|
Post by Tar A on Mar 14, 2004 1:28:03 GMT -5
Today's issue for our communal puppet, everyone please feel free to lodge your vote and participate in the debate. (Dilemma #95) - "Painful Prices Paid at the Pump" The IssueCommuters are complaining about the ongoing rise in gas prices, causing a massive debate in the government about what should be done. The Debate- Option 1: "Who cares about a few trees, gas prices are six Pacific Monetary Units per gallon, and rising! There is lots of oil to be found in areas currently protected as parks! Solving our energy needs are more important than conserving the environment," says oil executive Calvin Love. "Just give us permission to go in there and start drilling, and gas prices will plummet!"
- Option 2: "There are other ways to recover from the fossil fuel crisis besides ruining forests," says environmental activist Steffan Longfellow. "We shouldn't just take the short way out and drill here. I suggest spending more money on public transportation systems and encouraging people to carpool- if people weren't so reliant on fossil fuel powered cars, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, and if we start using less oil, the price will drop with the demand."
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Mar 14, 2004 1:30:50 GMT -5
I'm terribly sorry about slacking off majorly on these lately; I have a lousy slow net connection and I just don't find it worth the effort and trouble to fight it all the time getting connected. So, expect delays in these from me over the next week.
Anyway, no blood for oil. Or in this case, Pacific Seagulls. Option 2.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Mar 14, 2004 1:57:46 GMT -5
Take it from the geologist, the way we drill for oil today is NOT the way we drilled back in the good ol' days. In downtown Bakersfield, upscale hotels and restaurants are right next to oil pumps. We can drill down, sideways, backways, and only disturb a minimal amount of land. In fact, for every acre oil people disturb, we have to go out and buy and protect and restore 3 acres of native land in the area, forever. Also, when we abandond the site, we must restore it to 110% of the original quality. If there were 10 trees when we started, there will be 11 when we leave. We are also very clean and protect our aquifers well, because we don't want water getting in our oil. The side-effect is oil doesn't get in the water. Don't punish the current oil industry for mistakes of the past. Vote to keep the oil industry alive in the pacific.
|
|
Unlimited
Senator / Pacific Surveyor of Foreign Threat
Vanguard of the Pacific Revolution
Posts: 694
|
Post by Unlimited on Mar 14, 2004 2:16:11 GMT -5
If I blew up the Grand Canyon and restored it to 110% of its height would it be acceptable? If I drained Niagara Falls for a decade and then poured 110% of the water back in would it be acceptable? If I destroyed the pyramids and then rebuilt them to 110% the restored standard they are now, would that be acceptable?
Some things just shouldn't have human intervention, no matter how good the intention behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Tar A on Mar 14, 2004 2:18:10 GMT -5
Okaay, so just because technology has improved a bit means we should let the markets should keep rising with the demand? The oil won't last forever, and the ways oil is used certainly do nothing to improve the world. Promoting public transportation and carpooling before it becomes a crisis is the way to go.
off topic, you're a geologist? interesting, you should go take my geology tests for me, as I'm not doing too well on them on my own. we had our mid terms last week and I've a very bad feeling about how I did...
|
|
|
Post by Pierconium on Mar 14, 2004 2:20:43 GMT -5
I support Option #2 simply because I feel that too much reliance on fossil fuels will lead to greater problems down the line regardless of what the oil industry is doing to "clean up" their act...
|
|
|
Post by mussolandia on Mar 14, 2004 10:20:23 GMT -5
Here comes the cruel corporativist's opinion:
I support Option 2, surprising as it may be. Heavy reliance of fossil fuels has been a major cause for the economical stagnation of developing nations as well as a burden for future generations.
|
|
|
Post by Mammothistan on Mar 14, 2004 11:05:22 GMT -5
Aren't there any devils we may execute along with this decision?
|
|
|
Post by Sonicoa on Mar 14, 2004 11:17:49 GMT -5
Mabye I should'nt be posting here since I'm new but I like option two.Why kill animals to solve a problem for a few months?I allso believe this will help our econmy by decreasing our dependency on inported oil(well if we inport oil like the US)and we can sell the alternitvive fuel tecnology to other countries.It's win-win.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Citadel on Mar 14, 2004 16:22:45 GMT -5
I'm going to support option two because I think we need to find alternatives to finding more oil, even if it's not causing major environmental damage.
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Mar 14, 2004 19:48:52 GMT -5
We are so not running out of oil. We just got all of the easy oil. Now, we have to go off-shore and deep down. Anyways, we don't just use oil to make cars go. There's more to hydrocarbons than just Gasoline. Do you like plastics? Nylon? Roads? Engine Lubrication? Nautral Gas? Jet Fuel? Televisions? Computers? Propane? Ink? Cosmetics? Heart Valves? Sneakers? Crayons? Bubble Gum? Parachuts? Car Bodies? Telephones? Tires? Brassieres? House Paint? Tape? Ammonia? Antiseptics? Eyeglasses? Purses? Life Jackets? Deodorant? Fertilizers? Panty Hose? Movie Film? Shoes? Loudspeakers? Volleyballs? Basketballs? Tape? Combs? Floor Wax? Heating Oil? All of these products come from evil oil.
Unlimited
Niagara falls was drained for quite some time. Due to headward erosion, the falls were becoming a rapid, so we blocked it off, let all the water run down the Canadian Side, and chipped a new face so the falls remained spectacular.
Tar A
Yes, I am a geologist, and I'd be happy to tutor you if you live near the Greater Bakersfield Area.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Mar 15, 2004 10:07:01 GMT -5
More importantly, why don't we stop polluting our environment with the byproducts of fossil fuels and develop something more environment friendly, like the fuel cell. We have the technology - let's get on the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Azerbaijanistanialand on Mar 15, 2004 11:39:31 GMT -5
I'm afraid that I go for option 2, for the economic impetus it should (but I just know the coders didnt bother with it) add to our communal puppet.
Oil is finite however, should we not concentrate its use in those things we do not have a ready alternative for at the moment? If we replace fuel and heating i=oil with something else, it means we have more time to find a replacelment for plastics and the other oil based products.
I also agree with Mammothistan, there is a dissapointing lack of executions in this issue. This should be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on Mar 15, 2004 12:43:44 GMT -5
I'm going with option #2 so that I don't piss of a geologist!
|
|
Sir Paul
Senator / Director of the Pacific Press
This is PNN
Posts: 617
|
Post by Sir Paul on Mar 15, 2004 13:46:06 GMT -5
That's it. Now I have to go write a tabloid.
*Grumbles as he stomps off*
|
|