Finally, Greenpeace gets called to account

That's a good news. I think that we all need a healthy dose of downsizing.

 

Greenpeace as far to much money, and on the name of the environment they are reckless.
The money source will be interesting to trace.
They are against a oil platform: did you see the size of their ship? How many gallon an hour consume this ship? 200 at least.
Bunch of fraud.
Go Russia, put them in your beautiful Siberian Gulag to think about consequences over action. At least Russian has balls.
Greenpeace need a strong reminder of: Your freedom stop when you overstep the freedom of other.
You can't take the law in your own hand. If you disagree go to court.
Greenpeace is like a cult with a supreme commender, not better than Scientology in the ideologist concept. How to blackmails people making them think they act for the good of people. To many gullible people fail on the trap of their rethoric.

 

Spain is a country, Russia is also a country. Russia don't patronize Spain about fuel consumption. Don't question them.
As long as we use oil for:
gas
electricity
clothes
pharmaceutical
tires
food
furnitures
houses
boats
ships
paints
hospital
health care apparatus
roads
cars
trucks
airplanes
train
public transportation
printing money
phones
floors
roofing
agriculture
wind turbine
computers
solar panel

Do I have to continue the list?

Yes drill baby drill, because we have no other solutions. The little batteries an other so call green solutions will not make 0.0001% of the list as replacement of oil.

 

Already Americas largest export is petroleum. Perhaps its better to re industrialize, put americans back to work then export value added products produced with energy efficenct manufacturing, before you take the quick and dirty, drill baby drill. Route to prosperity.
The same holds true for russia. Stop abusing natural resources as the route to prosperity.

This is what greenpeace and other environmental activists are telling you. There is a better way to achieve sustainable developement

 

ABUSING (as opposed to USING) is the key point in that phrase.

 

Its is abuse when you take your national resource...an old growth douglas fir tree....chop it down then export the raw log with no value added.

Sustainbility means maximium value added for each resource.

Greenpeace is telling you this...over and over again.

When oil comes out of the ground you refine it to generate industrial chemicals or whatever the maximium value added is.

Untill this maximium value added cycle becomes entrenched i will cheer greenpeace

 

For how long do you think that rationale will work, Daniel? I am pretty sure that you are also aware, just like I am, that we have started to come close to the bottom of the tank we are pumping from. It is just a matter of time - perhaps we have 20 more years, perhaps 50 - and no more than that. 20 or 50 doesn't really matter anyways, because the point is - we are reaching the bottom.

 

That is a disingenuous statement. You are implying that The U.S. is a net petroleum exporter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The U.S, is the third largest oil producer @ ~8.5 million barrels/day, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia, in that order.

In addition the U.S. imports 10 million barrels/day and exports about 2 million barrels/day. The exports are mostly in the form of refined petroleum products. The U.S. has excess refining capability in relation to domestic use while worldwide, and especially in developing countries there is a shortage of refining capability.

If the U.S. were to pass a law requiring oil companies to sell their production only in the U.S. the excess capacity would cause prices to fall and domestic consumption to go up. Worldwide there would be and immediate shortfall of refined petroleum products and prices would rise, again affecting developing nations more severely.


BTW The U.S is 22nd in per capita oil consumption behind Canada and some small countries. Why do I never see any concern for the oil usage in those countries. I understand Canada has a severe climate but their oil usage is much higher than Sweden. U.S. per capita consumption is comparable to Iceland, Greenland, Belgium, or The Netherlands.
Ref. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

You want to argue that the U.S. should use less oil per capita than it currently does? Great. I've maintained that position for about 40 years. My point of reference has always been Sweden, which has a comparable standard of living and a harsher climate yet uses 41% less oil per capita than does the U.S.

 

I know you are right. But what gets me is all these green organization do not propose a different approach for the general industry. the car is the biggest culprit in the green view, because it is the easiest to pretend finding a solution, like the fraudulent Tesla crap.
Is the oceans has to be just a bunch of wind turbine to generate the real need on energy? I don't think it is a good solution.
A real solution will need a lot of research, and certainly not the thirsty media attention organization like Greenpeace which propose nothing. Oh yes save the whale! Well big deal.
How many gallons of oil Greenpeace consume every years, between the ships, the traveling, the cars and so on? Million. Who pay for that? the follower of this cult.
We have to face the truth: we need oil, all our industry rely on it. It is a sad truth, but it is the way we are.
We take from earth what we need. Oil is the least damaging for the environment. Chopping all the forest like in the nineteen century was not a good solution.
But all that its my opinion, and you know what we says about opinions

 

So, how to solve this problem?
Considering that in many not-so-well-deloped but well populated countries energy consumption per capita is several times less than even in fuel-saving EC countries. Mass demographic corrections?

 

"So, how to solve this problem? "

Sadly the solutions, steps in the right direction would be more accurate, are complicated as there isn't a one size fits all solution.

Phil Bolger's last major endeavor was an effort to get the fishing industry to adopt a different paradigm for a vessel that would be profitable given current energy costs and fishing yields.
The incumbent technology for commercial fishing boats is structured around cheap fuel and large catches, neither of which still exist. His efforts towards sail and sail assisted vessels for commercial fishing fell almost entirely on deaf ears. I suppose we will muddle along until a few fisherman try the alternative technology out of desperation. If they can make a profit when those in fuel inefficient vessels do not a change will take place in short order.

I've never participated in any recreational activities that require burning fossil fuels. At least in the U.S. I am in a very small minority. I have a friend with a house on a popular local lake. His boat is a complete gas hog. He rarely goes more than 5 miles from his dock. I would find sailing or rowing far more pleasant than listening to the roar of several hundred H.P., but his boat is just like those owned by the vast majority of his neighbors. Earlier this year I spent a month there building him a garage and I never saw a sail or rowing craft on the water. The drone of engines was commonplace.

In other countries the problem is even more complicated. The Bahamas has one of the highest per capita consumptions of oil. I believe the majority of that oil is used by Reverse Osmosis facilities to convert seawater into drinking water. There is no technology on the horizon that will meet their fresh water needs without a substantial energy input. While they have plentiful sun and wind the energy density of those technologies is not very workable given the limited amount of available land, not to mention the cost/KW at current levels. They environmentalist would be outraged if the Bahamians wanted to build windfarms in what is still mostly pristine waters.

IMO the solutions vary greatly from country to country and from region to region within the larger countries. That doesn't led itself to brief talking points focused on broad reaching technologies and therefore will receive little attention.

 

Total energy consumption per capita in the US has only decreased by 5 percent in the last 40 years. This decrease is due to de industrialization..offshoring manufacturing, not internal efficency gains.

The per capita energy consumption in the residential sector has increased by 7 percent over that period.

Per capita energy consunsumpion in the transport sector has increased by 12 percent over the period.

These numbers must change if you seek sustainabilty. Arctic drilling wont sove the problem

 

Refined petroleam products
are americas largest non military export

 

@Michael Piergaza
Is there any statement in either of my two posts that suggests I do not believe the U.S. could or should move towards lowering its per capita consumption of oil.

Actually I believe we could cut our per capita consumption in half. It would do good things for the environment and for our foreign policy.

On the other hand world energy requirements are going to increase greatly regardless of what the U.S. does. All the people who are demanding the U.S. scale back are simultaneously claiming the developing countries need to substantially increase their oil consumption.

How do you suggest those demands be met? China is all in on coal, and primitive coal technologies at that. Those plants will be polluting for generations to come. No concern there?

You suggest we should bring manufacturing back to these shores. I agree and slowly manufacturing is returning,(http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/manufacturing-at-home-makes-more-sense.html) but how is that going to affect the economies of those developing countries that lose industries?

Are the economies of countries where wages are very low going to be improved by the loss of jobs?

"Refined petroleam productsare americas largest non military export"
If the U.S. imports oil and exports refined product isn't that a value added service? How is providing refined petroleum product to countries that don't have that capability a bad thing?

 

When petroleum products make up such a huge chunk of hard currency earning special interest groups, lobbyists, will purchase politicians when critical legislation is proposed.

This is why greenpeace or other organizations are valuable. They keep the topic hot and on the front page no matter how hard the lobbyists and big oil try to make the issue disappear.

Fracking, arctic oil, east coast drilling are all topics that deserve correct legistlation. Legislation free of special interest money.