I realize the EPA is waring with big energy but really those big companys are a-holes any way they did give a shat about what they do and will knowingly break the law or put peoples health at risk just for there own gain.

Dear mister EPA man: Please take 4 more of your ilk to the crucifixion!

The anger towards oil companies baffles me. Their profits are actually very reasonable 10-15%. Compared to many of the other larger companies (banking, Pharmecueticals, etc.) whose profits are consistanly much higher 20-30%. HaH, whats your justification?

i support the epa guy. he was saying enforement is the answer. if you hit 5 violators hard with enforcement the others will start complying with the law. he just used a bad analogy. Sen Inhofe, who is in the back pocket of big oil has no right to critize the epa.

Tod-take a look at this article. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smui/following_the_money_whos_profi.html I'm afraid the oil co. are not very up-front with the truth.

"I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator," Armendariz said in his letter.

• "I did not have sex with that woman."
• "I went on a hike in the Blue Ridge Mountains and not to South America."
• "I did not have money stashed in my freezer."
• "I did not award Scholarships to my family."
• "I did not sell Mr. Obama's Congressional seat."
• "I did not post pictures of myself on Craig's List."

And we can add this one:

• "I did not crucify energy companies."

He should have said they needed to crucify all of them. It is pass time we start holding these companies liable for their actions. And since Bishop Romney think corporations are people put every executive in the company in jail when the company get caught breaking the law.

If we start doing that, I bet $10,000 they will start cleaning up their act. You betcha it will change attitudes at company.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

irrert,

A bad analogy? Really? So, basically you're trying to say he "misspoke"? LOL typical. Make excuses for people who are too stupid or too ideological to bother to THINK about what they say.

This guy was either an idiot (if you buy the bad analogy excuse) or he meant to use the term he used and was not merely interested in punishing companies that broke the law, but to crush them, kill them or whatever other phrase you choose to use to get rid of them.

Either way, good riddance to this clown.

If you are going to enforce the law, you don't do it with that kind of childish and petty mentality. Go into it with that kind of attitude and you eventually think you are judge, jury and executioner and anyone who disagrees with you needs to be taken down.

Unfortunately, he's not the only mentally defective clown at the EPA who thinks this way.

I have no love for the EPA who sell out to the highest bidder in a moment's notice. They have lied to the American public about unsafe conditions that have put people at serious risk. After 9/11 they swore that the dust cloud was not a hazard. Tell that to all the people who were exposed to it and are now having their health destroyed or the families of the cloud victims who have died. Tell me again about how the shell fish from LA are safe to eat.

Isn't it fair to crucify the oil industry since they are constantly crucifying our entire Earth? Given our extreme dependency on oil for ABSOLUTELY everything in our lives... no one should be allowed to make a profit off of oil. Especially not billions of dollars worth.

Lady Cat - Its not the EPA keeping the truth from you, its the billion dollar industries that pay to keep them quiet... or pay them to flat-out lie.

The government's primary focus should be creating an atmosphere for businesses to thrive. There should be government oversight but far too many times, these agencies empire build. They become bloated, egotistical, dictatorial, and arrogant losing sight of their original mission...

The people who work in these tax-payer funded jobs need to understand that it takes a healthy private sector to afford them.

cantakenomore...I couldn't agree more.

That type of snobby arrogance has no place in government.

Personally, I really like energy companies. They keep me warm in the winter and cool in the summer, allow me to cook my food without lighting a fire three times a day, and allow me to travel all over the world.....all of this for pretty affordable costs. My liberal neighbors, however, hate the energy companies because they parrot what they hear from their leadership....which is that any company or individual who makes more money than those leaders, is automatically evil.

Isn't it fair to crucify the oil industry since they are constantly crucifying our entire Earth? Given our extreme dependency on oil for ABSOLUTELY everything in our lives... no one should be allowed to make a profit off of oil. Especially not billions of dollars worth.

So farmers should operate as non-profits, and clothing manufacturers, and phone/cell companies, electrical companies, gas companies. People are dependent on all of those for ABSOLUTELY everything in our lives.

The problem with operating as a non-profit is that there is no incentive to innovate and improve the product or process.

I have a great idea! Let's stop all drilling, all coal mining, all tower erection, all hydro projects, all wave projects, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Then we can depend on the Middle East for ALL of our energy needs.

Maybe we should dump the entire EPA into the Gulf of Mexico and see how much pollution occurs.

The main problem is that we want everything right now, but we don't want to pay the price for it. If the Sierra Club and EPA had their way, we would be back to burning wood for heat and cooking on the same wood stove like my grandmother did in the 1940s.

Something else you have to remember: your retirement plan, whatever the source, holds oil companies and banks. If you kill them off, you kill off your retirement.

There are reasonable solutions to all problems. Reasonable people have to simply be allowed the freedom to develop those solutions without constant government interference.

itgranny

Just read your article, I suggest you do the same. 1st off, he's a blogger without references? 2nd, he includes every distributor, refiner and retailer from crude to gas pump. That's an extremely disingenuous, and false, way to compute profits.

I wasn't going to add more to the first group but i felt i should mention, to Tod way up there, oil company profit margin is average 8% for the last decade. So it's even lower than you stated so i competely agree. These companies run at a reasonable profit margin and all the anger at them is foolish and missplaced. Anyone who whines and points to their total profits or sales doesn't understand basic economics, they have a product that EVERYONE needs that has a production rate that isn't increasing as fast as demand is, im not surpised their profits are higher than ever before. But their margin is about 8% so it's not like they are price gouging.

Also Tod drug company average is about 18% give or take 2% since i cant remeber the exact number but i know it was high teens. The irony being i literally just did a research report on both these industries for college so those numbers are really recent and accurate (because i dont want anything less than an A)

yet the drop out and graduation rates remain in the dirt.

Maybe that would be the fault of....you know....the parents?

Hey B,

What an odd post you put up. Why, just because oil is so important to so much of your life, should you be able to get it for less than you are presently willing to pay? Why would a firm risk billions to provide you with the very product you want, but at a price structure that would not reward the investment? Or, is your point that we should nationalize all oil firms and have a government-operated firm do all the exploration, drilling, and refining? I ask because it seems clear to me that medicine is important to your life, that water is important to your life, that food is important to your life, as well as many other things. Should all of those firms operate for your benefit at no profit as well? Where does this sense, apparently, of entitlement come from? And how the hell can we crucify it?

Is it possible that some of you who would oppose the "crucify a few examples and the rest will fall in line" concept are also people that complain about big goverment and the cost of doing business??

Well? Yes or no?

How is that relevant?

--Because it is vastly cheaper to target a few examples and have the rest fall in line than to sue every company out there. Lawyers and lawsuits are expensive - I'll also make the observation the crucifying wouldn't work in court if the company's weren't already doing something illegal...

Is it imperfect? Yes. Is it more expeditious than the alternative Definitely...

yup! Maybe they should crucify the first five Senator's or House members who continue to push to "crucify" alternative fuel sources?

Big Mouth. Another "Intern" with no experience in Government protocol, or keeping his mouth shut, who felt powerful. He ran the EPA?---

Armendariz got what he deserved. Repeating what he learned in College---Must clean out the Government Closet. Glad little Al was exposed.

Now Pres. Obama can be clear of this dufus when running for President in November. He was just a "kid", and a stupid one at that..

Dear Sen. Inhofe, were you asleep when your party of teabaggers crucified our President with their vile slogans? Religious nuts love crucifixions don't they?

Perhaps you shouldn't trust ALEC and Big Oil to build you a vacation home in the vicinity of a 'fracking' hydraulic fracturing site, you'd be toast there. Or, maybe you should. I dare you to try (without your family there, they are innocent of corruption).

Tod-2791955 "The anger towards oil companies baffles me. Their profits are actually very reasonable 10-15%. Compared to many of the other larger companies (banking, Pharmecueticals, etc.) whose profits are consistanly much higher 20-30%. HaH, whats your justification?"

Very true - Here's a link to a msn Money story that proves that, not only do the oil companies have relatively low profit margins, but they also pay a MUCH HIGHER EFFECTIVE TAX RATE then other companies. The average after tax profits for the top 3 oil companies was 8.1% of sales, while the after tax profits for Obama's buddy at Microsoft was 32.6%.

Even worse, the EFFECTIVE tax rate for the oil companies was about 44% of income, while Microsoft's EFFECTIVE tax rate was only 15.9% of income. I guess it helps to have 'friends' in high places.

Here's the link;

http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/the-12-highest-corporate-tax-bills

itgranny - That isn't an article, it's a blog. Just because someone blogs something on the internet doesn't make it true.

Oh dear.... a roaring conflagration of glaring abuse to the English speaking world! How ever will we oil comsumers be able to stand it??? Americans will need to book time with their nearest therapist, they could be that tramatized. And, this was said two whole years ago??? Oh the pain, the harm... to think the word 'crucify' was used that long ago in a metaphoric sentence, and we did not know. And to add insult to injury, to realize it was used as a warning to known law-breakers makes it even that more extreme. It is time to draw and quarter someone...

Oh wait, perhaps it's necessary to check with that self designated word-lord Senator Inhofe to see if 'draw and quarter' is on his list of offensive words and phrases. Although maybe he could check with his oil buddies first to see if he has their permission to speak out on yet another manufactured outrage, incase Americans already know the color of that particulr cab...

Attention Bassai - you used the word 'fire' in your post... may want to reconsider incase you are accused of using words of violence just because the word also describes actual violence from other historical eras.

Ruken,

Really? I mean, geesus, they call it oral SEX for a reason. What an amazing level of self-delusion that particular episode in our history helped foment. And, obviously, the self-delusion continues on to this very day.

if the oil company are damaging the plant for extracting oil and making gas, are users for their product greater violators??? Would there be less damage if we banned cars?

Stop it Roy,

Common sense, logic, justice, facts. All painful to the ear of far left oil irrational oil-haters.

Don't be,

"--Because it is vastly cheaper to target a few examples and have the rest fall in line than to sue every company out there"

And therefore there is no selective poltical outrage toward oil companies right, just the luck of the draw? What a goofy premise.

Tod and itgranny,

I just read the article too. It is worse than disingenuous, there are some outright falsehoods in there.

Getting your information from the Natural Resource Defense Council Staff Blog and believing it without any critical thinking or fact checking is like watching Fox News and believing everything as gospel.

Most analysts agree the majority of the gas price increase is due to increase demand overseas. Therefore if you increase supply, costs will come down, yet the blog author's graph shows no savings from increased production and no explanation for it. Read the comments in that article for some additional debunking.

easydoesit:

If you're going to use abuse of spoken English as your metaphor, perhaps you ought to spell "tramatized" with the "u" that belongs in it. Hate to nitpick, but you chose the metaphor!

Atlas,

Isn't it ammusing that we don't see people blaming Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Peterbuilt, Cummins, Catepillar, Burlington Northern, Southwest Airlines, American, United, Plastic Companies, etc., etc., etc., !!!!!!

Always the oil companies!! By the way, any idea what will happen to the price of gasoline when the current administration does away with tax incentives that the oil companies have??? Does everyone think that they will just eat these costs of doing business or pass them on to consumers????

I don't understand how you people defend billion-dollar giants that have no concern for people or for the Earth (you know, the planet we live on?... the only one we have?)

Babydumdum - we like Obama because the conservatives are determined to make sure there are only two classes: poor and filthy rich.

The EPA is another rogue government agency that is in on this clean energy mantra. The truth is, we MUST use fossil fuels to run this country. Sure, solar and wind are GREAT alternetive energy sources but the technology and money needed to make it viable are off in the future.We need to find ways to use fossil fuels both more efficiantly AND more eco-friendly.

Jak - the technology hasn't been perfected because the oil industry pays to bury more effective technologies... They will fight anything that does not increase their profits.

Hi PJuliett,

Were you troubled in the least when writing your post about how bad fracking is given that not very long ago now at all the EPA had to grudgingly admit in a report there is no evidence it is causing the various problems people like you claim?

Not for nothing...I don't call Mr. Obama names, though I do describe his presidency as being horrible. I think he wants the best for America--but it's the best in his mind that is most worrisome to me. But I know lots of people do say vile things about Mr. Obama. Are they any worse than people on your side who said vile things about Mr. Bush? No. They are no better either. Whether from the right, or the left, it doesn't do much to advance the public discourse.

rich, we'll admit oral sex is sex when you admit the WMD's we were looking for in Iraq weren't gases.

tod-And therefore there is no selective poltical outrage toward oil companies right, just the luck of the draw?

no, the only selective part is done by the company itself by choosing to break a law. in this case you can only crucify those who have already done so.

Opps! The Obama administration policy wasn't supposed to be announced until after the November election. Can't be honest and keep your job in this administration. I guess he wasn't supposed to practice transparency yet. By the way mr Obama, your agenda seems quite transparent to me. I only hope more of your disciples see through your lies before November.

Hah - Unlike terrible people, I care about other people besides myself. I do just fine for myself, I have no desire to be rich. But, I do have a desire for our country to be governed by THE PEOPLE and not by the corporations.

Solyndra? Really? That's all you have? What about Solyndra?

Bad analogy of a reasonable and widely used strategy.

Inhofe is the one who should be under investigation.

He and all the other members of the C Street "church".

Just one more sacrifice of a thorn in the side of corporate profits via trumped-up faux outrage.

If we don't fight for the people on our side, we're doomed.

so B i suppose since your a fan of obama and this government

When did I say that?

you dont mind obama acting like a king and going around the constitution at every opportunity?

please provide a reference.

obama is just as bad if not worse than any politician.... but he is the first communist we have had for a president...... and he was not even born here... he was born in Kenya....

Please turn off Fox News, educate yourself, then we can talk.

Might as well finish off the whole post:

Obama is in the tank for corporations just like any president.... for petes sake, BP CEO is obamas buddy, and the big unions that he is beholding to, along with AARP which is in the tank to obama and he to them

WTF are you smoking?

Isn't this what we do though? Isn't that what lawsuits are about? Make an early example of those that have done wrong so others won't do the same thing? We do this all the time. How many times have you heard, "we'll make an example out of this so it is not done again... ". Please.

As for oil companies, I wonder how many of them, and to what extent, would they take care of the environment if there were no laws? Would they clean up after themselves? Would they really care about what happens to the environment or would they just turn a blind eye (You can't see it from my house)?

How is "ObamaCare" against the constitution? Because it makes you pay for health insurance? Yeah.. because America is a place where you dont have to pay for anything...........

Wow....

B..."Isnt it fair to crucify the oil companies?".....I guess that it would be if we didnt need them for anything...If we didnt actually need oil or the oil producers or disributors or any of their end product....I wonder how well the theory works that we will tax the hell out of them, tell them that they cannot produce or even look for new sources and totally outlaw them....while we have nothing feasible to replace them with....??? Tell us how fair that is to the American population??? Would you also suggest that every person immediately quit their jobs....because surely, much better jobs will be available immediately....or soon....or down the road....or maybe in a few yrs....or maybe in a few decades....All good liberal thinking...

deep water drilling in gulf , SHUTDOWN, Keystone pipeline SHUTDOWN, federal drilling permits, SHUTDOWN, 500 million to solyndro, down the drain, 750 million grant to Nancy Pelosi brother in law for his start up solar company; does not this administration know anything about how oil fuels our economy. show ME a solar powered 18 wheeler carrying 100 thousand pounds up a mountain road.

I see it that, for better or worse, Obama is making decisions and making things happen.

I tell my subordinates all the time, "Make the decision. Even if it ends up being the wrong one, make the decision".

Indecision is far more damaging than making the wrong one. At least we can learn from mistakes.

Saxon - Oh no! The government gave a big grant to a company!!!? They've never done that before!!! Oh, wait... yes they have.

Sax,

We have to do something. Oil will run out one day and those 18 wheelers will be dead in their tracks. We must have future thinking or we will all be up crap's creek later.

Once again, the true mentality of this administration is revealed in a disturbing manner. You must do as we say you do or you will be crucified ..... left as an example to our unmitigated power !

The EPA is one of the reasons businesses are leaving this country in droves. The pure arrogance of their ability to inflict a form of "domestic terror" under the guise of doing good for the environment is a wake up call for all U.S. citizens.

Then the libtards on this site will try to justify the raw abuse of power !!

Troll much? Try a little truth in your diet. It'll work wonders. Oh, by the way, Sux News isn't a good source and neither is your Sunday-mornin-jeezification-meetin. You really need to expand your horizons.

Nobody gets anywhere by beating people over the head and threatening them. Why can't government officials take on a more "how can we help" approach to our issues vise we're hear to get you. This is another reason the public is getting increasingly tired of politicians and career government types. Once in office and in control it all goes to their heads and the public is subservient to them!

Hey B,

It isn't about defending billion dollar firms. How much they make is irrelevant to the discussion. But I don't think we should target oil firms just because you have some irrational hatred of them either. If they follow the law, great. If not, take them to task. But that doesn't mean crucify them, since in our jurisprudential system the sanction needs to be relative to the misconduct. An idea which, frankly, seems lost on you.

Your later post about oil firms buying up and/or suppressing alternative technologies is even worse. If these firms want to make a huge profit, and there are alternatives that you want to buy and you are willing to pay for, then there is nothing in your post that makes any logical sense. Oil firms would happily bring to market ANYTHING that makes them a sufficient profit. Anything else makes a lie of your claim all they care about is making profits.

Ok babyboomboom - So let me get this straight:

1.) Government healthcare = bad because it costs the taxpayers.

2.) Making sure everyone adheres to our capitalist healthcare system so other people don't get stuck with a bill = bad.

3.) Keeping the system the way it is so health insurance companies can make the most profit possible = good?

I must pay property tax if I own a property.

I must pay for my license if I want to drive.

I must pay income tax (unless I have enough write-offs to avoid it).

**

How many of you have sat in an emergency room and watched the countless number of people come in with their babies because the child had a cold? They do it because they get medical attention without having to pay.

We all need medical attention at some point and it is very, very expensive. Are you willing to pay cash for emergency surgery at the O.R.? Didn't think so. That is why people need to have insurance because one day it will be needed.

The energy industries are crucifying all of us by pouring poisons into our air, water and land, poisoning our children, corrupting the political process, killing our oceans, kids and communities...and not just because the use of their products inherently is toxic, but because they are so profit-driven that they don't want to do things the safest, cleanest way.

Rich - Do you have any idea what drilling for oil and fracking does to the environment? Not to mention the people who live near oil sites?

Oil companies are evil. If you don't know why, go do some research.

Yeah...... "ObamaCare" is the least of my worries.....

Seriously... turn off Fox News... its rotting your brain.

Nice post KarlStevens. Exactly what I wanted, but didn't care enough, to say.

Its not like anyone wants to listen.

All of you anti-EPA folks need to really stop and use your HEAD and not parrot your party line. I'm no tree hugger, but I AM in favor of having a group who monitors the energy companies. These companies can make all the money they want. I have no problem. I DO have a problem with what they can sometimes do to the environment. Maybe YOU guys want to live next to a plant that emits harmful chemicals, or have your water ruined by fracking, but I don't. Some of you spew that rediculous idea of self-policing. Can anyone spell ENRON??? That part of the industry was supposed to be self-policed. How did that work for ya???

Same goes for deregulation. You guys think that is the golden egg for business, but just look at what it has generally done in different industries. Total greed takes over and they end up screwing us, or ruining the environment, or causing a historic recession.

I live in a fracking zone. After much effort to allude our state version of EPA, they discovered the fracking company was dumping really toxic chemicals in an unapproved site. Then there were all the earthquakes the fracking caused. Once they stopped the fracking, the quakes stopped.

So you guys go ahead and do your little anti-govt dance, but in the end, I want to live WITH energy companies that do things the right way. Not some that are part of a free-for-all.

if you hit 5 violators hard with enforcement the others will start complying with the law.

So if you're a "big" company who provides thousands of needed jobs, bring much needed energy to the market place Dems think we should "hit them hard" so that they will comply with the laws. But if you're an illegal Mexican who puts a burden on our system we will look the other way and make sure you are able to vote. That's a model of success.

Troll much? Try a little truth in your diet. It'll work wonders. Oh, by the way, Sux News isn't a good source and neither is your Sunday-mornin-jeezification-meetin. You really need to expand your horizons.

Nice post, no facts, no figures, no data, no links, just a my sources are better then yours. Nice.

Logic - So you think that as long as a company provides jobs, it doesn't matter how much damage they cause the environment or to people?

Also, our country was built by immigrants. I agree that they should not come here illegally, but it doesn't seem like either side is doing much to stop it (GBW tried to build a wall... LOL!). Also, just because you're racist doesn't mean they are the problem.

Tiggle;

"I see it that, for better or worse, Obama is making decisions and making things happen."

Wow!! Please read something, anything historical.

So if you are a big company that keeps screwing the people over and over he comes in and cuts the nuts of 5 big wigs and makes the company's pay big fines for screwing the people. What's the problem give him his job back with a big pay raise. He is the type of people we need to weed out law breaking company's

Tod-2791955

Tiggle;

"I see it that, for better or worse, Obama is making decisions and making things happen."

Wow!! Please read something, anything historical.

Like....?

From the article:

"who used the word "crucify" to describe how the EPA enforced laws in the oil industry resigned on Monday"

MSNBC's reporting is myopic and inaccurate, probably because this is a Democratic administration.

Al Armendariz wasn't just saying the EPA would "crucify" law breakers, what he was saying was that the EPA need to "intimidate" people by aggressive prosecution of companies (i.e., crucify) them to cow them into submission, to set an example. That's what's so repugnant about Armendariz's comments.

Our Government is here to serve WE THE PEOPLE. However to many in Government forget they are PUBLIC SERVANTS and want us to fear THEM.

.

He was saying we need to intimidate them because they feel too safe sitting up on top of their huge piles of cash. They need to learn to operate within the guidelines of the law, not just do things cheap and quickly (not to mention sloppy) and throw money at the black-lash....

In the video, Armendariz answers a question about enforcement policies. In the Middle Ages, he told the audience, the Romans conquered a village by taking "the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them."

And? It worked for centuries.

Wish we had the resources to prosecute all the people....sorry....corporations who do wrong. We do it with criminals, why not corporations? Because they provide jobs?? because they "trickle down"?? I have not seen much evidence of either.

I'm Just Sayin'...

HAH! Babydumdum - do you even know what that means? You say you're a disabled veteran... are you disabled in your head!?

You freakin' crack me up!

b,

Something, anything that has leaders making decisions. Ya know, like something, anything historical?

Oooooh.. big man! Here - I'll do the work for you. From Wikipedia. (thats where people go to actually learn things. Not like Fox News where you're force fed propoganda)

Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory, a sociological theory and arevolutionary view of social change that has influenced political movements around the world

What is your point?

I appreciate your service, unfortunately, the paranoia combat has created in your head has undone any respect I would have had for you.

Also, good thing for us, you're disabled, and probably wont have much trouble defending ourselves from such ignorance.

Tod-2791955

b,

Something, anything that has leaders making decisions. Ya know, like something, anything historical?

Like....?

Ruken

yet the drop out and graduation rates remain in the dirt.

Maybe that would be the fault of....you know....the parents?

Sure it is! They teach their children that they don't need education or work, the government will take care of them. They only go to school for the free meals and because the government makes them. Many of these drop outs have been passed along because nobody wanted to hurt their self-esteem, 16 year old that should be in the 1st grade. Only thing most of them can read is drug labels.

B,

"Like"

Certainly not wikopedia. So lets try this again: something, anything documenting historical leadership decisions. Ya know, like something, anything historical?

@B-1768547 "no one should be allowed to make a profit" Really, so in that sense, everyone needs food, shelter, and water so no one should be able to make money off of it. If you can't make a profit from it, what is the incentive to grow food to feed the country? How about building houses. You have no grip on reality.
Where do you think the advances in technology for extracting the oil has come from? The oil industry itself, not the government.
Look at all the "green technology" we've gotten from Obama, that shows what happens when government gets involved in energy.
And citing Wikipedia as a source is not credible, Wikipedia can be changed or modified by anyone.

You just can't discuss anything seriously anymore. Look, no one is arguing we should let corporations enslave us or destroy our environment. But this idea that a government which has, for all practical purposes, unlimited resources and time can then target those firms it wants to target in order to intimidate them into compliance, and with some luck cuckhold the entire industry too, isn't exactly what I think of when I think of a government with limited powers. Punishment for misconduct shouldn't be extreme for this or that firm simply because an administration views it as B does above--evil. Corporations are amoral, so they can't be evil anyhow, but punishment in our legal system is suppose to be proportionate to the misconduct involved, not wildly out of proportion so as to convey to other potential targets they should surrender now.

And there is a larger policy issue here too. When you "crucify" firms, and this is accomplished with ever more numerous regulations and litigations, the cost of doing business increases until at some point it is no longer viable to continue to do business in this country. From a purely environmental perspective I am very surprised by the inability of the left in the USA to grasp this concept. We would do better, environmentally AND economically, if we had more firms producing more oil in the USA, rather than let it be produced in other nations where the concern for the environment is, to be charitable, 8th century thinking.

So you leftists can claim anyone who opposes your socialistic nirvana is a racist, or a luddite, or whatever you want, but all of you are using oil and oil-related products every day, and it would seem to me that if you have a problem with oil you ought to deal with your addiction rather than blame and berate everyone else.

Tod - you've failed miserably at providing any proof of your thoughtless point.

Babydumdum - Another shot at Obama... yay... I'm not a big fan of his either.

You both disappoint me.

@B-1768547 "no one should be allowed to make a profit" Really, so in that sense, everyone needs food, shelter, and water so no one should be able to make money off of it.

Yeah.. pretty much. The way companies have poured money into huge farms of corn (and poured money into subsidies for ONLY huge farms of corn and soybeans) just so they can process it into food without any nutritional value is pretty ridiculous. Shelter......... look at the housing market. As for water, do you know what companies do just to bottle it and sell it to us?

If you can't make a profit from it, what is the incentive to grow food to feed the country? How about building houses. You have no grip on reality.

Ever heard of sustainable farming?

Where do you think the advances in technology for extracting the oil has come from? The oil industry itself, not the government.

How about someone who doesnt have a stake in making profit from something that technology could drive us away from?

Look at all the "green technology" we've gotten from Obama, that shows what happens when government gets involved in energy.

Yes... its all Obama's fault.. (sarcasm)

Any other brain-busters?

So the REPUBLICAN Senator Inhofe doesn't like that Corporations and businesses -- especially those conected to OIL -- have to obey EPA rules and regulations...........................

Well, go cry like a little baby, Senator Inhofe.

I guess is it is okay if you are a blue collar criminal to be made and example of"crucified" but, if it is just little white collar "mistake" then it is not ok? He did nothing wrong and the EPA should go after them with everything they have. It would save money in the long run, if no one is braking the law it does take as much to police them.

Roywilson- The oil companies throw in taxes you and the rest of us pay into there figures. State and Federal taxes at the pump as well as payroll taxes there employees pay to get to there 41% figure when the real percentage is close to 29% still lower then the 35% of corp. taxes supposed to be payed. Then they get subsides on top of that.

We need regulatory agencies, we need HONEST regulatory agencies. This little dweeb just echoed the eco-terrorist line, punish, punish, punish and no scientific facts needed. I am against fracking because it uses clean drinking water, poisons that water and buries it underground. The droughts are spreading, lots of farmers who produce food have no water but somehow the fracking companies are getting their water to poison.

If the EPA needs a reasonable and scientific argument, they should have them on hand. Threatening to 'crucify' companies is terrorism. Better to punish the wrongdoers if they are indeed doing something wrong, make them stop what they are doing and alter their actions to fall into compliance. Witch hunts only harm the credibility of the EPA and other regulatory agencies. They should be businesslike, professional and follow the laws as written, using real science as their guide.

Note as well how polluting windfarms are turning out to be. In Scotland they destroyed pristine ecosystems to build massive windfarms that are not only raising the carbon footprint, but destroying the peat marshes they are built upon. Now it is estimated that the energy produced by said windfarm will cost much more than what they were supposed to be saving in energy costs. Go figure.

Tiggle

Anyone using the terms "peak oil" (or other variants of we will run out) or "Fossil Fuel" are listening to the wrong people.

If it was really fossil fuel, then why does Petroleum contain several elements never found in plants or animals?

If it is fossil fuel, why is it the in Oklahoma in 1972 oil was found at 30,000 feet below the surface. There are no fossils down that far, and the petroleum would have to leak down through multiple several impermiable layers of clays and Stone

If it is fossil fuel, why have the Russians been drilling for oil at 30,000 feet below the surface and finding oil 56% of the time. NO, satellite technology cannot detect oil that deep in the earth yet.

If it is fossil fuel, why are the Marcellus shale gas finds in Pennsylvania and Europe between 6,000 - 8,000 below the surface there when natural gas has a tendency to rise?

If it is fossil fuel, why then do we find dinosaurs in deep tar pits all over the world. The only way that could happen is volcanic activity, which come from magma working it's way from the earths molten core?

If it is fossil fuel, why is it that the closest our brilliant scientists can come to emulating petroleum with plants is the use of a sea algae?

That "evil" petroleum already understands the true origin. As long as you believe environmentalists and pro-environmentalist politicians, you deserve to have $5.00 per gallon energy.

Central Government's responsiblity is the defense of the country and insure fair commerce between the states.

A government that through elected officials who can appoint officials (unelected) to determine and enforce policies creating winners and losers is a government that has gotten way too big.

DB Akron - "Peak Oil" does not refer to us "running out" of oil. It is the point where it takes so much energy to extract the oil from the earth, that it is no longer an economical form of energy (because its not easily accessible). People used to drop a shovel into the ground and oil would start squirting out. That doesn't happen anymore because we've found all (ok, MOST) of the easily accessible oil.

Tell me, how could oil prices get so high for any reason other than its getting harder and harder to find?

Central Government's responsiblity is the defense of the country and insure fair commerce between the states.

A government that through elected officials who can appoint officials (unelected) to determine and enforce policies creating winners and losers is a government that has gotten way too big.

I agree with you here. I just don't think the best way to shrink the government is the Conservative idea of de-funding all PUBLIC PROGRAMS. There has to be a better way other than cutting the support for Americans. I'm sure some need to be fixed, but the budget slashing they propose will only hurt the People.

Tiggle.....I see it that, for better or worse, Obama is making decisions and making things happen. I tell my subordinates all the time, "Make the decision. Even if it ends up being the wrong one, make the decision" Indecision is far more damaging than making the wrong one. At least we can learn from mistakes.

Mr. Obama's On-the-Job-Training provided by his Liberal Cabinet members and Czars has led to MANY domestic and International agenda mistakes.

If he had focused on JOBS instead of campaign contributors and special interest "Go Green" paybacks in addition to the time he spent on his Mandated Universal Health Care fiasco, and focusing more on those "rogue Nations" he MIGHT have a chance at being re-elected. However, that was not been the case. Unemployment still remains high therefore more homes/businesses foreclosures, more folks on food stamps, less spending to invigorate the economy, and less Federal income in addition to the continuation of those "rogue Nations" saber rattling.

BTW: Thanks for collapsing my posts above folks. Fair and balanced ? NOT !!!

ldo - I agree. Obama has certainly not impressed me with job creation. However, none of that would have been any better under McCain/Palin. That was just a train-wreck waiting to happen. Which makes me sad that we had to pick between inexperience and complete morons.

I agree with you here. I just don't think the best way to shrink the government is the Conservative idea of de-funding all PUBLIC PROGRAMS. There has to be a better way other than cutting the support for Americans. I'm sure some need to be fixed, but the budget slashing they propose will only hurt the People

What slashing? Even under Ryan's proposals all they do is lower the rate of spending increase and for many of the programs take almost 40 years to do it.

Everything else: Ryan would reduce spending for the rest of the federal government from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent by 2050. CBO estimates spending for these programs has never been lower than 8 percent at any time since World War II. Defense spending is 4.6 percent of GDP today and CBO notes it has never fallen below 3 percent during that period.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/03/22/paul-ryan-proves-we-cant-balance-the-budget-with-spending-cuts/

Only in Washington is a lower increase in the rate of spending a cut.

Dude.. the point is: we need to restructure our government programs. Not just cut the funding. Our programs are in place the way they are for a reason. If our boat is sinking, we need a new one. Not constantly patch up holes and scoop water out. Lame analogy, I know, but its the best I got.....

Could have been worse. You might have gone with:

You're gonna need a bigger boat.

ldo - I agree. Obama has certainly not impressed me with job creation. However, none of that would have been any better under McCain/Palin. That was just a train-wreck waiting to happen. Which makes me sad that we had to pick between inexperience and complete moro.

We ere going in the wrong direction, Obama is creating a new bubble, working with the FED containing the devaluation with lower interest and more debt, a new wave of foreclosure are coming for more people that have their house under water, billions of dollars in cash in hand of corporation, however Obama and his war against the rich do not create the proper condition for the job creators to risk their money and then get highly taxed.

OMG! How unenlightened people are about government! I find nothing wrong with the EPA fining the biggest polluters and publicizing it to get others to pollute less. These fines are not exorbitant at any level. The cost of the damage done by these industries dwarfs any of these fines. The ridiculous lies of the GOP have practically made reason a dirty word. They gutted and mismanaged the EPA nearly out of existence, certainly out of usefulness. Now when the President tries to put some teeth back into it, we get this nonsense. Enough. Boycott the GOP! By the way, illegal immigration is way DOWN.

Um all of you calling people"libtard, dumbocrats" and any other cutesy little turn of phrase, you do UNDERSTAND that the EPA was created by your BELOVED... RICHARD MILHOUSE NIXON!!! Guess the joke is actually on YOU!!!

Hi B,

You say a lot of odd things, frankly. At least from my perspective. The hyperbole is rampant in other posts too, so that really isn't something that should be held against you, but it would help to find out whether it is, in fact, hyperbole or your sincere beliefs. For instance, do you actually believe that conservatives want to defund all programs? The most "conservative" budget that has even a whiff of a chance for becoming law, the Ryan budget, would increase our national debt by around $4 trilllion over ten years.

Compare that to Obama's plans, where debt increases by $9 to $11 trillion over the same period. Sure, Ryan would cut compared to Obama, but even here the total spent will continue to go up. Just as it has under previous "conservative" administrations and/or Congresses. For me it would help to understand the modern liberal mind just to find out by how much you think federal spending must increase before you stop calling it some kind of draconian cut.

There is another area I'd like to ask you about also. You have a few posts in which you make the claim that subsidies are bad (I'm guessing you mean for those things you disagree with subsidizing). Personally I think all subsidies are extra-constitutional and should be eliminated. But there are two things about this that interest me. The first is why you think in the regulatory sector (if in fact you do think this, it's just that you've said nothing to imply the opposite) the government, which makes all sorts of errors in other areas, like subsidies, are prone to perfection? Because if they aren't, if they make lots of mistakes in the regulatory environments too, how would you know if you either support all regulations or oppose all those who are critical of regulations?

And along the subsidy line of thinking, why should we want the government to give our money to any private firm to produce any product or service that the "free market" is unwilling to support, given the implication you offer that the government often makes mistakes in what to subsidize, and who within that industry to give the money to. Obviously Solyndra can be mentioned, but they are just one firm among many firms that have failed, or failed to achieve the desired results, or by distorting the "free market" by giving those firms money other firms are unable to compete where they would have the far better product?

I guess I'm having trouble squaring the circle you present, that the government does all sorts of things that are wrong, but in the cases of those things you agree with it should fund them, even though the constitution provides no authority for them to do so. It smacks, frankly, of despotic thinking.

babysonboomboom "Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

Interesting thought - And what happens when 'the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers' runs out?

I guess we'll see when the 'rubber hits the road' in Greece. I think they're on the downward side of the 'Laffer Curve'.

Tired Voter...

I'll agree...the name calling is a bit juvenile but you have to admit...it comes from the other side as well.

For example...repiblicants, republiCONS, tea baggers, right-wing nut jobs, wing-nuts...you get the picture.

I think it is all stupid. Sort of like a bunch of 1st graders calling each other poo-poo head. I just wish that people would talk and agree to disagree if they can't see each others points of view. My parents had friends and family members of different political philosophies and I never saw or heard them treat each other like people on this site do. And yes I get frustrated when someone takes what I said out of context and then tries to run it into something that it isn't.

agreed...it's easier to be an a-hole when you are typing on a terminal. Face to face...conversations are usually different. Funny also, most people aren't on the fringes like it would appear reading many of the posts. Most people are somewhere in the middle of the political arena and agree with both sides at times. Too bad the ones playing the game cannot...

I see several posts in reference to Obamacare and must reply.

To those who think it is constitutional and right, I say hogwash. There is a better way to slay the giant without retribution from his family.

It is called "government regulation"! The government regulated the airline industry at one time and in my opinion needs to again. There is absolutely no reason the government cannot establish a set of rules under which the insurance industry must operate. This in turn would enable more Americans to qualify for and be able to afford the premiums. All that without a crappy law no one really knows what's in it. Guess it's just too simple of an idea for the D.C. crowd to get their head around.

One guy in EPA used ONLY THE WORD 'crucify;' but the oil industry has done it - the real crucifixion, remember oil spill by Bad Petroleum (BP). You can't say the word, but big oil can do it.

It's no surprise that Obama and the democrats want to take control of energy, education, and healthcare. That has been their agenda from day 1. Any one who cannot see that is either blind or drinks way too much koolaid

@B-1768547 You've proved that you know nothing about farming, soybeans and corn aren't just used for food, it has many other uses. What about the housing market? What point are you trying to get across?

You mention sustainable farming, but why? What point does it have here? The context in which you use it doesn't make any sense.

I'm not even gonna go into the rest. You don't even try to answer to anything, all you do is throw around a bunch of nonsense, hurl a couple insults, then act like you know everything. The way you post, you want everyone to "break even" on everything, how are people supposed pay for goods and services if no one makes any money?

The whole point of peak oil is that there would be a point at which our needs will exceed the rate to which we can extract oil at which production will decline.

http://energybulletin.net/primer.php

Because we live in a world of limitations peak oil is possible, but the way the theory has been presented for the last 40 years, we were going to reach that point in 10 - 20 years.

First of all there are a number of blatantly wrong assumptions.

Notice in the discussion that petroleum is assumed to be non-renewable. Popular opinion terms petroleum as fossil fuel. The theory is that plants and animals deteriorate under some unknown, undefined conditions create petroleum. Uhm, if it is a fossil fuel, then petroleum is continually being replaced somehow, somewhere we cannot see and do not know where to look.

The problem is that petroleum often contains elements that are not typically found in any real concentration in plants and animals and is minus many elements that are found in plants and animals. The only plant or animal that is showing promise of producing a synthetic replacement for petroleum is a certain ocean surface water plankton / algae.

During WW2 the Germans and Russians figured out that petroleum is not produced from fossils afterall. It is a product of water, carbon, and a few other elements, combined with high heat, and high pressure. It is produced deep in the earth and from pressure works it's way up to the earths crust and can be deposited into pools and porus layers. This is why we find completely intact dinosaurs in solidified tar pits. The hot tar was spewed out of the earth, found it's way to low points where dinosaurs were feeding and resting, killing them on the spot.

We don't know how much is really down below us, but improved satellite technology is helping us find huge reserves under the US. Our reserves are now estimated to exceed that of Saudi Arabia still has left.

We are also returning to previously tapped out oil fields finding them to have become magically replenished.

And here is proof that the EPA is deliberately hobbling the oil industry to hobble our countries economy in turn. This activism by a government agency is beyond its charter and is an abuse of power. Unfortunately this reflects the will of the higher powers in government as well and it is good to expose their plan to destroy this nations economy by abusing their power.

If you don't think the economy is doing well due to energy issues, thank the EPA and the president for putting them up to activist policy and enforcement.

Get these people out of our government, they are ruining our lives.

Gadzooks, B

Do I really have to spell it out for you? Tiggle basically stated that a bad decision by a leader is better than no decision at all. Anyone (anyone sane that is) who has even the slightest handle on history would tell you that his comment is ludicrous. Perhaps you should read some history, and I really dont' care what nation or leaders you read about (google it Pete's sake), bad decisions are/were not better than no decision. That's why history records them as "BAD". Sheesh, its like talking to a two year old; but why , why, why?

Rich - I have avoided responding to any of your posts because I cannot figure out what point you are trying to make. You sound like you want to agree with me but refrain from doing so, and then end up with a drawn out post with specific statements that don't really have a point.

Try making your point in less than three sentences.

Tod - Once again, you refer to history and provide no references. When I challenged you to provide a reference, before, you were merely taking a shot at Obama like he's done terrible things. Not evidence in history that making bad decision is better than making no decision. I disagree with Tiggle there.

Sorry, Jeff, didn't see your post.

Jeff-2879620

@B-1768547 You've proved that you know nothing about farming, soybeans and corn aren't just used for food, it has many other uses.

Like what? They are primarily used to make food. And, most if it is crap that isn't good for you.

What about the housing market? What point are you trying to get across?

That our housing market is f@#$ed because of corporate greed and shady business practices. Look it up if you have to.

You mention sustainable farming, but why? What point does it have here? The context in which you use it doesn't make any sense.

No, you prove here that you know nothing about farming. What it takes to run a massive monoculture farm costs a lot more than if you farm sustainably. A person who has a local sustainable farm who sell their produce locally, makes a lot more than someone who has to take subsidies to grow a massive corn or soybean farm.

I'm not even gonna go into the rest. You don't even try to answer to anything, all you do is throw around a bunch of nonsense, hurl a couple insults, then act like you know everything. The way you post, you want everyone to "break even" on everything, how are people supposed pay for goods and services if no one makes any money?

Who did I insult? I don't think people should break even, I just think we let businesses grow too large and we protect the corrupt executives like they do such hard work and they are so deserving. Think for yourself.

Where to begin, To those above who believe the EPA and the President are out to destroy the economy by mis-treating those benevolent oil companies I say drink some more koolaid, (you know who you are Phil).

To the drill baby drill crowd, I say "are you on the GOP or the oil companies payroll? Oil companies and their bought and paid for lobbyists in the GOP, have for years covered up or completely lied about any scientific data coming from the EPA, climate scientists or any organization (Ecuadoran villagers) that could diminish their profits, which are record breaking.

Peak oil has come and gone. Why have we had two wars in the middle east? its oil and when they say it's about spreading freedom, it's about oil. How many garden walks holding hands did we have to bear with between Bush and the crown prince. The price we pay for oil is inflated way beyond what it costs to make.

When energy companies figure out a way to charge for sunlight, then we will be off oil, not sooner, if the companies had their way.

Wilson, don't you get tired of the class warfare thing. The "producers" as you say have the lowest tax rates in our lifetime, and are making (some would say taking) more of the profits from the real producers of their wealth, the workers. "And what happens when 'the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers' runs out?" That's already happening, it's called the dismantling of the middle class, the real producers, the lack of any significant wage increase for substantially more production at the same time those at the top are raking it in and sticking it in the Caymen islands.

To Rich, Anyone can see that the major cause of the deficit is the GOP mantra of ever more tax cuts and ever more defense spending. This is proven by the projection of the deficit in the next ten years of 10 trillion, unless the Bush tax cuts expire, at which the deficit will be less than three. Add in what the tax cuts have done in the previous ten years, going from surplus to massive deficit and an almost total economic collapse.

To those of you who say, we're being over regulated, I say Enron, BP oil spill, coal ash, black lung, stage three smog alert, Exxon Valdez, lead poisoning, acid rain, perpetual war over oil, Jack Abramoff and the "hammer", too big to fail. ad nauseum.

The EPA is there for a reason. To say that enforcement of the environmental laws we have rightfully and legally instituted are a government takeover is to deny the history of corporate flaunting of the laws. Left to their own devices who can say what kind of environment would be left. I know, go take a trip to the places where the environment is subservient to the corporations, Mexico, China, India, in short any place that doesn't give a crap about their environment or their kids, and who in fact wallow in their own excrement, much like we did before people here cared about the environment.

You should be thanking God for the EPA and government regulations (when they are not bought and paid for by the same people they are supposed to be regulating), which are there to protect us against irresponsible corporations (thanks Wall Street). Who else does the American people turn to go up against these types of corporations?

TAKE NOTICE AMERICA ,the leadership of our EPA is the problem ! The five OCCUPY WALL STREET guys that tried to blow up the bridge in Cleavland to protest our Capitalist economic system that has seen America prosper for the last 100 years. This is what you get with LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in control, these MOONBATS can cause real and unrepairable damage to our way of life ! TAKE NOTE AMERICA and vote for a Republican in 2012 !!!!

DB,

The whole point of peak oil is that there would be a point at which our needs will exceed the rate to which we can extract oil at which production will decline.

Wrong. "Peak oil" refers to a point in the future when the gradually increasing collection of oil through more and more aggressive methods runs up against the inescapable fact that the resource is NOT renewing itself. There is a limited and finite supply of oil. We are getting better and better at recovering more of it, but the supply WILL one day run out. As our technology improves, it is difficult to predict exactly when this will be. As you have correctly stated...

Because we live in a world of limitations peak oil is possible, but the way the theory has been presented for the last 40 years, we were going to reach that point in 10 - 20 years.

Many people have tried to predict when this will happen and have been wrong, but that does not mean that it won't eventually occur.

Notice in the discussion that petroleum is assumed to be non-renewable.

It is. Within any near term time frame, more petroleum is not being "created".

The theory is that plants and animals deteriorate under some unknown, undefined conditions create petroleum.

The conditions under which petroleum was created millions of years ago are known and well defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Uhm, if it is a fossil fuel, then petroleum is continually being replaced somehow, somewhere we cannot see and do not know where to look.

Not so. Not happening.

The problem is that petroleum often contains elements that are not typically found in any real concentration in plants and animals

Such as what? Carbon and Hydrogen? Nitrogen? Oxygen? All are found in abundance in plant and animal cells. Sulfur? Trace minerals? Less so in organic tissues but there are some and this could be present as contaminants that twere deposited alongside the organic material during original deposition.

and is minus many elements that are found in plants and animals.

Such as what? All the same I mentioned above.

During WW2 the Germans and Russians figured out that petroleum is not produced from fossils afterall.

Uh... yeah. Like I would believe them. Can you post a link or source to any such claim?

It is a product of water, carbon, and a few other elements, combined with high heat, and high pressure. It is produced deep in the earth and from pressure works it's way up to the earths crust and can be deposited into pools and porus layers.

See the wiki articlelinked above for an accurate description of how this happens.

This is why we find completely intact dinosaurs in solidified tar pits. The hot tar was spewed out of the earth, found it's way to low points where dinosaurs were feeding and resting, killing them on the spot.

You seem to be claiming here that because dinosaurs got caught in the tarpits then dinosaurs could not possibly be the source of the organic materials which formed the tar. Right you are. It was massive deposits of zooplankton and algae which formed the tar long before the even existed. Your thinking may be over influenced by the Saturday morning cartoon version of this where the dinosaur croaks out of the car's gas filler.

We don't know how much is really down below us, but improved satellite technology is helping us find huge reserves under the US.

This true. We are discovering more and more deposits, but that is not because they are suddenly forming, we are getting better at finding what is there.

Our reserves are now estimated to exceed that of Saudi Arabia still has left.

Aha! Now you've contradicted yourself. Here you admit that the supply in Saudi Arabia will run out. And you're right. It will.

We are also returning to previously tapped out oil fields finding them to have become magically replenished.

Uh... no. We are utilizing better extraction methods to get more oil of fields where it previously was not economically feasable to do to. But these oil fileds have not been "magically" replenished. This does not happen and never will.

When the oil runs out, and it rest assured, it eventually will, we need to be prepared with advanced alternative energy technologies, or our entire worldwide society may face a crisis the likes of which we cannot imagine. And in the meanwhile, we need to protect and preserve the environment we have because it's the only place we've got, and after all the oil is gone, returned through burning back into the carbon dioxide from whence it truly originally came through the ancient process of plant photosynthesis, and the Earth's average temperatures are 5 to 10 degrees warmer than they are now, we're gonna need some form of generating electricity to power our air conditioners 'cause it's gonna be mighty hot.

@B-1768547 Soybeans have thousands of other uses from Bio-Diesel, soy ink, foam, etc.

The housing market can be boiled down to people buying houses they couldn't afford. No one forced anyone to sign the dotted line. But it's easier and the norm now days to blame some one else for your own mistakes.

I know nothing about farming huh? Next time you eat anything with wheat, barley, sunflowers, canola, or lentil peas in it there is a good chance that they came from me because you know what, I'm a farmer.

You talk about sustainable farming and selling locally. Not everything can be grown anywhere, like I can't grow soybeans or fruits and veggies were I live. The soil conditions and growth season do not allow them.

And actually people make more off subsidies than sustainable farming, look at the sugar beet industry, peanuts, etc. If it wasn't for subsidies those crops would not be cost affordable to grow, they would loose big money and no one would grow them.

Here's another mind bender, I can make more money selling my sunflowers to a bird seed company than selling it to an elevator for food. It isn't the farmers who are making the money off of food, it's the food companies. Farmers receive about $0.19 for every $1 that is in the price of food. And to everyone complaining about fuel prices, it's the farmers who are taking the biggest hit. It's normal for me to spend $700-$800 a day on fuel.

Jeff, good post, that individual doesn't have clue. He/She needs to get out of the fiction section to do their research. I bet they are still looking for the farm that produces the money trees, also.

...and your comments make you that much of a better person...right?

Custom,

Maybe YOU should read the article.

First, you DO realize that one of the EPA targets was OIL companies.

2nd, Senators? Way to grab for something that isn't relevant.

Figures, another CLOWN Lib can't OWN something, so they throw crap at someone else.

Libs..>ZERO accountability...They want to SPEND your money, blame you, but nothing sticks to them.

This speech was 2 years ago. Welcome to an election year.

Libs..>ZERO accountability...

Geeze man, what are you talking about? They are enforcing accountability, why should oil companies be allowed to break the laws? By the way, there is no war on energy producers, deep water drilling permits are being issued in record numbers.

The anger towards oil companies baffles me. Their profits are actually very reasonable 10-15%, compared to many of the other larger companies (banking, Pharmecueticals, etc.) whose profits are consistanly much higher 20-30%. So all of you Big oil haters, whats your justification for your selective outrage?

Making examples out of lawbreakers is a strategy republicans have advocated as long as I've been alive. Funny how they react when it's used against one of their sacred cows.

Snakebone....."Making examples out of lawbreakers is a strategy republicans have advocated as long as I've been alive."

Heya Snake....you need to change your cool aid drink to coffee and wake up. Being corrupt encompasses the government spectrum and includes ALL parties.

• http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/most-corrupt-members-congress?cm_ven=outbrain&psv=outbrainselectedarticle&obref=obnetwork

Tod, Most can't give you any good reason. All they see is the amount of earnings and can/will not relate that to the investments made. If some one wants to make a factual argument about tax breaks, have them make it about all the breaks that everyone gets. This myopic knee jerk reaction is getting old.

Inhofe takes 6 to 7 figures every campaign from oil and coal interests. He is an unapologetic thoroughly corrupted shill for fossil fuel. Every chance he gets-- without exception. To hear Inhofe the Clown presented as a logical voice on any energy related issue is like having Joseph Goebbels portrayed as the voice of reason for life in the 1940s.

Bet most of the teabagicans on here defending the Greedy Oil Party's "pity the oil companies" talking points make their living off of the stuff or are heavily invested in it and and thats all they care about.

Have you read the EPA rules on coal fired power plants? With their new rules in place, no new coal or oil power plant can or will be built. 25 are being shut down. Obama said in 2008 he wanted energy costs to "skyrocket". Look for at least $2.00 per KWH, plus tax..

BTW: wind mills take 20 years to pay back installation and cost, yet only last 15years on average. See a problem? Solar panels only work in daylight. Who is going to pay for the batteries to keep the lights on at night? It is estimated that it will take 12,000 wind turbines to replace the 25 power plants shutting down. One wind turbine costs about $300,000.00. It would take 2,000,000 solar panels , and 25,000,000 batteries to replace the same plants. Who will pay? You will. The cost of electricity will pass $2.00 per KWH. That means the average electric bill will be about $800.00 per month, double that in the winter in the north. The EPA and Obama are so stupid, they don't realize it will take years and years to replace coal and oil, and trillions of dollars. Oh, yeah ! The cheapest solar panels are made in China.

Heya Ido, why are you talking about both political parties being corrupt? There is nothing corrupt about advocating making examples out of lawbreakers. It is just a strategy. I simply noted that it is a strategy republicans have always embraced.

You gonna disagree with that, or do you want to try to change the subject again?

Snake,

"I simply noted that it is a strategy republicans have always embraced"

More emotional politics. The destroyer of all logic logic and common sense.

no worries...that air you freeze to death in will be cleaner

Really, ??

According to their research, is that one of the Vestas' company's V90, 3.0 MW offshore wind turbines has to generate electricity for approximately 6.8 months before it produces as much energy as is used during the manufacturing lifetime. This, they say, means the turbine model earns its own worth more than 35 times during its energy production lifetime.

What baffles you is the outrage at oil companies??? Really??

The largest profits in history and we hand them tax breaks and subsidies.

The millions of dollars they spend lobbying members of congress to rewrite environmental legislation, crush alternative energy initiatives, and overlook the laws they break drilling for oil?

How about the wars we fight in the middle east that just happen to be tied to terrorism - while terrorism and dictators in countries without oil aren't worth our time of day?

How about hybrid cars that have to use gas to get 50 mpg, when Germany can produce cars that run on water and china 100% on electric.

These blood suckers don't care what's best for the country - they are a business, they only care about profits.

Which is why you need a strong government to keep corporate greed in check. Government is not the enemy of the middle class. It's the enemy of greed and corrupt corporations. And when the Supreme Court tells us that Corporations are citizens - we are no longer living in a democracy.

"The largest profits in history and we hand them tax breaks and subsidies."

Admit it; you really have no idea what you are talking about, but you sure can repeat what you've heard other goofballs say.

You people do realize that the oil industry purposely tightens supply so they can charge as much as possible per barrel? Right?

Why would they produce more when it would only make their product cheaper? The oil industry is one place where CAPITALISM DOES NOT WORK.

daryl,

next time you call someone out, as least make sure you have listened to the attached AUDIO tape.

Clearly, by using that analogy, he wasn't speaking of "corrupt" oil companies, as the crucifications were of ANY one, not just those "guilty."

But like YOU said, why bother with the truth. MORON.

Obama said in 2008 he wanted energy costs to "skyrocket

No he didn't. You might want to re listen the speech and not take a snippet out of context.

I could take any speech given by any politician and find some sentence that makes them sound like they want to ruin this nation.

As for the rest of your post, please provide a link to your claim of a $1600.00 winter heat bill.

The cheapest solar panels are made in China.

Your point? The computer your using to post biased and untruthful information is from china too since they make it for the least amount of money..

Maybe if the government would stop slashing renewable energy research while at the same time giving billions to big oil, we would be a lot further in our quest to break free of fossil fuels.

Your argument is it will cost too much and take too long. In 1936 Henry Ford was well on his way to making a bio fuel from hemp. He was also making plastics from hemp. He was well on his way to making the fabric, body panels and fuel from something no petroleum related. Oddly enough, hemp became illegal a year later.

If something can replace oil, the petroleum industry calls up its paid for politicians for favors. Sooner or later, oil will cost 500 dollars or more a barrel. I would like to have solid alternative energy sources in place before that happens.

Divert the yearly billions of big oil welfare to alternative energy sources research. Big oil has not needed public assistance for decades.

Tod: since it was Big Oil reporting the numbers which reveal the largest profits in their history, I find it interesting that you disagree. And I think you might offend a few republican lawmakers when you say they get no tax breaks or subsidies, since these lawmakers are very proud of their accomplishments in this regard.

Just saying 'nuh uh' when someone reports a fact that supports their opinion - is this what you call 'logic'?

Glad it's not emotional.

My point snakeoil is: who cares?

Their % profits are lower than most large companies. Why the selective outrage towards oil? Subsidies are a different issue, one that I would like to see abolished along with corporate taxes.

You...want to abolish corporate taxes? I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the real world. My mistake. Forget I said anything.

You might consider a different list, one with 'utopia' in the title.

Snake,

"You...want to abolish corporate taxes? I'm sorry, I thought you lived in the real world. My mistake. Forget I said anything"

Absolutely, corporations really do not have profit, do they? All monies that come into a corporation are either taxed as personal income or are put back into the company for research, development, property or consumables. And here's the kicker; If you are a big enough company, it costs the IRS more to audit you than they would recieve, so they pay what they want. The smaller companies are the ones that get hosed. Are'nt you libs all for equality?

Tod-2791955

Are'nt you libs all for equality?

And..... conservatives aren't?

No b, they are not.

There is a stark difference between a conservative mind and a liberal mind. One of the main differences is in the arena of equality. Liberal minds usually drift toward equality (Socialism and ultimately Marxism). The conservative mind recognises that equality is an utopian pipe dream, and therefore strives for justice.

Justice and fairness allowing for "equal" opportunity are much different than the left's equaility montra of equality just for equalities sake..

So, basically what you're saying is that people need to "earn" equality?

Gadz b, are you on something?

"Justice and fairness allowing for "equal" opportunity"

I post plain English and you morph it into nonsense. Not to mention the fact that you have no answer for anyones questions.

Tod 279 ...

Is justice served when polluters spew toxins into the environment and are held unaccountable and expect someone else to clean up their mess? Is it justice when oil companies hold an entire economy hostage with artificially inflated price gouging and still call on "conservative" politicians to continue all forms of corporate welfare? Where is the equality of opportunity when those who have taken advantage of the U.S., it's laws of fairness in commerce, it's workers, infrastructure, educational system, and PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, continue to want to cut all of the same. Or as I call it, I stole mine FU.

"There is a stark difference between a conservative mind and a liberal mind." Conservatives think they are entitled to exploit because they can get away with it as they always have. Millionaires and billionaires want to tell you how they acquired all that money by themselves for themselves (greed is good my friends, corporations are people). And yes some of them earned it the old fashioned way, they stole it from hardworking poor people, who are not paid fairly.

Conservatives want to return to 1900, when there was no middle class, just robber barons and cattle. Now you know why they were called robber barons.

Pat, do you have anything to say other than hyper-political blather? Seriously, your little tirade against conservative thought has no basis in reality. I posted a clear, non-political, ideological difference between conservative and liberal thought, while you felt compelled to blather on about those of us who are conservative being, lets see; "billionaires, millionaires, thieves, entitled exploiting braggarts, and cattle robber barons.

I don't even know where to begin concerning the foolishness in your 1st paragraph, but suffice to say; much of what you carried on about can be said about ploiticians on both sides of the aisle, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Realistically Pat, how is one to respond to such idiocy?

Your post was 'non-political'? Well, if you really believe that, there's your problem.

The easiest way to point this out is to note the obvious: the term 'Justice' has no inherent meaning. Everyone talks about justice, but what that actually means to them depends on their politics. There are of course a zillion examples, but one recent one is the SYG shooting in Florida. For many, justice means putting Zimmerman in prison; for others, justice means letting him go; for still others, justice means holding him for trial. Suggesting that conservatives are more interested in justice than liberals says nothing more than that you are a conservative who wants to call himself good.

In my experience, when the rubber meets the road, a more descriptive dichotomy is between two concepts which are more objective in their meaning: 'fairness' and 'loyalty'. While all sides tend toward both when they can, it has become more and more apparent (particularly over the last decade) that when those two concepts contradict each other, liberals tend to champion fairness, while conservatives lean toward loyalty. Just one of the many examples to draw from in this regard are the continuing debates over torture. Liberals want to say that if it is wrong for them to do it to us, then it is wrong for us to do it to them. Conservatives want to say that we should do whatever is in America's interest to do. You will find reinforcement for this in the very complaints each have for the other: liberals call conservatives 'unfair', conservatives call liberal 'disloyal' (unAmerican, unpatriotic, etc).

If you want to say that fairness is the heart of equality (and I very much agree with that), then you might consider which 'side' really champions fairness, and go ahead and join us on the left.

What would ass----s like Armendariz do if they didn't have the gubmint' jobs to occupy just what would they do? Can you imagine these dopes ever inventing anything, starting a company and creating jobs for peolpe to earn a living? Designing an energy saving device that would reduce our demand for power? No never. These guys are just aparatchiks (and there are millions of them) employed by the various governments in the US who are busy bodies and who have been given power all out of proportion to their brains and ability. The crucify bit is really the modus operandi of the lefties in our government. Their level of talent is so low they could never make it in the real world of competion in which someone is always trying to do something better, cheaper or faster than you. In the sleepy environment of government these idiots thrive but left on their own they would starve to death. No surprise he resigns but how the hell did he get there in the first place? Amazing how governments have a way of producing so many little two bit tyrants!

Then why do so many Republicans clamour over public office? It's a government job by definition with nice benefits that last a lifetime. They haven't created, invented, invested or grown anything. Just because you are fortunate enough to live where corporations aren't crapping in your backyard doesn't mean they aren't doing it. Google the Gavin Plant in Ohio. American Electric Power had to buy the whole town up b/c the coal ash that you feel doesn't need regulated destroyed the whole town.

I agree..term limits are the answer for lifetime pols.Term limits and requiring ALL citizens to live by the same laws, period. No special arrangements for any company, union or government worker. In this area dems and repubs are alikeMany of them are in it for the pension (very generous) and the health care (incredibly lush). There ARE some toxic sites in my area but like everything they can be cleaned up, even Hiroshima has been rebuilt nothing is permanent, and there is no nirvana even though the left keeps pursuing it (no matter what it costs).

*

Not only this guy should be gone, but also the Obama appointment to anti-bullying agency.

This classless guy at a high school assembly against bullying promptly launched his own bullying of Christians and other Bible believers with justifying his bullying with inaccurate claims about Christians and Christianity.

Add to that Holder should go. What's he going to say when Zimmerman is declared not guilty Where is the investigation on those who put a bounty on Zimmerman's head?

What we have here is an administration, that in the name of you, discriminates and abuses people and businesses beyond that which they claim private industry discriminates against and abuses people.

down So who should pay for the clean up gov't ( us ) or the people that messed it up in the first place?

Because as it stands right now most of the time the burden and cost of clean up falls upon the taxpayer not the corporation. This is one of the major things I personally take issue with.

Hi neko,

But you are wrong. In nearly all cases the tab is picked up by the entities that did the polluting. I even worked for a firm that had to do a mulit-million dollar site clean up that was required only because the work we did for the state of California included lead-based painting. So, to do the work, we had to use the paint the government required, and then when the lead was found in the soil, we had to pay to clean it up, not the taxpayer. Even though all the work was done according to the law--no environmental regulations were violated.

I can't say what your state does, but in the USA generally we have a long history of making those who did the polluting to pick up the cost for cleaning it up. Forest roads, mountain top replacement, soil reclamation, and so on. But I would agree that the STANDARDS have changed over time regarding what must be cleaned up and why.

Eventually the air nationwide would look like Shanghai or Beijing. Then people might get a hint.

Eventually, however, bridges, dams, highways, airports and hospitals would start sprouting up everywhere.

You mean the additional infrastructure this country has needed for the last 50 years? Go for it.

Neal, your a fool. Without gov't oversight, you'd be eating DDT.

Eventually the air nationwide would look like Shanghai or Beijing.

Considering what the libs spew into the air, Shanghai might be an improvement.

Stickerbush, hate to rain on your parade, but you and I are still probably eating DDT. Remember where a bunch of our food comes from ... other countries where DDT has not been banned.

We would seriously need them b/c the water tables would be polluted, our air quality would be non-existent, and our food would probably be highly contaminated. In Dallas, TX a slaughter house has been dumping pig's blood into the Trinity River for 75 years. They just got caught. You cry about government interference but you think it's ok to pollute the earth?

Well, if the EPA could really do their job without the attitude that "if you are big, you are wrong", I might agree. The EPA is currently ignoring thousands of violations here in Colorado. Is it possible they are just as corrupt as the people you hate?

Considering what the libs spew into the air, Shanghai might be an improvement.

I went to Shanghai and Beijing, and let me tell you it's no improvement.

Wait! A slaughterhouse in Dallas has been dumping pigs blood into a river for 75 YEARS and just got "caught"? Then, it obviously was never a problem to anyone downstream (microbes, God's little waste consuming machines, established an equilibrium in the river and ate every molecule, just like they do in every lake, river ocean and public sanitation department pond in the world) - until some pencil neck (who had grades insufficient for employment in industry and therefore had to take a job working for Texas DEQ) found and tested the outfall of the plant's waste treatment unit, shut down the business, and displaced hundreds of poor illegal aliens and their unfortunate, destitute families. So, they ruined the long-established ecosystem and helped Barry's problem with illegals, while incrementally driving up pork prices, in which they had likely already bought futures, then sold the futures and invested in Big Oil. Good job, lefties.

Ruken, I suggest you start using what your education is supposed to teach you and that is research using ALL sources. Not the limited elites that you are settling in with.

I lived in Western PA from 1962 - 1980. Back then, living and breathing day in the city of Pittsburgh was the equivilent of smoking several packs of cigarrettes. On a good day from the air, you would be lucky to see the 6th Street Bridge (now called the Roberto Clemente Bridge). Today you can see beyond the 16th street bridge.

LA is no different, from the harbor, you could never see the mountains behind LA. Today, no problem.

Heck, water was so bad in the 70's that the Cuyhoga river in Cleveland burned for several days.

We have come a long way in 40 years. To say our water and air are getting drastically worse, is simple way over blown!

What this EPA thing is about environmentalists setting themselves to be gods, when they still haven't solved the atom.

Making anyone, or anything as superior to anything is establishing a god. People don't want a god, they want reasonable regulation that all can live with, not unreasonable persecutions of anyone.

Yes, because if there's one thing that makes sense, it's "let's burn it all until there ain't none left"-style energy management. Clearly, investing in ideas that use alternative forms of energy generation is a bad idea, and we need to end it immediately.

You know, until the oil and coal run out. Or are you one of those that believes that some mythical being will come down, take pity on SUV drivers getting 4 mpg, and magically refill the oil reserves?

Look, despite how you feel about AGW (and it's real, regardless of how you feel), there is the whole other mess of environmental impact that energy exploitation incurs. Sure, we have systemic inertia to overcome in terms of how our infrastructure is set up, but the truth is, we WILL have to confront this at some point, and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

Finally, this whole thing about Obama affecting oil prices? The greatest increase in oil prices occurred after we bombed Iraq. Followed closely by the civil war in Libya. And now it's being driven by the slowdown from Iran sanctions. You can argue that he has influence over those things, though that is debatable. For instance, Iran sanctions are far less harmful to the world market than straight-out bombing would be. Iraq is self-governing now, and development is out of our hands (and when it was in our hands, the companies still chose to shaft the taxpayers that opened up all that sweet, sweet lucre crude by charging us full price after we funded a war to secure the resources). Libya would still have had to slow down or shut down production, regardless of our interference.

So, I have to ask, where the @!$%# are you getting these ideas?

People have been trying for 50 years to produce practical, efficient convenient alternate power sources and the results are dismal. Keep trying as i can assure you there will be a market for these alternatives when and if they are discovered. Batteries that will replace gas engines will probably be so toxic the occupants will have to wear space suits to survivea drive around the block. Wind turbines are eating up birds by the millions and solar power panel fields would take up half the land area of the US to provide enough power to heat and power all of our structures.

Janstince, first AGW is not proven. Accepted, yes, but not proven and it never will be until someone supplies an alternate Earth without humans as a control for comparison.

Second, I said nothing about BHO controlling oil prices, but if he drives domestic producers out of business (as he has openly said he wants to) then OPEC will drive the price up.

Third, I am in favor of continued, massive research into renewables as we will eventually need them. But to replace all fossil electricity production with renewables (as BHO and the ecos want) today is impossible. The sun does not shine everywhere, the wind does not always blow and both would depend upon a battery technology that currently does not exist. The ecos are blocking a massive solar farm in a desert because it produces too much shade and several wind farms are having to buy insurance to cover the deaths of rare birds to protect themselves from the ecos. Explain how a total switch to renewables would be beneficial ... to the ecos, not me.

Janstince:

You, and a few others who post here, get it. We HAVE to get off fossil fuels. It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall - the supplies are finite, and we're in the process of killing our planet.

Cheap fossil fuels are wonderful in the short term. But, if we look just a little into the future - not thousands of years, I'm talkiing well within our children's lifetimes - they're just not viable.

We can step up, be another kind of "Greatest Generation". Or we can focus on our own short-term comfort and convenience, and leave a vastly different planet for our children and grandchildren. Judging by the comments here, well..., I'm not too terribly hopeful.

What annoys me about the fanatical "green" crowd is that, in their big rush to convert everyone to "alternative" forms of energy, they are doing everything they can to destroy the one industry that is currently able to efficciently deliver the energy that we as a nation need to live our everyday lives. Whether you like it or not, oil/gas is the most convenient energy source at this time, and to try to curb its production when there is little to no infrastructure available to deliver other forms of energy (solar, wind, etc) to the degree that is needed for us to live (and probably won't be for decades) is ridiculous. Explore alternative energy sources? Sure, of course...I'm all for it, and I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are all for it as well. But don't do it at the expense of the oil industry, which, whether you want to admit it or not, is still vital to our survival. It would make perfect sense for our government to encourage both additional oil exploration and alternative energy development, but when there are so many zealots on both sides of the issue, sadly I don't see that happening any time soon.

Here's the problem with the small republican mind. They think it's all or nothing. No one is advocating getting off of oil immediately. What people ARE advocating is STARTING to get off of it by investing in technologies that show promise to at least relieve part of our reliance on oil. Part of investing in those technologies is having to endure some failures. The space program didn't succeed the first time with a lot of things. Rockets blew up, people got killed, etc. Since private industry doesn't do much of anything unless it shows an immediate profit, and republicans think that is adequate and reject all investment on the part of the public we're not likely to see any relief at all any time soon.

You guys are not getting it.

As many of you point out, we've been talking about alternative forms of evergy for decades. Where has it got us? Has "encouragement" of alternative sources sped development of them?

Let's face it - there hasn't been much in terms of results. Hybrids, I guess. Some improved efficiency in homes and appliances. Small, incremental steps. Nothing big. Nothing even remotely game-changing.

So, ENcouragment of an alternative hasn't worked. How about DIScouragement of the status quo?

We know we're going to run out of oil, natural gas, and coal some day. When is difficult to predict, but eventually we will. No one doubts the supplies are finite.

Continued use of fossil fuels is killing our planet. How quickly it's doing so is difficult to say. But anyone who can look at the amount of carbon we've relocated from ground to the atmosphere, and tell you that it's got no negative affect on the environment is either an idiot or he/she is trying to sell you something.

We know the status quo is unsustainable. We know we're going to have to go thru some rough times to get to energy sources we can sustain. Do we want to make some sacrifices now, or do we want to keep pushing those sacrifices forward, let them be our kids' and grandkids' problems?

No one here is saying we need to switch to 100% sustainable energy sources now. What some of us are saying is we have to get started, in a meaningful way, and we need to do at least that much now.

We HAVE to get off fossil fuels. It doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall - the supplies are finite, and we're in the process of killing our planet.

Cheap fossil fuels are wonderful in the short term. But, if we look just a little into the future - not thousands of years, I'm talkiing well within our children's lifetimes - they're just not viable.

We can step up, be another kind of "Greatest Generation". Or we can focus on our own short-term comfort and convenience, and leave a vastly different planet for our children and grandchildren. Judging by the comments here, well..., I'm not too terribly hopeful

Excellent point. It falls precisely in line with free-market thinking.

At some point the finite supply of oil is going to reach a point where it becomes prohibitively expensive due to a lack of supply and the costs assosciated with getting to that smaller supply. At this point alternative energies will be more appealing and be able to compete with oil. So why do people want to artificially raise the cost of oil now? Why do people want to artificially prop up alternative forms of energy through government handouts?

In the end, the amount of oil available will be small enough for these other forms of energy to compete. Look at the results of the Natural Gas boom. $2.00/MMBtu is fantastic. Look how many cities are installing CNG fleets for buses, etc.

As long as there is cheap oil we should continue to exploit that cheap source of energy. You made the point perfectly. Oil is a finite resource, therefore at some point the available oil will become more expensive and in turn, alternative energies will be more appealing.

The funny thing is that Dish TX is so polluted, you could die just breathing the air

But you know TX....everything for business, death for citizens.

and when politicians retire, they can ALWAYS get well paying jobs for the Insurance industry !!

Weaselyone:

If this were a straight economic analysis, then what you say would be absolutely correct. You've excluded the pollution factor.

With the rise of the middle class in China, India, and elsewhere, we're burining far more fossil fuels than ever before. We're killing our planet at a faster rate every day. THAT'S why we can't wait for the economics of the thing to provide the tipping point.

No one is advocating getting off of oil immediately.

Sorry to rain on your parade too, but there are several people advocating just that, they are in the White House, the Senate, the House of Representative, the EPA, the Cabinet, etc. When BHO talks about making it too expensive to run a coal-fired generating plant, that is exactly what he is after.

phe, since the giant increase in pollution is in India and China, how about converting them to renewables. I mean China is building a coal-fired plant at the rate of 1 every week or so.

Amused in the Midwest posted a comment right after mine, and prefaced the comment by saying, "Here's the problem with the small republican mind..."

Well, I'm an Independent. But that was a nice attempt at stereotyping, I must say. Proving that the liberal/Democrat mind is even smaller...

But you know TX....everything for business, death for citizens.

Please point me to where I can find all of these dead citizens. I thought that the population of Texas was expanding, but the way you make it sound there are 1,000s dieing every day.

With the rise of the middle class in China, India, and elsewhere, we're burining far more fossil fuels than ever before. We're killing our planet at a faster rate every day. THAT'S why we can't wait for the economics of the thing to provide the tipping point.

But we can continue to allow the "developing nations"/worst polluters to go continue along unabated? If we increase energy costs here, where we have environmental controls, we push more production overseas where they have cheaper energy. Guess what, they also have fewer environmental controls than we have. The result is a net-increase in global pollution. Unless you are proposing that we hold our trading partners accountable, which given the last 20 years is highly unlikely, we need to keep the production here where we have some semblance of environmental responsibility.

Neal in Denver and weaselyone:

All in favor of waiting on the Chinese or Indians to solve our problems for us, please raise your hands.

This is an existential problem (for those of you who are vocabulary-challenged: It threatens our very exsitence). For the life of me, I don't understand how it's become such a political football. If Hollywood blockbusters turned out to be fortune-tellers and we actually discovered an asteroid the size of Texas headed for Earth, it wouldn't be a political issue. This is the same thing - only the time-scale is different. It's not going to kill us off next week, but it is going to kill us off eventually.

Fossil fuels are not sustainable forms of energy for an energy-hungry civilization. They just aren't.

The good news about the length of the time-scale on our demise: The time-scale on solving the problem is equivalent. So, we can use that time to solve the problem before our demise is imminent. Or we can just keep going, with our heads in the sand, and leave it for future generations to figure out.

Here's a scenario: Your great-grandkids looking back, 100 years from now, at holiday snaps of you loading the SUV and hooking up the boat trailer. And muttering, "You stupid, self-centered fool. If you'd been half as interested in replacing gasoline with something cleaner as you were in the weekend's football games, we would actually be able to go outside without hazmat gear!"

i don't see what the problem is with saying that... this is public policy 101. if you don't have the resources/man power to check if everyone is in compliance, you create sanctions that will serve as a deterrent. it allows for a policing of a greater area than your resources allow. this isn't something exclusive to the EPA, this is how the world works.

Neal -

This is science. If you want "proof," look at mathematics. Science deals in evidence, and the overwhelming evidence is that AGW is the main factor driving the climate change we are already seeing. Hence why I said AGW is happening. It's like saying evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is not a fact, but a series of theories bundled together to describe how evolution, the action, is happening. But even if we didn't have a Theory of Evolution, evolution would still be happening.

As to those who say we don't have the technology, we'll never have the technology, blah blah blah. You haven't been keeping up with the technology. Don't blame me for your oversight, I'm not your father. AMOLEDs (providing clear solar generation at high efficiencies that could cover windows), thermoelectric generation (increasing efficiency every day through research), hybrids (those batteries are no more toxic than the lead-acid batteries we've been using for decades), increasing efficiency with wind generation, wave-energy generation, hell, we've even figured out how to generate energy using the Earth's magnetic field. We've actually built fusion generators, and those are being scaled up to be net-positive as we speak.

But these things take time, effort, and expense. If we wait, as some suggest, until the "free market" (aside, oil subsidies are NOT PART OF A FREE MARKET APPROACH) makes alternative energies cheaper, that will do 2 things:

1) We won't be able to produce higher-efficiency energy conversion for the existing ones, and we won't be able to come up with more efficient methods, in a reasonable amount of time. The research needs time for imagination, experimentation, reproduction, and finally production of the actual materials. The less we put in now, the further away the line gets until we cross it with inefficient technologies. And that's going to hurt so hard. Hospitals will not have power. Street lights, gone. Anything and everything that runs on power will have to shut down and be converted, and even then we won't have nearly enough.

2) Pollution. This one has been pointed at the most, so I'll skip it now. But it's there, and it's a really big @!$%#ing problem.

In summation, I'd like to point out that public funding for research needs to be increased at the expense of public funding for fossil fuels. The oil companies are not hurting, they're booming, especially when the cost rises so dramatically. They can afford to take the hit. Besides, it will give them less money to bribe politicians and buy up alternative energy patents to keep them from being developed as viable sources.

Oh, and another thing. The whole China/India argument. Well, I could take the moral argument and ask why, just because they're polluting more, we should opt into it as well? There's the possibility of the argument that they'll take the energy-intensive jobs away from us. Then there's the argument that that's already happened even when we had cheaper energy, and globalization is a bastard even when all conditions are equal. So, I ask again, why should we not invest in this, to get cheaper energy later as oil continues to climb, so we could lure the jobs back?

The other thing is that China, at least, is heavily investing in solar power. They're rebuilding entire cities on solar/wind energy schemes, using natural sunlight to replace interior lighting, solar hot water heaters, solar panels and wind turbines for electricity, and energy efficient lighting, heating, and cooling, so the load is not nearly as much as you find here in the US. They're making a commitment, but the cheap fossil fuels are driving their expansion, too. They're standard of living is still very far below ours.

Since we're STILL the biggest polluter (even if you don't look at per capita), I'd argue it's us who needs to lead the way and develop the technology to make it better. It will also give us an edge in future competition.

This @!$%# doesn't happen overnight, you know.

we would actually be able to go outside without hazmat gear!"

Quit with the fearmongering.

Green energy is great, but nothing has come out yet that is a viable solution. I'd love to stop burning fossil fuels. We're working on it. But the energy policy of the day will only make energy more and more expensive, and who does that affect the most? You guessed it: the poor. If I was a fearmonger too, I would ask why people like you hate the poor so much that you want them to not be able to afford to heat their homes so they freeze to death in the streets.

As far as this being an existential problem, you're right, but there's more than one way to look at it. We rely so heavily on technology (that is powered by all forms of energy) to fuel, feed, and house our global population, that serious disruptions to energy supply will certainly cause massive amounts of death and destruction.

Green energy is so flawed it's almost comical, but it makes us feel good about ourselves, so I ask, "why the hell not?" And there's another potential wrench in the gears. By 2015, the EPA is going to decide if Sage Grouse are to be listed as a Threatened or Endangered species (Personally, I think endangered is very unlikely, but threatened isn't). If the Sage Grouse is listed, it could potentially bring to a screeching halt any new wind power development in several western states, including Wyoming.

kg:

Fearmongering? Really? What's the environmental impact of burning oil, gas, and coal at an expanding rate for the next 100 years? I don't know. Do you? I don't think you do.

You're right - there will be massive economic dislocation caused by a meaningful change in the way power is generated.. Do you think it will be less chaotic if we wait to do anything? Or do you figure that you'll be dead and gone long before humanity is forced to make some very tough decisions, so it won't be your problem?

You you make undeniable sense when you point out the flaws in today's green energy. Does that mean the problem is unsolvable? Is there no hope that a green energy source will ever replace fossil fuels? I'd sure hate to think current wind and solar technologies are the very best we can do in terms of sustainable energy. I don't think they are. I think the answer is out there. The sooner we start looking for it, really putting some effort into it, the sooner we'll have it.

Janstine - AGW is only as popular as it is, because that is where the money is. Just a few years ago, in a Gallup poll, 40% of Scientists have admitted that they skew results to favor the postions of those paying. I'd bet, that you automatically think that is the Scientists who are for the so called "fossil fuels" industry?

Isn't that also been a problem from time to time for drug companies trying to get drugs throught the FDA? Didn't the East Anglia emails give the clue that the Biggest AGW supporters were using "tricks" to get their results?

Didn't the scandals of the IPCC reports over the "hockey stick graph", the Himalayan ice melt rates, and more count for something?

Doesn't more high profile higher profile scientists (some early pioneers) give up on the AGW theory count, or are you not aware of these events, because the AGW believers don't accept these truths and don't talk about them?

DB Akron -

Actually, no. Firstly, scientists skewing results? It's called science, and there's a reason that peer review and reproducibility are features, not bugs. It's because people do studies that skew data (removing important outliers or whole trends), but also they don't always skew it consciously. Confirmation bias plays a big role, and science is designed to weed that out.

Hence, the reproducibility of an experiment is paramount in its inception.

Give the East Anglia emails a rest. A few sentence fragments, that look a hell of a lot less conspiracist when the whole sentence, much less the whole email, is seen, out of tens of thousands of emails, and you cry "CONSPIRACY!" Please. If you don't have the background to understand what they are talking about, then don't make a fool of yourself trying to comment on it.

As for the "hockey stick graph," that thing is still around, and still working. You really should check on these things before you start to sound like an idiot... wait... These "scandals" you keep speaking of. They're what often happen when morons in the media don't really understand what they're reporting on, and the public is so @!$%#ing stupid in general that even basic science often flies right over their heads. Science changes with time. What is considered correct today may be torn down tomorrow. But climate science has been chugging along for over 50 years now. They've got a decent bead on things, and their models have made accurate predictions according to the data we've seen.

It doesn't necessarily matter who exactly supports or "negates" AGW theory; the theory is what is important, and it is sound. But, if you insist, for every AGW denying scientist, there are about 97 that say they are ignorant fools. Not only that, but most of the "scientists" that are denying AGW are either a) not scientists; they're weather forecasters. Totally different thing there; b) not climatologists. Are you going to ask an MD to blend your gasoline? How about getting a chemist to build a skyscraper? Want an engineer to do your taxes? How about having an accountant install your air conditioning? You see, in the real world, we have this thing called "expertise," and it requires years of study and experience gained through hard work, not some two-bit moron who got on his local television station (I'm looking at you, Watts) and thinks he's got the information and background to be a real scientist.

Bill - why don't you stop buying from them and go drill for your own oil? I'm sure you could produce it and refine it for a whole lot less than what you are currently paying.

fighting off the salamanders and insects for the next meal.

Not likely. The salamanders and insects will be protected species. You will be the next meal.

If the laws were clearer about what was permissible, things would be much easier. Current laws are mostly "if we don't like you, we can fine you".

Neal: Thank you. I've always wanted to know the theory behind supply side economics.

If the laws were clearer about what was permissible, things would be much easier. Current laws are mostly "if we don't like you, we can fine you".

The EPA cannot make laws. Only Congress + POTUS can do that in the USA. The EPA can only make regulations.

The EPA can only make regulations.

Which you can be cited, fined, and imprisoned for violating.

laws are for little people...not BIG people like corporations...who BTW bribe the crap out of BOTH parties

Which you can be cited, fined, and imprisoned for violating.

Name me one regulation where you face imprisonment. Because as far as I know you cannot be.

Now if you break a law, you can be imprisoned.

Ruken -

Company officers CAN be prosecuted and imprisoned for environmental violations. If you want a list of specific regulations, you're gonna have to find it yourself.

omega1, You really should look into what oil companies pay, in the way of taxes. It's huge.

Call your Representative and Senators and make them discontinue the oil subsidies. BTW they make billions of profit on trillions of sales. The percentage of profit is what you need to see if you want to know if a company is making an obscene amount of money. Cut their profits and they will immediately let many of their workers go, increasing unemployment. Be careful of what you wish for.

You obviously have no clue about the oil industry or what they do. They don't get corporate welfare. What subsidies they get are based on the quantity of oil they produce. The so called green energy industry gets much higher subsidies for producing nothing as we saw with Solendra, a huge payout to Barry's cronies. The enthanol industry gets subsidies 20 times higher than the oil industry, because if they didn't ethanol would not be commercially viable. Environment? Ask anyone who lives near an ethanol plant if they like the environmental changes that industry has brought them. You sir are an uneducated idiot.

Neal in Denver: You don't have a clue about industry economics. I guess if you were to invest in technology and the one day, it got very profitable, say like Apple, you would think it was okay to tax away their profits because they were in someone's opinion, too high? Who do you think owns the oil companies? People like me, your father, unions, teachers unions those obscene profits go to pay dividends and to pay to drill more multi-million dollar wells. Only about 3 wells in 10 find oil. Thats a lot of risk. Then it can take hundreds of millions to get the oil to market it a pipeline needs to be built. In the 80's trillions of cubit feet of gas were discovered in the Andes by the company for which I worked. They gave the lease to another company because they did not have the estimated $1 billion needed to build a pipeline through the Andes to get it to market. You should really shut up about things which you know nothing about.

stanboy, maybe you should look

Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice.

omega1-3015173,

They make billions, but on hundreds of billions of investment. Their earnings are about 7.9% - much lower than many other industries.

They keep on ruining our environment,,,

Actually you do a pretty good job on your own. Of course you do ride a bicycle everywhere, us no technology (this forum was accessed with log drums)

they make billons and pay either no or very little taxes,,,

$42.8 billion in 2010. That was just the top 3 companies.

and they keep on getting corporate welfare from the government,,,,

and you just keep reaping the benefits of the lower energy costs.

You must think we are all pretty stupid!!!!!!!!!!

Yes

mudrake, I guess you missed the sarcasm. My point was that if people want change, then the place to change it is Congress. Despite all the hue and cry about oil companies, for as long as I can remember, nothing has change in D.C.

Those earnings you speak of, are they NI, EBITDA, ROA, ROI? Just to be clear?

They are resigning to protect the rest of their organization/agency, so they can keep on with their outrageous "we hate big anything" policies. Under BHO, the EPA is charged with making as much trouble for domestic fossil energy producers as possible in order to force us to accept only renewable sources. Of course that will mean a 50% decrease (my estimate) in overall production of electricity and almost no energy at night. But that is fine with BHO and crew.

He just takes money and a lot of it from the oil industry. Guess you don't care if they pollute the water, air and ground. That's what Inhofe stands for, let them do anything.

Guess you don't care if they pollute the water, air and ground.

And I suppose you don't drive a car, eat inorganic vegetables, eat meat, use plastic, use plastic products, or consume electricity?

It's all the fault of those who supply the services at a cost we can afford. It definitely is not the fault of those who consume those products?

Those who consume these products on a daily basis are just as guilty for any "pollution" the production of these products creates. Feel free to lower your standard of living by not consuming these products. It will make them cheaper for the rest of us who enjoy our lifestyle that is the envy of the world.

Now Billy. The oil and gas industry operates under some of the most stringent regulations of any industry in this country. But, if it makes you feel better about yourself to carry the liberal mantra. Go ahead.

That's the republican mindset in a nutshell: Education is bad. Achievement is bad. The only achievement worth anything is making lots of money - otherwise it's worthless.

Government sucks, but we want to get elected. Government can't create jobs, although people like Romney have been in office or running for office for the last 20 or so years.

The only achievement worth anything is making lots of money - otherwise it's worthless.

Where do you think tax dollars are generated from that help fund our social programs?

Ford made money off of mass producing the automobile, my life is better because of it.

Motorolla, Apple, and Verizon make money off of cell phones and wireless devices, my life is better because of it.

Why do people hate success? Without it we would not have near the lifestyle that we are blessed to have available to us.

Fraid the wingnuts are on the right. They only listen to Fox and Limbaugh.

Fraid the wingnuts are on the right. They only listen to Fox and Limbaugh.

Would seem then, the left hasn't moved up to that intellectual level. Don't despair, Rush and Fox make introduce an easy numbers and colors version for the liberals.

Bill

I have to hand it to you. You are the epitome of liberal response.

Yes Abdullah. Now, please return to your stoning.

Romney?! hahahaha, look into his politics, I mean REALLY look into them, he is just a white version of Obama, no real difference in what they believe or what they support.

Ron Paul 2012, vote for a Real change

Syndisue, go ahead and vote for Paul, which will put BHO back into the White House and the Socialist dream can continue.

@ Neal: Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's a very strong chance that Obama's going to repeat no matter who else is in the race. This isn't a gloat, this is simply to advise that you mentally prepare yourself for what's to come. It'll probably be on the level of disappointment that the Left felt, when Bush was re-elected.

actually, if you turn off the main stream media, and look into it, you will see Ron Paul has won more delegates than Mitt Romney right now, and what the media tells you Ron Paul believes is slanted half truths, maybe if he is the nominee they will actually have to acknowledge him and people will see he is not an extremist but a constitutionist, a HUGE difference. I refuse to vote for another Obaman, no matter what color his skin is.

Voting for Ron Paul makes a very important statement:

"I am an idiot that voted for a non candidate that has ZERO chances of winning" .....and after how many tries? isn't this one definition of insanity?

Mudrake--YOU know-Can't do the job then be a consultant. The job any idiot could do.

Keep saying that when gasoline (if it is available any more under BHO) costs $12/gallon.

Neal- blah blah blah another political, nonfactual, faux news type.

But obama, he s never gotten money from the oil industy, has he ? Neither has Pelosi!

Wake up people they are all in it together, Congress (every dem & repub) are all the 1% , so is the main stream media, Hollywood (michael Moore, Tom hanks etc) they are all the 1%. So is Big Oil, Big Pharma, Wall Street, Nato, the UN they are all the 1%. They want us peons to point fingers "hes a dem he's a repub, he s an idiot". They want you to fight about dumb things while they pull the rug out from under you. Vote them all out, we will only get change if we vote incumbents out otherwise we are doomed.

tactical, you may think it is blah, blah, but BHO appointees have stated that they want gasoline to cost as much as it does in Europe, currently between 10 and 15 dollars a gallon depending on the day and the Euro conversion rate.

Put down the CRACK pipe.

Not in the 1% - he's not smoking crack. I work in the construction industry. Between 10 to 15% of every project we do is spent on Environmental Pollution control. When you are talking $100 million dollar road that 10 to 15 million dollars. I would say that 90% of the fines that are given out by the EPA are not for actually polluting anything, they are fines for paperwork errors.

This agency is a joke and is costing the USA millions of jobs and billions in taxpayers money.

You are exactly right canon - Many times the inspectors do not understand, or care to understand what you do. They just look for paperwork issues ... and what was good one year with one inspector may not be good the next.

If these agencies were interested in the environment instead of their bully power, both the environment and business would be better off.

I work in the construction manufacturing industry. Between 10 to 15% of every project we do is spent on Environmental Pollution control. When you are talking $100 million dollar road plant expansion thats 10 to 15 million dollars. I would say that 90% of the fines that are given out by the EPA are not for actually polluting anything, they are fines for paperwork errors.

Diddo.

You are exactly right Self employed. This is the mindset of the socialist democrits we the people put in office in 2008. It is clear this Chicago socialist does not have a clue (or does he) what he is doing. We need a business man in office. These lawyers and liberal feel good democrats are the ones that has caused the mess and all we have under this disgraceful admnistration is another FIVE TRILLION more in debt. Nuf said.

You are kidding, right? The debt is Obama's fault? Everything was just swell before Obama showed up and ruined the world!! If he wins again, he'll make us all be muslim commies!!!!!

Shrug already. Im tired of waiting. Go live with John Gault. G'bye.

The new republicans fight for the rights of the super wealthy and huge corporations.....who fights for you? Rush? Mitt? Sorry, but if you are not a multi-millionaire, you are a sap.

Right. When it was on Bush's watch, everything was his fault, including dykes blowing over in a storm.....I don't know what using the word crucify has to do in America, getting you death threats, but I do know I am on this guys side just because he has to be the good guy here to get death threats, Anyone want to guess where those came from??? Sign me "sick of the cattle run in America", Land of freedom of speech, and that goes for every word in the dictionary, Or did they take "Those" out already? On O's watch???Hmmm

The poor old oil companies need the GOP to help them keep the billions of dollars they take from Americans wallets each and ever day just so they can donate the money Americans pay them to the a re-election campaign of the GOP

Yes, those poor old oil companies break into American's homes and steal money out of their wallets. In no way is anyone to blame for buying gasoline, diesel, and plastic products.

Roughnecks make 100s of thousands of dollars. We should go after them too for taking money out of our wallets. Yeah, thats the ticket.

If it is so easy to make money in the oil industry without deserving it, why don't more people do it? Competition could really do alot to lower the price of gas.

weasel - don't try and explain anything to a liberal with logic. They are sheep to be lead by the Democratic politicitan. The refuse to look a numbers. Like the fact that the reason oil companies make billions in profits is that they are a multi multi billion dollar industry therefore yes that make billions in profits. They refuse to understand that as a percentage it is less that Pesi or Philip Morris proffit margins.

This is just another way that the Demoncrats can point the finger and make the oil companies look bad.

tracy -- there is PLENTY of evidence -- past and present -- to show the wrong doings, cover-ups, and lobbyist money spent to benfit the oil industry, and very little that the government has been able to do to stop them. Take a nice drive to the Gulf and you can still see the effects and oil still lingering in the marshes. Take a drive to Alaska and there is an area where if you dig 3 inches below the surface of the lake, oil springs right up from the Valdez disaster. Plus, Exxon only paid one-third of what they were ordered to pay, and walked away from it! He made the comment two years ago, it's old news. Try nailing Mitt Romney down on a position, because ALL of his views have changed at least once in the past two years.

I don't disagree with the evidence of wrong doing by the oil and gas industries but again, if the EPA is operating as Al Armendariz says it is then it's absolutely wrong. You don't attempt justify the means by the the desired or actual outcome.

Hey Beth, you are telling Tracy to drive about 5,000 miles. That's going to take a whole lot of gasoline bought from ....BIG OIL!!! <gasp!>

The EPA guy got his ideas from Mein Kampf/Hitler. He believed that killing (crucify) a couple of million jews and the rest would get in line. My how that worked out, about 20-30 million other people died over it. 300-400 thousand of those were Americans.

Actually, it is you and your illogical ilk that spends time thinking about Hitler.

The EPA guy spends his time trying to get the arrogant EPA violators in line without wasting our money on lawsuits against them. It's the same thing cops do to motorists who drink and drive.

"The EPA guy spends his time trying to get the arrogant EPA violators in line without wasting our money..."

Yeah I am sure this guy is....oh sorry, was fiscally responsible just like the bums at the GSA. LOL!!

Do we really want a world where only the Left has hired henchmen and spies?

I have to agree with Wm. Unfortunately he is a public employee and someone video taped a presentation while he was speaking on the 'Art of running a understaffed agency'. Severely penalize the individuals or companies that break our laws and the rest will fall in line.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have protection against BP or another ultra powerful corporation and have a Federal Agency with no teeth.

I also thought the headline of the article was misleading and his comments were taken out of context. In no way was did he state or even infer the oil industry should be "crucified". What if the headline had read, "EPAofficial forced to resign after claiming he wants to severely punish a few companies caught damaging the environment in order to scare others into following the law."

@ GK excellent post and I do agree with Wm also.