Trump offshore oil drilling plan draws protest in California

[webfact]

Trump offshore oil drilling plan draws protest in California

By Sharon Bernstein

 

An offshore oil platform is seen in Huntington Beach, California September 28, 2014. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson/Files

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - Environmental activists in California on Thursday protested a Trump Administration proposal to vastly increase offshore oil drilling in the United States.

 

The protest immediately preceded a public meeting by the U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in Sacramento, where officials will be available to talk with members of the public about the proposed drilling expansion and help them submit public comments.

 

At the protest at the state Capitol building, several hundred people, some carrying a giant blue inflatable whale, listened to speakers warn the Trump administration not to drill for oil off California's coastline. Others carried signs with slogans like, "Oil and sea life don't mix."

 

"Do not pollute our planet for your profit," California state Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson told the cheering crowd. "You do not represent us." Jackson's Santa Barbara district's coastline has been polluted by oil spills from past drilling.

 

Carrying a sign showing a sea otter, Joseph Palermo, a history professor at Sacramento State, said he came to love the coastline as a college student.

 

"The coast is very important to me," he said. "I heard about this and I had to come out."

 

California officials said on Wednesday the state would block transport of such petroleum through its waters.

 

On Thursday, the California Coastal Commission also weighed in, requesting that the state be removed from consideration for offshore drilling. The state's Natural Resources secretary, John Laird, also voiced opposition.

 

The protest was organised by several environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

 

"Offshore drilling is dirty and it’s dangerous," said Miyoko Sakashita, head of the oceans program for the Center for Biological Diversity. "It results in oil spills that injure and kill wildlife."

 

California's threat to deny pipeline permits for transporting oil from new leases off the Pacific Coast is the latest step by states trying to halt the biggest proposed expansion in decades of federal oil and gas leasing.

 

Officials in Florida, North and South Carolina, Delaware and Washington state have warned drilling could despoil beaches, harm wildlife and hurt lucrative tourism industries.

 

On Wednesday, California officials sent a formal letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management demanding that the Pacific coast be removed from the program. The State Lands Commission, which must approve any new pipelines, said in the letter it would not permit the movement of oil from new offshore leases to pass through state land or water.

 

“I am resolved that not a single drop from Trump’s new oil plan ever makes landfall in California,” Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, chair of the State Lands Commission and a Democratic candidate for governor, said in an emailed statement.

 

The letter also criticized the agency for holding just one public meeting in California, the most populous U.S. state with about 40 million residents.

 

In response, a spokeswoman for Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke said the process of developing the five-year-plan for offshore oil and gas leases is "a very open and public process."

 

“Secretary Zinke looks forward to meeting with more Governors and other coastal representatives who want to discuss the draft program,” spokeswoman Heather Swift said by email, adding the bureau “has planned 23 public meetings, in our coastal states, to secure feedback directly from citizens.”

 

William Brown, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s chief environmental officer, said state input is taken seriously, and has resulted in past drilling plans being scaled back.

 

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein; editing by Marguerita Choy and Phil Berlowitz)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-09

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

"Do not pollute our planet for your profit," California state Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson told the cheering crowd.

Sooooo, get the oil for their huge truck engined cars from somewhere else, and pollute that place instead.

Hypocrites.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, get the oil for their huge truck engined cars from somewhere else, and pollute that place instead.

Hypocrites.

Really? Are Californians proposing that other ocean drilling be performed off the shores of other states but not theirs? I don't think so. So how are they hypocrites?

In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles.

But if you want to talk about hypocrites on this subject, let's take a look at  the Trump administration. It has already granted Florida an exemption. Do you think that's because Floridians only use bicycles?

[FreddieRoyle]

quote "In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles."

 

Not sure if you are joking or not? There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric vehicles use electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels, or even worse by wind turbines which cost an arm and a leg to make and will never pay back their cost, or solar energy using expensive solar panels which of course used huge amounts of fossil fuels to make etc. It is all very well trying to look virtuous and green, but let's be realistic. The Californians have swallowed the green mantra and it is very silly(and not helping the planet one iota).

Trump, once again, is absolutely correct.

 

[rudi49jr]

2 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

quote "In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles."

 

Not sure if you are joking or not? There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric vehicles use electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels, or even worse by wind turbines which cost an arm and a leg to make and will never pay back their cost, or solar energy using expensive solar panels which of course used huge amounts of fossil fuels to make etc. It is all very well trying to look virtuous and green, but let's be realistic. The Californians have swallowed the green mantra and it is very silly(and not helping the planet one iota).

Trump, once again, is absolutely correct.

 

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? Just spouting nonsense to defend your darling president Trump, right?

[yardrunner]

5 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

quote "In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles."

 

Not sure if you are joking or not? There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric vehicles use electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels, or even worse by wind turbines which cost an arm and a leg to make and will never pay back their cost, or solar energy using expensive solar panels which of course used huge amounts of fossil fuels to make etc. It is all very well trying to look virtuous and green, but let's be realistic. The Californians have swallowed the green mantra and it is very silly(and not helping the planet one iota).

Trump, once again, is absolutely correct.

 

Trump has been incorrect about most things and looks like being the biggest disaster possible for the USA and the world

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

quote "In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles."

 

Not sure if you are joking or not? There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric vehicles use electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels, or even worse by wind turbines which cost an arm and a leg to make and will never pay back their cost, or solar energy using expensive solar panels which of course used huge amounts of fossil fuels to make etc. It is all very well trying to look virtuous and green, but let's be realistic. The Californians have swallowed the green mantra and it is very silly(and not helping the planet one iota).

Trump, once again, is absolutely correct.

 

California is also pushing towards green sources of energy. Your assertions about wind turbines are absurd. Texas has a very free market in electricity and it is doing hugeand rapidly increasing  business in wind turbines. Ocean based turbines are even more efficient and reliable.

That electricity is being used to make solar cells now and some percentage of it comes from fossil fuels is true. Are you saying that that a solar cell will not over its lifetime produce more energy that it took to create it? Because that's the only way your assertion makes sense.

In fact, solar and wind energy are already pushing coal out of the market and the decline in the cost per kilowatt hour has already far exceeded all expectations,

[FreddieRoyle]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

California is also pushing towards green sources of energy. Your assertions about wind turbines are absurd. Texas has a very free market in electricity and it is doing hugeand rapidly increasing  business in wind turbines. Ocean based turbines are even more efficient and reliable.

That electricity is being used to make solar cells now and some percentage of it comes from fossil fuels is true. Are you saying that that a solar cell will not over its lifetime produce more energy that it took to create it? Because that's the only way your assertion makes sense.

In fact, solar and wind energy are already pushing coal out of the market and the decline in the cost per kilowatt hour has already far exceeded all expectations,

yes that is exactly what I am saying. "green energy" is actually far more damaging due to the sky high costs to actually make teh hardware, maintain it etc. Solar needs battery banks - say no more. Wind turbines have proven to never be cost effective in even the most perfect location. There is so much honest research already proving this - the horrific images of abandoned wind turbine farms are proof enough. What a waste.

 Drill offshore oil, and by all means try and limit personal useage. Having charismatic icons of the Californian left, the likes of Al Gore and Leo DC flying around the world on huge private jets to save the planet is a farce. Did anyone notice the private planes at Davos recently? 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

yes that is exactly what I am saying. "green energy" is actually far more damaging due to the sky high costs to actually make teh hardware, maintain it etc. Solar needs battery banks - say no more. Wind turbines have proven to never be cost effective in even the most perfect location. There is so much honest research already proving this - the horrific images of abandoned wind turbine farms are proof enough. What a waste.

 Drill offshore oil, and by all means try and limit personal useage. Having charismatic icons of the Californian left, the likes of Al Gore and Leo DC flying around the world on huge private jets to save the planet is a farce. Did anyone notice the private planes at Davos recently? 

You mean the worldwide wind turbine industry is growing massively because it's failing? Where do you get this nonsense from? And there have been huge advances in battery technology. Right now billions are being invested by private industry on solid state batteries which will be virtually 100 percent recyclable and have a far greater capacity than current liquid lithium batteries. Coal power is already dying because it can't compete.

[rudi49jr]

37 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

yes that is exactly what I am saying. "green energy" is actually far more damaging due to the sky high costs to actually make teh hardware, maintain it etc. Solar needs battery banks - say no more. Wind turbines have proven to never be cost effective in even the most perfect location. There is so much honest research already proving this - the horrific images of abandoned wind turbine farms are proof enough. What a waste.

 Drill offshore oil, and by all means try and limit personal useage. Having charismatic icons of the Californian left, the likes of Al Gore and Leo DC flying around the world on huge private jets to save the planet is a farce. Did anyone notice the private planes at Davos recently? 

" honest research"

[stevenl]

" Officials in Florida, North and South Carolina, Delaware and Washington state have warned drilling could despoil beaches, harm wildlife and hurt lucrative tourism industries. "

 

'could' is a PC term, should be 'will'.

[ilostmypassword]

Legal commentators have pointed out that a regulation or a deregulation has to have a rational basis. And if you start exempting certain states from it, like Florida, the basis for it is severely undermined. So either the Interior Dept reneges and jeopardizes the Republicans in Florida or it just ends up abandoning the plan.

[malibukid]

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

yes that is exactly what I am saying. "green energy" is actually far more damaging due to the sky high costs to actually make teh hardware, maintain it etc. Solar needs battery banks - say no more. Wind turbines have proven to never be cost effective in even the most perfect location. There is so much honest research already proving this - the horrific images of abandoned wind turbine farms are proof enough. What a waste.

 Drill offshore oil, and by all means try and limit personal useage. Having charismatic icons of the Californian left, the likes of Al Gore and Leo DC flying around the world on huge private jets to save the planet is a farce. Did anyone notice the private planes at Davos recently? 

Al Gore flies commercial, South West Airlines,  hardly a G5

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

yes that is exactly what I am saying. "green energy" is actually far more damaging due to the sky high costs to actually make teh hardware, maintain it etc. Solar needs battery banks - say no more. Wind turbines have proven to never be cost effective in even the most perfect location. There is so much honest research already proving this - the horrific images of abandoned wind turbine farms are proof enough. What a waste.

 Drill offshore oil, and by all means try and limit personal useage. Having charismatic icons of the Californian left, the likes of Al Gore and Leo DC flying around the world on huge private jets to save the planet is a farce. Did anyone notice the private planes at Davos recently? 

Do you actually believe the crap that you're spewing?  Unless you're personally benefiting from fossil fuels, it's kind of stupid to regurgitate their talking points.  This is another example of the ignorance of Trump supporters. 

[boomerangutang]

6 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

quote "In fact, California has passed laws pushing towards zero emission automobiles."

Not sure if you are joking or not? There is no such thing as a zero emission vehicle. Electric vehicles use electricity that is generated by burning fossil fuels, or even worse by wind turbines which cost an arm and a leg to make and will never pay back their cost, or solar energy using expensive solar panels which of course used huge amounts of fossil fuels to make etc. It is all very well trying to look virtuous and green, but let's be realistic. The Californians have swallowed the green mantra and it is very silly(and not helping the planet one iota). Trump, once again, is absolutely correct.

California (and Oregon, Washington state, Colorado and a few others) are moving in the right direction:  toward cleaner energy, more efficient motors, renewable energy providers.   The largest passive solar plant in the world is in Tonopah, California.  Research is going on in CA to store energy using large compressed air tanks.  California is at the vanguard of many innovations re; renewables and efficiency.   

Trump has his head stuck in a 19th century soot-filled chimney.  He panders to the wealthy (his tax breaks for them is just one of many ways).  Trump is to clean energy what a guppy is to juggling baseballs.

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, get the oil for their huge truck engined cars from somewhere else, and pollute that place instead.

Hypocrites.

I can't say I blame them in California, for not wanting this. I honestly wouldn't want an Oil Rig in my back yard either. So I guess this makes me a Hypocrite also. But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

 

Remember back in the 70's and 80's where California suffered some of the worst air polution? Where this new term called "Smog" came from? Since then they have done a lot to clean this up. They were the first state to make "Catalytic Converters" on cars and trucks manditory and so as to help reduce air polution. They imposed high Gasoline Taxes, making it more difficult and expensive to drive large luxury cars. Also forcing people to start a new trend called "Car Pooling". For the larger cities they started the odd, even, license plate days, where you could only drive every other day.They imposed strict new evironmental laws for industry, which they either had to clean up or ship out. I was in a refinery once near L.A. and boy were they crying over these new laws. 

 

They way it stands today, you can not drill for Oil anywhere in the State of California. You also can't get a license to build a Mine either. There is still a lot of Gold up in them there Hills, but nobody will ever get permission to bring that to the suface. 

 

So California has already gone the extra mile to clean up that state. So who can blame them for wanting to keep it that way. Especially when you have 40 Million People living there. Surely there must be other areas where they can drill for Oil, or look for Gold. Northern Canada still has a lot of Oil which if people are willing to pay the extra cost to stop drilling in there area, then why not?  

[thaibeachlovers]

24 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I can't say I blame them in California, for not wanting this. I honestly wouldn't want an Oil Rig in my back yard either. So I guess this makes me a Hypocrite also. But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

 

Remember back in the 70's and 80's where California suffered some of the worst air polution? Where this new term called "Smog" came from? Since then they have done a lot to clean this up. They were the first state to make "Catalytic Converters" on cars and trucks manditory and so as to help reduce air polution. They imposed high Gasoline Taxes, making it more difficult and expensive to drive large luxury cars. Also forcing people to start a new trend called "Car Pooling". For the larger cities they started the odd, even, license plate days, where you could only drive every other day.They imposed strict new evironmental laws for industry, which they either had to clean up or ship out. I was in a refinery once near L.A. and boy were they crying over these new laws. 

 

They way it stands today, you can not drill for Oil anywhere in the State of California. You also can't get a license to build a Mine either. There is still a lot of Gold up in them there Hills, but nobody will ever get permission to bring that to the suface. 

 

So California has already gone the extra mile to clean up that state. So who can blame them for wanting to keep it that way. Especially when you have 40 Million People living there. Surely there must be other areas where they can drill for Oil, or look for Gold. Northern Canada still has a lot of Oil which if people are willing to pay the extra cost to stop drilling in there area, then why not?  

I'm glad that you realise that wanting oil to be pumped anywhere except where one lives while driving a car the size of a tank with a truck engine under the hood is hypocritical.

Yes California brought in laws to reduce pollution, but how much is spent on a decent public transport service as against building more roads?

Catalytic converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move American's huge cars.

In comparison, my car back home is tiny, microscopic compared to a normal sized American commuter car. I only have one there because public transport does not exist where I live.

 

But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

I didn't realise I was calling for no oil pumping where I live. Pump away by all means next door to my house, pump away on every street corner. I have no objection at all if it allows me to travel.

BTW, I don't have as much as an electric bike in LOS, as I use public transport, bus or train where possible.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm glad that you realise that wanting oil to be pumped anywhere except where one lives while driving a car the size of a tank with a truck engine under the hood is hypocritical.

Yes California brought in laws to reduce pollution, but how much is spent on a decent public transport service as against building more roads?

Catalytic converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move American's huge cars.

In comparison, my car back home is tiny, microscopic compared to a normal sized American commuter car. I only have one there because public transport does not exist where I live.

 

But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

I didn't realise I was calling for no oil pumping where I live. Pump away by all means next door to my house, pump away on every street corner. I have no objection at all if it allows me to travel.

BTW, I don't have as much as an electric bike in LOS, as I use public transport, bus or train where possible.

As a quick moment of thought might reveal to you, there's a big difference between pumping oil on land and on the sea. The possible economic consequences alone of pumping in the sea are far far far more serious than pumping on land. Remember the BP Gulf disaster?  In fact, California does have plenty of oil still being pumped on shore and I haven't seen the state government making any moves to shut it down.

And if the Trump administration thinks it's of such overriding importance, why does it want to give an exemption to Florida?

[GOLDBUGGY]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm glad that you realise that wanting oil to be pumped anywhere except where one lives while driving a car the size of a tank with a truck engine under the hood is hypocritical.

Yes California brought in laws to reduce pollution, but how much is spent on a decent public transport service as against building more roads?

Catalytic converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move American's huge cars.

In comparison, my car back home is tiny, microscopic compared to a normal sized American commuter car. I only have one there because public transport does not exist where I live.

 

But unless you never use transportation other than a Bicyle, or walk everywhere you go, and don't have an Oil Pumping Jack in your back yard, this would make you a Hypocrite as well. 

I didn't realise I was calling for no oil pumping where I live. Pump away by all means next door to my house, pump away on every street corner. I have no objection at all if it allows me to travel.

BTW, I don't have as much as an electric bike in LOS, as I use public transport, bus or train where possible.

The trouble with Public Transportation is 2 fold. First it is always subsidized by the city, and thus a money losing venture. The second problem is more important. Public Transportation is only effective when people decide to use that.

 

A good example was that I lived in Poland for awhile, and shall we say both before and after. When I first got there the roads were basically empty. Very few at this time could afford to buy a car. Even though back then a New Polish Fiat, and a pretty good little car, only cost about $4,000, you could not buy a car on credit. It was Cash Only! 

 

At that time Public Transportation was fantastic, although almost always packed with people. You could easily go anywhere in the city on a few pennies. If you missed your bus you had no worries as another one would come along in 10 minutes. To go outside of the city the train system was also fantastic. A First Class Coach was peanuts, and yet most sat empty as Poles mostly travelled Second Class, for half that price. 

 

Then a funny thing happened. Poland got out of the Communist System and later joined the EU. So now people could get Bank Loans, which in the past was near impossible. Most did and the first thing they bought on Credit was a new car. 

 

So now the streets are packed with cars and Rush Hour is every hour, as the infrastructure was not designed for so many cars. The buses now sit almost empty. It got so bad for Public Transportation that many Bus Routes where reduced or cancelled and many others discontinued. 

 

So my point being is that in order to have a Good Public Transportation System, you need a lot of people willing to use that. In Europe they are much more willing to ride there bicyle to work, or take public transportation, including the Sub-way. But in Canada and the USA, we are much more spoiled. We are used to having our own cars and the freedom that goes with that. The truth is, most of us want roads and not new buses that nobody will ride in, and why they don't improve on that. 

 

Catalytic Converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move a car. In fact they use more fuel. But it is odd you pointed this out as I never said they did save on fuel. Catalytic Converters reduce Carbon Monoxide, or Smog. That was the goal of the California Government and not to reduce the amount of fuel burnt. But the higher cost of fuel and the amount burnt, did drive people into buying smaller cars, which was also there goal. 

 

I don't mind being a Hypocrite, as I think most people are. To be honest I never met a Man or Woman in my life who sold there car and walked or biked to work, only because they were trying to save the Planet. I am sure some exist, but just to say I never met anyone like this.

 

So just because you don't own a car, it doesn't mean it is because you are tying to save the planet. Probably saving money and the hassel of drivng in the city was your true reasons.  I have friends who live in London and they don't own a car either. In that city they just don't see the point of it all. But live on a farm or in a small village and then lets see how long it takes you to buy a car or truck. 

 

You don't seem to mind an Oil Rig moving in next door to you and keeping you up all night drilling, which to be honest I find hard to believe. But I guess you feel it is your contribution for having and use to travel by public transportation or otherwise. Did it ever occur to you that you make this contribution everytime you buy a litres of fuel? Oil Companies don't drill for Oil to just give that away later.  

 

California is right in trying to keep Oil and Mining Companies out of there Beautiful State. Let them drill for Oil elsewhere. Even when they use Oil to drive there cars. No different than you buying a pair of running shoes made from cheap child labour in another country. Or the Rubber Factory there to make them. I like to keep my back yard clean. Some people move in an old junker and let it rust and rot there. So it depends on that individual I guess.  

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

The trouble with Public Transportation is 2 fold. First it is always subsidized by the city, and thus a money losing venture. The second problem is more important. Public Transportation is only effective when people decide to use that.

Of course it has to be subsidised. No public transport will ever pay it's own way. It's a "good thing" though, so worthwhile.

London has no problem filling its public transport. Just make it inconvenient to have a car in the city. I wasn't able to park a car in the accommodation car park, so no car.

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

Catalytic Converters don't reduce the amount of fuel used to move a car. In fact they use more fuel. But it is odd you pointed this out as I never said they did save on fuel.

Not odd at all. Americans only have to drill for oil at sea because they are the most wasteful people on the planet. Been driving huge cars with enormous engines for decades till the easy oil all gone. Shameful, really.

I don't think an American idea of a small car is the same as anywhere else in the world.

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

So just because you don't own a car, it doesn't mean it is because you are tying to save the planet. Probably saving money and the hassel of drivng in the city was your true reasons.

I've no intention of "saving the planet" by not driving a car. I did my bit by not having children. Just don't need one here with available public transport. Back home I have one because no public transport in the rural areas, but it's small. I don't need a tank to get me around.

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

You don't seem to mind an Oil Rig moving in next door to you and keeping you up all night drilling, which to be honest I find hard to believe.

That would be true, but I was referring to the well with a pump, not the actual drilling. I heard that it only takes 12 days to drill a well now, and they'd surely pay for me to stay in an hotel if they were drilling one next door.

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

California is right in trying to keep Oil and Mining Companies out of there Beautiful State. Let them drill for Oil elsewhere. Even when they use Oil to drive there cars. 

It's exactly that statement that exposes the hypocrisy of Californians. Don't want oil wells- don't drive cars using petrol.

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

No different than you buying a pair of running shoes made from cheap child labour in another country.

I refuse to buy running shoes made by slave labour in another country. I try not to buy anything made by slave labour, though it's not always possible to know now. Probably clothes and shoes are high in the slave trade, but companies are so good at hiding their sources that it's not always possible to know.

[GOLDBUGGY]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it has to be subsidised. No public transport will ever pay it's own way. It's a "good thing" though, so worthwhile.

London has no problem filling its public transport. Just make it inconvenient to have a car in the city. I wasn't able to park a car in the accommodation car park, so no car.

 

Not odd at all. Americans only have to drill for oil at sea because they are the most wasteful people on the planet. Been driving huge cars with enormous engines for decades till the easy oil all gone. Shameful, really.

I don't think an American idea of a small car is the same as anywhere else in the world.

 

I've no intention of "saving the planet" by not driving a car. I did my bit by not having children. Just don't need one here with available public transport. Back home I have one because no public transport in the rural areas, but it's small. I don't need a tank to get me around.

 

That would be true, but I was referring to the well with a pump, not the actual drilling. I heard that it only takes 12 days to drill a well now, and they'd surely pay for me to stay in an hotel if they were drilling one next door.

 

It's exactly that statement that exposes the hypocrisy of Californians. Don't want oil wells- don't drive cars using petrol.

 

I refuse to buy running shoes made by slave labour in another country. I try not to buy anything made by slave labour, though it's not always possible to know now. Probably clothes and shoes are high in the slave trade, but companies are so good at hiding their sources that it's not always possible to know.

After reading you interesting posts, and I mean that sincerely, I am really not sure what you main point is. Is it that if Californians don't allow Oil Rigs on there Shores, then they should not be allowed to drive cars?

 

Many States don't even have Oil to drill for. Ever hear of any Big Oil finds in Utah or Nevada lately? How many Off-shore Oil Rigs can you count from Manhatten Island? So would it be fare to say that since the State of New York doesn't produce it's own Oil, then all people living there should not be allowed to own or drive cars? 

 

Although the United States was by far the Worlds Largest Exporter of Oil in the 1890's, the United States has been a huge net Importer of Oil since the 1960's, or even much earlier. How do you deal with that? Tell the people they can drive there cars until the Oil runs out? Or like Singapore, and restrict the amount of cars on the road, where some people have to wait 10 years to even buy a car? Or pay twice as much for a Used Car? 

 

You seem to go back to keep saying that you wouldn't mind a Pump Jack in your back yard which is pumping out Oil. I suppose that if it was my Oil they were pumping, and if they were paying me for that, I wouldn't mind either. But if it was somebody elses Oil, and you got nothing for it, why shouldn't you mind? 

 

My main point has been that because there is more than enough Oil in the World right now and all the Storage Tanks in the USA are full, you don't need this Pump Jack in your Back Yard and anymore than California needs it on there Shores. Saudi Arabia and Russia recently both cut back Oil Production just so they could reduce the supply and increase the price high enough to make taking the Oil out of the ground profitable. At any given moment they could open the taps and flood the market with Oil again. 

 

The days when everything you bought said "Made in the USA" are long gone. Hard to believe that at one time most of the Oil that was Exported around the World came from the USA. Or that all cars build in the World came for Detroit. That almost everything you bought from Washing Machines to TV's came from the USA.

 

You say you avoid buying things made from Child or Slave Labour. My Freind I am telling you that this is near impossible to do now, unless you run around totally naked all the time. Maybe you don't see it this way, but people in China earning less than $10 a day working 12 hours a day everyday, is very close to Slave Labour in My Books. 

 

So I will go back to what I said in the first place. Califonia is right in not letting them drill for Oil off there shores mostly because they don't need the Oil. And if they don't need the Oil there is no point in taking a big risk of a possible Oil Spill.    

[GOLDBUGGY]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it has to be subsidised. No public transport will ever pay it's own way. It's a "good thing" though, so worthwhile.

London has no problem filling its public transport. Just make it inconvenient to have a car in the city. I wasn't able to park a car in the accommodation car park, so no car.

 

Not odd at all. Americans only have to drill for oil at sea because they are the most wasteful people on the planet. Been driving huge cars with enormous engines for decades till the easy oil all gone. Shameful, really.

I don't think an American idea of a small car is the same as anywhere else in the world.

 

I've no intention of "saving the planet" by not driving a car. I did my bit by not having children. Just don't need one here with available public transport. Back home I have one because no public transport in the rural areas, but it's small. I don't need a tank to get me around.

 

That would be true, but I was referring to the well with a pump, not the actual drilling. I heard that it only takes 12 days to drill a well now, and they'd surely pay for me to stay in an hotel if they were drilling one next door.

 

It's exactly that statement that exposes the hypocrisy of Californians. Don't want oil wells- don't drive cars using petrol.

 

I refuse to buy running shoes made by slave labour in another country. I try not to buy anything made by slave labour, though it's not always possible to know now. Probably clothes and shoes are high in the slave trade, but companies are so good at hiding their sources that it's not always possible to know.

Yes Public Transportation is a good thing and why any city I know of which is of a decent size has that. Your beef seems to be that this is not good enough. My beef has been that to get better people have to use it more and there has to be a greater demand for that. My Father never took the City Bus even once in his life, and I know many more like that Setting up a Bus Route just for you to catch the bus once a day to and from work to the outside of the city is not feasible. They need more than one passager a day to do that. 

 

I didn't know you could still buy huge cars anymore. To be honest I haven't seen a 1970's Cadillac, or a Ford Lincoln Town Car, or a Crysler New Yorker, in years. I can't remeber the last time I saw an 8 cylinder engine. So they all look small to me now.

 

But we are all wasteful for sure. Perhaps the only way you are going to get Americans to walk away from there Cars, and take Public Transportation, is to make it too expensive or difficult to even own and drive a car. Then try to get re-elected the next term to enforce that. 

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Is it that if Californians don't allow Oil Rigs on there Shores, then they should not be allowed to drive cars?

I guess the point is if one doesn't want to allow oil extraction in one's state, then one should be using something other than oil to power one's life style. Apparently though, Californians are quite happy to have someone else's state polluted so that they can drive cars on oil. 

Perhaps the federal government should agree to not allow offshore drilling in exchange for California paying a 500% tax on all oil based products entering the state. That sounds fair to me.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Perhaps the only way you are going to get Americans to walk away from there Cars, and take Public Transportation, is to make it too expensive or difficult to even own and drive a car.

That works for London.

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Maybe you don't see it this way, but people in China earning less than $10 a day working 12 hours a day everyday, is very close to Slave Labour in My Books. 

I agree, and I try not to buy anything made in China- it's junk anyway, but as almost everything is made there now, it's difficult not to.

[thaibeachlovers]

41 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

the United States has been a huge net Importer of Oil since the 1960's, or even much earlier. 

Keep up. Fracking has allowed the US to be an exporter of fuel now. I think it only imports about 30% of needs now.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I didn't know you could still buy huge cars anymore.

Of course you can. An American average sized car is a large car elsewhere, and going by the car shows everyone WANTS to buy cars with really big motors. Those SUVs are LARGE cars.

Who actually needs to drive a Hummer as an everyday car?

[GOLDBUGGY]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I guess the point is if one doesn't want to allow oil extraction in one's state, then one should be using something other than oil to power one's life style. Apparently though, Californians are quite happy to have someone else's state polluted so that they can drive cars on oil. 

Perhaps the federal government should agree to not allow offshore drilling in exchange for California paying a 500% tax on all oil based products entering the state. That sounds fair to me.

Maybe a 500% Tax would be fair, if all Oil Based Products came from the USA, but they don't. They come from Saudi Arabia, Venezula, and Canada. So since most of the Oil entering the United States comes from another country, why should California be singled out from the rest of the States? 

 

Another reason you can't do this is maybe it would be fair then for California to charge a 500% Tax on there Vegetables they sell to the other states? Or Florida for there Oranges? Or Texas for there Beef and Oil? Iowa for there Pork, Corn and Wheat? And so on! Which you can't do in a country with a Democracy! 

[GOLDBUGGY]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That works for London.

Ever take a Sub-way in London during Rush Hour?

 

I have and now know why the Public Transportation System works so well for them in London. It is because so many people use it! 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Ever take a Sub-way in London during Rush Hour?

 

I have and now know why the Public Transportation System works so well for them in London. It is because so many people use it! 

Of course I have. I worked there for 10 years.

People use it because it's too expensive to park a car, unless it's outside their house. Even Californian cities could do the same.