Dubya, global warming, and oil
August 1st 2007 23:41
Our planet is getting hotter. Even the most jaded cynic can admit that. There is some disagreement over how much humans contribute to that warming and whether humans can really do anything to stop it. However, we are experiencing global warming.
Certainly, President Bush has not been a leader in terms of offering solutions to the problem of global warming. He seems to have grudgingly admitted that humans do, at least in part, contribute to global warming. Still, he hasn't offered any substantive solutions to deal with it. Most of President Bush's motivations against aggressive fixes seem to be economic in nature. He feels that dramatic changes would be harmful to various industries. That is true, but industries are always having to change and adapt. This case should be no different. Also, other industries could grow up around any solutions that are implemented. So an economic case could also be made in favor of change.
Now, I see on MSNBC's website that the melting of arctic sea ice (due to global warming) is opening up new possibilities in the search for oil and other natural resources:
Has President Bush's hesitancy to address global warming been driven by foresight in knowing what possibilities lay beneath those huge blocks of ice? Was he actually in favor of global warming in hopes of exposing those treasures even quicker? Well, I wouldn't give our President that much credit. I would view this more as a possible case of serendipity. It's just something that the world (and Bush) have stumbled on to.
And this isn't exactly a slam dunk. For one thing, these are still non-renewable resources. And oil still is not a clean-burning fuel. And, of course, there will be a bitter battle over who will be able to claim "ownership" of those exploration areas. Nevertheless, any possible increase to the supply of critical fuel sources can't be ignored.
Any way you look at it, this is an interesting development. We'll have to see how it pans out. Will this be a treasure trove? If so, who will be able to control it?
Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming exposed geographical areas that allowed the world to increase its supply of oil -- which, in turn, could further increase our dependence on oil and worsen global warming? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?
Certainly, President Bush has not been a leader in terms of offering solutions to the problem of global warming. He seems to have grudgingly admitted that humans do, at least in part, contribute to global warming. Still, he hasn't offered any substantive solutions to deal with it. Most of President Bush's motivations against aggressive fixes seem to be economic in nature. He feels that dramatic changes would be harmful to various industries. That is true, but industries are always having to change and adapt. This case should be no different. Also, other industries could grow up around any solutions that are implemented. So an economic case could also be made in favor of change.
Now, I see on MSNBC's website that the melting of arctic sea ice (due to global warming) is opening up new possibilities in the search for oil and other natural resources:
Arctic sea ice has decreased nearly 20% in the last two decades as the Earth's climate warms, making access to the area easier. The eight countries bordering the region, including the USA, are now staking competing claims.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic seabed and subsoil hold as much as 25% of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Other resources such as nickel and diamonds also are present.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic seabed and subsoil hold as much as 25% of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Other resources such as nickel and diamonds also are present.
Has President Bush's hesitancy to address global warming been driven by foresight in knowing what possibilities lay beneath those huge blocks of ice? Was he actually in favor of global warming in hopes of exposing those treasures even quicker? Well, I wouldn't give our President that much credit. I would view this more as a possible case of serendipity. It's just something that the world (and Bush) have stumbled on to.
And this isn't exactly a slam dunk. For one thing, these are still non-renewable resources. And oil still is not a clean-burning fuel. And, of course, there will be a bitter battle over who will be able to claim "ownership" of those exploration areas. Nevertheless, any possible increase to the supply of critical fuel sources can't be ignored.
Any way you look at it, this is an interesting development. We'll have to see how it pans out. Will this be a treasure trove? If so, who will be able to control it?
Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming exposed geographical areas that allowed the world to increase its supply of oil -- which, in turn, could further increase our dependence on oil and worsen global warming? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?
| 26 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
