should one not concentrate on REDUCTION (of energy use) rather than PRODUCTION?

2.) Will drilling for oil today produce oil tomorrow, next week, next month or next year? When will we see even the first gallon of crude from these new wells?

3.) What is the up front cost before one would even see the first barrel of crude?

"I want to also re-iterate that I, along with many other skeptical people, are all for being responsible environmentally and moving towards reducing our carbon footprint and to attempt live in harmony with our surroundings."

...and your answer in order to "reduce our carbon footprint and attempt to live in harmony with our surroundings" is "Drill Baby Drill" ???

I think we can all agree that the subject of "global warming" or "climate change" has become a politically and ideologically charged issue. People are passionate on both sides of the issue. This usually indicates that a great deal of money and power is at stake in the outcome of the debate. We look to science to resolve the controversy only to find conflicting scientific evidence. We find reasons to question the veracity of published scientific research on the subject. No argument made by either side seems to settle the matter once and for all.

The advocates of man-made global warming seem to have the upper hand at the moment. Their message dominates the main stream media, the educational system, and even commerce. Anyone of import who questions the scientific basis for global warming is considered dangerous, and either ignored or roundly discredited. Skeptics, on the other hand, see proponents of man made global warming as anti-capitalists, “environmental wackos” or gullible doofuses. These naysayers have been gaining ground recently and are putting the protagonists on the other side on the defensive.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t pay any attention to the either side in this on-going battle. I'm a small government conservative, but I like the idea of conserving energy and natural resources primarily because it raises my standard of living. Conservation means saving money which can be spent on other things to better my life. Recently, however, global warming has become the justification for a massive reallocation of wealth in our economy and a gargantuan increase in government interference in our economy, the consequences of which are not well understood.

To the extent that the proposed Cap and Trade legislation, if enacted, negatively affects our economy (increases unemployment and lowers living standards), arguments for and against it will quickly come into focus. Some will argument that any sacrifice is necessary to save the planet. I suspect most will side with bread and butter concerns in the here and now.

Will cap and trade help or hurt the ICF industry? I’m sure we could argument both side of the question fervently and still not know the answer. Personally, I think it will help it, but what do I know.

I've explained my positions on the subject sufficiently earlier in the thread.  Please re-read them and think about what I've said.

Actually they have. The punitive damages were reduced, I believe, and they agreed just a few weeks ago to pay interest on the original actual damages award. I have some friends who spent many summers fishing in that part of Alaska until they sold out their leases, cabin, and fishing rights just a few years ago and retired. Saw them last week and they were remodeling their kitchen using some of the funds from the Valdez settlement.

Of course, the lawyers are the only true winners, financially. I don't remember what percentage my friends said the lawyers got, but it was a huge chunk of the awards.

There never was an insinuation or for that matter a declaration that they are anything by nature.  They are more responsible because we have more regulations over them here in the states than in many other parts of the world.