Buying into the Big Oil smear
Rocky Mountain News
Published June 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
We've long respected the judgment of Katy Atkinson, a Republican political consultant who is not afraid to dispense unpleasant reality checks to people even on her side of the aisle. But we dearly hope that her reaction to a recent poll of the U.S. Senate race in Colorado is wrong - because of what her analysis suggests about the state of mind of voters.
Atkinson says she's not surprised that Democrat Mark Udall boasts a 10-point lead over Republican Bob Schaffer in a Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll, given a recent ad campaign.
"I can't turn on the TV without seeing [a negative ad from the League of Conservation Voters linking Schaffer with 'Big Oil']," Atkinson said. "When negative ads are running without anything contradicting them, and when there are no negatives against Udall . . . I wouldn't have been surprised if Udall's lead was 15."
On one level, we suppose, Atkinson's take on the Senate race amounts to conventional wisdom: Unrebutted negative ads take their toll on candidates. Yet in this case the ad is so crude and lurid, and the message so remarkable, that its possible success is a depressing commentary on swing voters in this state. It suggests they are ready to scapegoat an entire industry and anyone associated with it for economic woes that have broad - indeed global - origins.
"As a politician and corporate oil executive, Bob Schaffer has had all of his fingers in big oil," the ad intones. It seems he has accepted campaign contributions from the industry and also voted for tax breaks for it while in Congress in 2001. In the ad's background,the viewer sees graphics of oil (or is it blood?) oozing ominously from a fingerprint and from the type on a page.
Are some Colorado voters so spooked by the rising price of oil that they consider anyone associated with the industry disreputable? That's the ad's basic thrust, which Atkinson believes the public is buying.
Schaffer - along with a majority in Congress - voted for tax breaks to foster oil and gas development during a year when the price per barrel of oil had been averaging $23 (as unlikely as that seems today). You can argue that those breaks are no longer justified given petroleum's current price, but offering tax breaks to promote energy is hardly a scandalous idea. In fact, the League of Conservation Voters wants more such breaks for its favorite energy sources.
After he left Congress, Schaffer went to work for a midsized independent oil and gas company (hardly Big Oil) that emphasizes the production of natural gas and pursues drilling opportunities on several continents. This sounds like an honorable profession to us. Those who disagree might want to shut off the utility lines to their house and see how they like relying on fireplaces and wood stoves next winter.
"Colorado deserves cleaner representation in the Senate," the ad concludes. Notice the double meaning of the word "cleaner," clearly deliberate, and thus another implicit smear.
Perhaps what Colorado really deserves is a Senate campaign that involves a serious discussion of energy issues rather than sleazy scapegoating. In pursuit of that goal, however, voters apparently won't get any help from the League of Conservation Voters.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 28, 2008
1:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
The Demonrats couldn't give a bucket of warm spit for what the average American needs. All they care about is power, whether it is good, bad or ugly. What they don't want is a robust, stable economy, because they would have no windmills to tilt. Their only choice is to have YOU miserable.
June 28, 2008
1:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Clyde, giving new meaning to the term "dittohead".
June 28, 2008
2:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Hardly, but if you wish to redefine "moron", be my guest.
June 28, 2008
6:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Bad ad. Of course so was the commercial depicting Bob Schaffer as a leader for renewable energy. His record has not shown that. Hopefully the public takes most advertising with a grain of salt and does their research on the candidates and issues. Especially this election.
June 28, 2008
6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
"an industry that has no intention to allow alternative energy to encroach on their record profits."
Foward69 you are not. Just how are they going to stop progress? That statement, like your politics, is silly.
June 28, 2008
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
So here we are complaining about politics in a political year! Surprise, surprise! As an independent who through the years has voted for Republicans, Democrats and independents, I love listening to first one side then the other complain about political ads against their candidate. In the last presidential race it was Republican "swiftboating". I didn't hear Republicans complaining about that. No, they were all gloating if I remember. So now, in this election we have the "big oil Bob" political ads and its the Republican's turn to cry foul.
Folks, propaganda is propaganda regardless of who shovels it. Only uneducated, lazy voters get their education about candidates and issues from paid propagandists. On top of it all, this stuff isn't even that good. Its so obviously slanted to one side or the other.
Both Republicans and Democrats need to be concerned about we independent voters this election. Ignore us at your peril, but if you are thinking that most of us are swayed by these ridiculous ads, I can at least say that I'm not. I tune this simple minded political static out completely and focus instead upon debates, issues, voting records and how the candidates conduct their campaigns. Forget the sound bites and concentrate instead upon what's important, we owe it to ourselves and our country to be educated voters, not manipulated fools.
June 28, 2008
8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
InterestedReader2 writes:
I have respect for Katy Atkinson. She's a smart political operative and she knows how to put the best spin on a fellow Republican's dismal polling. But what she obviously avoided talking about -- and the Rocky was apparently happy to oblige -- was any acknowledgment of other reasons for Schaffer's bad numbers. Might his poor showing have something to do with media coverage of his embarrassing trip to the Marianas Islands in 1999 on Jack Abramoff's dime? What about his linkage to the Bill Orr scandal closer to home, or his weakness in moderate Republican circles for having an arch-conservative record in Congress, or his largely silent campaign (mute, except for the occasional insult from Mr.Wadhams hurled at Schaffer's opponent, Mark Udall)? Maybe it's also just possible that Schaffer's poor showing has something to do with Mark Udall, who has been active in a bipartisan way in Congress (noted by the Rocky's own coverage) and who has been running a positive message on energy independence and national security in television ads for several weeks? Was it all just a "Big Oil" smear? I don't think so, and I'll bet neither does Katy Atkinson...
June 28, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
'Buying Into the Big Oil Smear' is in itself a little political, sensationalism headline. Seems like the RMN is a little guilty of bias too. Poor oil and gas industry really needs help from the Rocky to get its sympathy quota while the state regs are being debated.
June 28, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
As some of us continue to remind you Squatch, wind turbines and solar panels were never intended to deliver so much as "one single drop of oil." they are about electricity, not oil.
The editorial also had nothing or as you say: "That's zero, nada, zilch, 0." to do with any politicians other than Schaffer, and Udall. It had nothing to do with energy cost or the economy.
I think all you did was read the headline and not the editorial. Then you launched into your usual broken record rant. I've said it before, you have shown on rare occasion that you can do better. You should do better!
June 28, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dinty writes:
Finally, a prominent media outlet actually addresses the “big oil” smear campaign. Unfortunately, you are a voice in the wilderness. When did it become an accepted premise that “big oil” was considered a derogatory term? The problem is you have taken a sideways approach in your editorial. You act like your readers are smart enough to see through the distorted negative political ads, so it really doesn’t need to be rebutted. Wrong! The silent (moral and literate) majority is no more. It has become a silent minority. The bulk of the public is made up of lazy, gullible, naïve folks who think the Federal government is the answer to all social needs, and that big corporations are evil institutions. I guess that would automatically make them constituents of the Democrat party. I wonder where their misperception comes from? All they hear from the Democrats and the news media is doom-and-gloom and negative slants on every topic.
June 28, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
This editorial also mentions 'implicit smears and double meanings'. The headline of an article yesterday 'Survey: Colorado 29th worst for oil and gas business' is an example of just how these headlines are worded to influence a reader's opinion before they even read the article. The article failed to mention that New Mexico ranking fell from 24th to 33rd in par with Utah. Counties and states are beginning to add regulations because they see the threats to the environment if these industries are not controlled in a meaningful way.
The RMN also implies that if you seek regulations for industry then you must be against drilling, period. That you should go back to heating your home with a wood stove. That seems like a pretty implicit smear to me. Responsibility and accountability, whether it is oil and gas or wind generated, all of these industries will have certain problems with locating their sites and land use and the concerns of citizens need to be taken into account. Without the name calling please.
June 28, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dinty writes:
Soccermom,
You are "implying" that the oil industry is not regulated, or at least under regulated, today. Can you support that position with facts?
June 28, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
God morning from " Mr. wind-turbine-head"(actually it should be more Mr. conservation head).
Where did I say it wasn't about Udall and Schaffer? It just had nothing to do with Ritter and Salazar and Squatch can't get off that.
June 28, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
greenleaf, "Forget the sound bites and concentrate instead upon what's important, we owe it to ourselves and our country to be educated voters, not manipulated fools.", I fear you overestimate the voters of this once great nation. How often have you gone to a polling place and stood in line witnessing voters reading for the first time about ballot issues and referendums. To educate themselves would require effort, and they dont have the time or intelligence to pursue that, instead they get their "facts" from ads they half listened to while their microwave popcorn was popping. The price of gas is up, it must those bad nasty oil company's fault, lets really fix them and tax them out of our country, that will teach them. What happens when the only oil "we" get is from foreign company's? Nevermind that, the microwave popcorn is done, so ends their attention, and off to vote they go merrily in their ignorance, after all, they heard it on TV that oil company's are bad, and one party will "save" them.It takes a crisis for them to say what happened, I thought people were working on that, why weren't they? 5 minutes after the final tally is in, they forget what they for or against, and bury their heads again in more mundane matters, and the politicians smile and go about their pursuits, till the next "crisis" to save "us" from.
June 28, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
De-codong Boulder Liberal Mark Udall
Revenue enhancements = tax increases
Sustainable investment = more government spending as defined by the elites
Balanced investment = more government spending focused on those that choose not to have a job.
June 28, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
We live in a market economy. If the costs of renewables were competitive, they would not need to receive so many new tax payer or rate payer subsidies everytime we turn arond. The fact is, they are very expensive and un reliable. Even now in a time with high oil prices, they are not competitive without subsidies and government mandates. When you turn on your lights, you pay the freight for these new technolgies.
Conversely, because of misguided government actions, Oil Companys are off limits to the relatively cost effective off shore and ANWR reserves. In return, the government provides reasonable tax incentives to go after the remaining scraps of reserves left that are higher cost.
The rate of return of oil companies is also not out of line with other industries (~9%). They are not making an exorbidant rate of return, and the owners of the companys (stock holders, mutual funds, 401Ks) are getting a fair return on their investment.
I say reduce government interference at all levels and let the markets work.
June 28, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
Jacka,
4 1/2 lines to the point!
Love it!
Many can learn from you here...
June 28, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Dinty,
After spending 8 weeks in Stakeholder Group meetings with industry reps I am not implying that when it regards wildlife habitat the industry is under regulated, I am flat out saying that it is under regulated. I see no reason for industry not to work with the Division of Wildlife on seasonal timing restrictions to save Gunnison sage grouse lekking habitat.
June 28, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
I knew that you could do better! That's a well written, informative piece which I am still digesting. It still doesn't have much to do with the editorial but kudos anyway!
June 28, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
Has anybody here read Exxon Mobil's income statement?
Do you know what they're effective tax rate is?
How about their profit margins?
Economically speaking, do you pay more profit on your shampoo than your gas?
If you levy 'windfall profit taxes' on an industry that sells a commodity, who would bear the cost of those taxes?
June 28, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Dinty,
I doing this in shifts, lots of work to do. Anyway, Colorado is blessed with many different unique ecosystems that go beyond just prairies and mountains. For example, there are several rare plants that have evolved to survive in the extreme conditions within the shale barrens. A couple of these plants are endemic to Colorado and this particular ecosystem, so once they are destroyed they will be gone forever for everyone. What is wrong with having maps that are layered to show which habitats are the most critical to protect and have industry work with the DOW (for animals) and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (plants and invertebrates) to protect these areas while drilling? Seasonal timing, directional drilling, even the simple shift of an access road by 50 feet might save these threatened and rare species.
Also restoration of habitat after the drilling is completed should be to a high enough standard to ensure that invasives do not take hold. Records should be kept of chemicals that are in waste water that might possibly be released (intentionally or not) so communities know what they are dealing with. Just common sense things that could be easily addressed if all parties are willing to work together. Sorry, gotta run. Catch you on another forum another day.
June 28, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dinty writes:
Soccermom,
It so happens I am retired from a well-known Fed resources agency, so I recognize the new PC management lingo "Stakeholder Group". What a crock! I wasn't a treehugger, just a bean counter, so I understand what all of these "eight week meetings" costs the taxpayers. Sorry, but the Gunnison sage grouse just isn't on my top list of concerns when it comes to providing more oil. And, please tell my how and why it is threatened from current "big oil" practices.
June 28, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
The USA uses 14 million barrels of oil per day. The most promising cellulose enthanol crop being studied, switch grass, makes 15 ton of biomass per year. If the conversion was 1 ton of bio mass to 1 barrel of oil, (it's lower) we would need nearly 1 million acrea of land to produce one day's worth of oil. Or 340 million arces for our needs. That is a piece of land 730 miles by 730 miles. We need Big Oil, we need oil shale, we need cellulose ethanol and we need conservation. We don't need corn based ethanol which is the Obama, Ritter, Salazar, Udall solution.
What is Big Wind Mark Udall offering?
June 28, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
pak and SASQUATCH,
Excellent posts.
The Democrats are presenting a false choice. We need actions on many fronts (oil and natural gas development, coal to gas, refinery expansion, rationalization of environmental rules, restrictions of third party lawsuits by environmentalists, alternative energy development, and nuclear plant development). With high prices, we do not need mandates on biofuels and alternative energy. Mandates only lead to boodoggles such as corn based ethanol. Private investment on oil and natural gas development does not preclude investment in other areas. Alternative energy may take decades to have any impact. If we do not develop traditional fuels in the meantime, our economy may not produce enough growth to develop the alternative technologies.
I also appeal to the humanitarian side of the Democrats. The poor and middle class will be most affected by the high energy prices. Private development of traditional fuels is the best option to lower energy prices in the short term and grow the economy. Many school district budgets are in severe problems because of the high diesel prices. The additional energy provided from our own energy sources can help keep world energy prices lower to help the poor in other countries.
Democrat solutions of energy market regulation, windfall profits taxes, energy development restrictions, OPEC lawsuits, and price gouging restrictions are idiotic. These policies will decrease energy supplies and have unforseen negative consequences. The obvious solution is to increase supply. Relaxing restrictions on energy development will lead to more supply with just minor environmental concerns.
If you think that oil and natural gas prices are too high, do not vote for any Democrat. The Democrat policies will lead to higher energy prices and lower employment levels.
June 28, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Another Democratic idea is mandating compact fluorescent lights or CFLs. CFLS work and they save money, however they have big downside. The mandate worries me. Here is why.
I worked my way thru college selling paint back east. During that time we as a nation had an active program to removed lead from paint because poor inner city kids were eating paint chips and getting brain damage. Now we will be requiring the same poor people to bring mercury incased in a fragile glass tube into their homes in the form of CFLs.
Most people know smoking is bad for you, they know that condoms protect you from STDs, don't shake a baby and don't leaves kids in a hot car, but a large segment of the population, mostly poor and uneducated engage in these risky behaviors. Every year poor kids die because of ignorant parents. Now these same parents will be required by the government to bring mercury into their homes, to save the polar bears. How many will follow EPA guide lines for disposal?
How many will be and be cleaned up using a vacuum cleaner or broom? How many will throw then in the trash when they are done. Forcing a product into the home that contains a hazardous material that and is by nature very fragile could be considered by some to be morally reprehensible.
The Democrats and environmental movement are very hard on poor people. They raises prices, limits supplies and now will subject them to a very real health hazards.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
June 28, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
I totally agree, Cellulosic ethanol by itself is only maybe a 10% part of the solution. Even adding algae based biodiesel might only bring us to 15%. Conservation is important too, but, again, only part of the answer. I do believe that electrical based transportation systems may be a bigger part of the answer than than oil in the future. That opens the possibility of tapping a far wider range of power sources from nuclear to wind, solar, geothermal. Oil will definitely be a part of the answer for the for seeable future, but I don't think that it forever needs to be, can be or should be the majority player. Accordingly, I think that oil shale is as bankrupt a concept as corn ethanol.It requires vast amounts of waterand many large power plants supplying the required electricity. If that electricity is supplied by coal, studies have indicated that up to 10 large coal plants would be required. That's a lot of surface disruption, oil based train transport and in general, up-front energy consumption before one barrel of oil can be produced. I say spend the money on alternatives, conservation and some additional drilling before investing in as wasteful a concept as oil shale.
Once switch grass ethanol is available politicians on both sides will jump on that bandwagon. Right now the big agriculture lobby has politicians on both sides "over the barrel".
June 28, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Greenleaf,
I assume that you believe competative PV are possible given time and research. That takes a leap of faith, it is hardly new technology. But the PV industry claims that they will someday be competative. Why don't you have the same faith in Shell's claim that they can make Oil Shale work? We believe the climate scientists, we believe the wind producers and we trust the solar industry. Is it just "Big oil" that can't be trusted to do something like say find new sources of oil? It is their field after all. They are investing their own capital why would you question the a company that's only goal is to make a profit wants to invest so much time and money into a venture that will loss money?
June 28, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
froward: "an industry that has a documented history of quashing alternative sources of energy.", "an industry that has no intention to allow alternative energy to encroach on their record profits"
Study, by Roger Donway, Thomas Tanton and Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
Oil and Gas Industry Investment in Emerging Energy Technologies:
To help meet projected U.S. energy demand growth of 34% in the next two decades, U.S. oil and gas companies invested $98 billion from 2000 through 2005 on emerging energy technologies in the North American market3 (Figure ES-1). This expenditure is 73% of the estimated total of $135 billion spent by U.S. companies and the Federal government. Of the industry investments, $86 billion (or 88% of the $98 billion total) were directed toward frontier hydrocarbons. The ability of major oil companies to upgrade inferior grades of oil (tar and oil sands, heavy oil) into refinery feedstock, and to turn waste and residue hydrocarbons (gasification including hydrogen production) into high-value products, is a natural extension of the industry’s expertise.
Yet, U.S. oil and gas industry investments go beyond frontier hydrocarbons. In addition, the industry invested $11 billion (or 11% of the $98 billion total) for advanced end-use technologies, mostly for efficiency improvements through combined heat and power (cogeneration) and for advanced-technology vehicles using fuel-cell technology. Significantly, this $11 billion investment in end-use technologies represents 35% of the estimated total amount ($31 billion) spent by U.S. companies and the Federal government in this.
Where is your "documented history"?
June 28, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
I agree that mandating CFLs was stupid and unnecessary. They were finally gaining traction on their own through market forces and economies of mass production.
I think though to say that environmentalists don't care about poor people is a false duality. These bulbs will save huge amounts of money for poor people. It is not only an environmental concept but a fiscally sound concept. In fact, its one of the cheapest and easiest things anyone can do to lower their utility bill.
As for mercury, yes that is a concern. However, it is being blown out of all proportion to the tiny amount of mercury each bulb contains. The mercury coats the entire inside of the bulb and would never be released all at one time. I understand too that the amount in each bulb is smaller than the head of a pin. long tube florescent bulbs have been in wide use around the world in businesses, schools, hospitals, warehouses, grocery stores and, yes, in homes for 6o years now. You don't hear the uproar about the mercury they contain, which is several times greater than that in CFLS. Public education is essential and people should be encouraged to recycle them ( Ace, Homebase and others take them back now and other options will be in place soon) or to wrap them in newspaper when throwing them out.
"Every year poor kids die because of ignorant parents." Yes and they find far more ways to injure and disadvantage their children every year. They are the threat to their children, not CFL bulbs.
June 28, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
trythinking, nice post at 10:52. Something about corn based ethanol that I think gets missed is that corn is a thirsty plant and the western U.S. already has a water shortage. What's more environmentally responsible, saving as much water as possible and having a little more pollution in the air or using up water and in the process of making and using ethanol, put almost as much pollution in the atmosphere as fuel? Water is an absolute must for animal life to survive.
I'm not big on either candidate for this seat, but I'll vote for Schaffer based on Udall's people putting out false or misleading ads, and because he's from Boulder and that's more than enough. I wonder if Udall's people won't vote for Obama since Obama says he's against corporate welfare but voted for it in 2005?
Something that crosses my mind about oil shale, trythinking, is that in Canada the oil is in sand and oil companies are extracting it (saw a piece on Modern Marvels about Caterpillar and the oil extraction using Cat trucks, etc.). In a sense, it's helping the environment since the oil is being removed and it means less contamination in the ground. Couldn't the same be said of oil shale?
June 28, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Good point Brain,
The problem with the greens is that the investment by Big Oil in alternative is to make a profit. BP is a major player in PV development and wind power as are many of the bad guy corporations. Those profits are bad. Al Gore's profits selling carbon credits and those are good profits because he isn't doing it for the money, but for the good of the planet. (Sorry I threw up in my mouth). One group produces something valuable and invests its money in alternatives. The other produces nothing, takes from the host creature (consumers) and claims the high ground. Dems can only make a profit those legislation, mandates and subsidies. One group's books are a matter of public record, the other group does business in secret. One is a producer of goods and services and other is a parasite.
June 28, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
I have to be quick now, other matters are pressing. I have faith that the oil companies can, indeed, find a way to make oil shale profitable. My complaint is the same I have for corn ethanol, it requires vast amounts of other energy and similar amounts of water to make it feasible. It's an energy wasting concept. It offends the fiscal conservative in me as much as the environmentalist. Just because it, like corn ethanol, can be done doesn't mean it should be.
I am reasonably sure that you don't believe man is a cause of Global Warming, but I do believe man plays at least some part. Therefore in addition to my efficiency concerns regarding the oil-shale process, I have concerns about CO2 and other pollutants that are also a part of that process( I haven't heard how the industry plans to mitigate that - maybe you have?).
June 28, 2008
1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
greenleaf,
Technologies are being deployed to reduce 600-MW coal power plants mercury emissions to less than 10 lbs per year. How much mercury will be put into the environment from discarded CFLs?
Big oil will only find a solution that works, because they answer to share holders. If the process is un-economical they quit, unlike the corn based ethanol industry that gets subsidized.
Have a good rest of the weekend.
Cwilly,
Who would you bet on solving the oil problems, the folks that gave us corn based ethanol or the companies that make billions by developing monster drilling platforms that hold up in the North Sea, slant drilling, enhance oil recover or that designed and build the Alaskan pipeline? Are you a betting man (woman)?
Just the fact that Bob Schaffer knows that we don't displace oil with wind turbines should be enough for any voter. Udall is an environmental lawyer!!!! They are the parasite’s parasite. They produce nothing but lawsuits against the people supplying our energy.
June 28, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Given current events the LCV ads may be appropriate.Some type of pendulum has reversed course and is now swinging back.The state's hunter/conservationists have for too long relied on one political party.Now that they have been targeted as the new "extremists" (of the environmental kind)by this political party,anything could happen.When it comes down to it,I would resign NRA membership and accept primitive black powder/bow hunting only if it meant keeping the resource and experience intact.The bullets are whistling...keep your head down!
June 28, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Given current events the LCV ads may be appropriate.Some type of pendulum has reversed course and is now swinging back.The state's hunter/conservationists have for too long relied on one political party.Now that they have been targeted as the new "extremists" (of the environmental kind)by this political party,anything could happen.When it comes down to it,I would resign NRA membership and accept primitive black powder/bow hunting only if it meant keeping the resource and experience intact.The bullets are whistling...keep your head down!
June 28, 2008
1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Trythinking, thanks you also make a good point. The reward for finding/producing a viable alternative is PROFIT, what will drive me the most in doing things that are better for the environment is saving me money and providing me with a good value. Most of the "green" crap is also to make a buck but will have little or no effect on the environment (carbon credits not a good value).
Bob Schafer is a good candidate; he did keep his term limit promise.
June 28, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ofearghail writes:
Both sides spin out their negative ads. Both sides lie out their teeth. But there is no doubt that the left is much, much more venomous and has a much greater disregard for the truth. And these days they have a lot more money to burn in creating these lies to turn the simple-minded voters to their side. The whole 527 phenomenon is gutting American politics and turning our elections into something Stalin would love; he with the most power (as in money) can blanket the electorate with his propaganda, unchecked by regulation or decency. It's amazing that in a country that is supposed to stand for justice and rule of law, it is permissible for complete lies to be promulgated without any requirement for honesty and integrity.
June 28, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Frank25 writes:
Note to John Temple and Vincent Carroll. Meet with your political reporters and question why they cannot just report the news without the gossip, or spinning the article against the conservative. Born in Ohio, entered service in 1950, bought Aurora home in 1963, moved back to it after retirement in 1976. Registerd as Republican so I could support Mary Estelle Buchanen, when Republican party was supporting a dipstick, same as democratic candidate. I lost faith with both major parties, becoming unaffiliated voter in. POST and NEWS writers spin to the left (liberal). I subscribe to trusted magazines, and browse netsites that report the facts, without spin, and form my own opinion. Also buy books or check out at library. At age 79, I can't afford clones of Jimmy Carter who initiated problems in Iran and Panama. Or Kennedy who removed our missiles from Europe giving Russia and Cuba the victory, since we have problems in Europe since then, and still Castro brothers off our shore, Bill Clinton considered attacks against our military and WTC 1993 as police actions, giving OBL and SADDM idea we would not take aciton. In 2001, the invitation was accepted, we lost WTC and 3,000 people, portion of Pentaon where I lost 2 retired friends, and passengers on all 4 planes. Reporters must help us choose stron Presidents and Candidates at all levels who accept advice from those who really know, not the opinion holders, and stick to program when decision has been made. Appeasers who change mind, flip-flop after election create a void where they and our country cannot be trusted. Whether I like this administration is inmaterial, since the decisions have been made, and info is posted on White House website, and at other appropriate websites, and it has been constant in supporting treaties and agreements with allies, U.N., NATO, and other organizations. Not like House or Senate where incumbents have luxury of voting for, before voting against. We don't need appeasers, or cut and runners.
June 28, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
Schaffer can't even recognize Pikes Peak in his own commercial. Wake Up! He's just another tool of the ultra wealthy elite, trying to pose as a local.
Reject More Failure. Reject Republican candidates, especially this loser.
June 28, 2008
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Udall
Schafer
X none of the above.
June 28, 2008
7:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
It is good politics to claim Obama is a muslim, went to a madrasa, is not married, is not christian and anything else that might influence voters.
It is all wrong to claim that Shafer is a tool of big oil, or that McCain is far to popular in Vietnam, or anything else that might influence voters.
RMN simply has no creditability as a political commentator.
June 28, 2008
9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
galty writes:
Sweetpickle: turn on the TV: it is not flooded with ads claiming any of those things about Obama.
It is flooded with vicious smears about Bob Schaffer.
What a crock: Schaffer works on wind for an independent natural gas producer and Udall's people think the voters are stupid enough to equate that with Big Oil. At least Big Oil is working every day to produce more oil while they and everyone else are trying to create alternatives. The guys who control the oil are the OPEC governments and the ones causing out-of-control consumption are governments (China, Nigeria, Venezuela,etc etc) who try to buy popularity with heavily subsidized petroleum prices. Instead of dealing with these real problems, Udall is just trying to suit up a stock villain. The only solution I've seen him come up with is to promote drilling in Cuban waters, while preventing it a mile away in Florida.
June 29, 2008
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Trythinking,
At the moment, coal power plant emissions are still the major source of the mercury pollution that ultimately ends up in lakes and oceans to contaminate many fish species which we consume. I am glad to know that plans are in place that will ultimately reduce the contamination. Do you know when this will be accomplished and what the pounds per plant rate is at the moment? I'm just curious.
From what I have read CFL bulbs contain less than 1/100 of an ounce of mercury in their coating. Assuming that, 16,000 discarded bulbs would release into the environment the equivalent mercury to the plant you describe with mercury filtration. So, on the face of it, it sounds like a far larger potential source for mercury pollution.
There are some differences ,however,: CFL bulbs will end up buried in landfills and not broadcast across the environment as coal plant pollution is. Also recycling programs are already gearing up for these long lived bulbs which won't be entering the waste stream in great numbers for another 3- 5 years. Hopefully by then, recycling will be convenient and mainstream. We have been throwing long tube fluorescents into the landfills for years and , as yet, I have heard nothing about mercury problems that have resulted from the buried mercury. It is buried in the earth's crust anyway albeit in a more stable form. Also, for the moment, by significantly cutting energy consumption they save many pounds of coal from being burned and releasing mercury in the first place.
I think that the ultimate solution to the mercury in CFLS lies in the next wave of lighting, LEDS and diffuse panel lighting. Both technologies use far less electricity than even the stingy CFLS and they have no mercury whatsoever. Unfortunately, LEDS are still very expensive and diffuse panels are still in R+D. Replace your old Christmas lights with Leds. They are far superior, lasting 100,000 hours and using 1/14th the energy of the incandescents.
June 29, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kilroy writes:
When heating our homes costs 60% more next winter because the pipeline east is moving the natural gas from the western slope we should all just bow our heads and be grateful it's not 100% more, right? Now is the time to howl, people. When the gas is leaving or has left it will be too late. If you don't complain now hold your peace when your bill jumps some more.
June 29, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Dinty,
There are several studies regarding the impacts of the oil and gas industry on sage grouse. I copied a few comments below, if you truly interested, a short web search can answer you question more fully. This was from a study conducted in 2006, so it is not a new source of concern for wildlife managers. While sage grouse may not be a concern of yours, it is a major source of concern for a lot of other people. I'm curious, what kind of beans did you count?
The study was conducted by University of Wyoming doctoral student Matthew Holloran for his dissertation. It was paid for by the Bureau of Land Management, the state Game and Fish Department and oil and gas companies.
Holloran wrote that he found that sage grouse appear to avoid leks, traditional courting grounds where males compete for females, the closer they are to oil and gas activity. He found declines in breeding males in leks within 3.1 miles of drilling rigs.
In addition, he said the affects on grouse behavior and populations continued even after oil and gas activity ended.
This study was conducted within a roughly 420-square-mile area in the upper Green River Basin near Pinedale in western Wyoming.
The BLM has acknowledged that sage grouse can be affected by oil and gas development. Since 2000, the agency has imposed various operating restrictions on drilling activity in the vicinity of sage grouse leks and has required companies to closely monitor any impacts on wildlife.
However, Holloran concluded that the BLM's current policies aren't enough.
"I suggest that current imposed development stipulations are inadequate to protect greater sage grouse, and that stipulations need to be modified to maintain populations within natural gas fields," Holloran wrote.
Perhaps you can answer my question, do Colorado rare plants deserve protection from the impacts of drilling? Do you think trout streams deserve more or less protection? How much?
June 29, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Dinty,
Also, as long as you think these Stakeholder Group meetings are a waste of tax money, do you think that the citizens of Colorado don't have a right to participate in the rulemaking process? Shall we just rely on the type of closed door meetings that our current Administration uses to form energy policies?
June 29, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
YellowCatRedCat writes:
It kills me how so many of you still don't know the difference between a plural and a possessive, or the difference between "you're" and "your." It's especially ironic when you're trying to play the part of an educated elitist: "stupid Democrats (or should I say "Democrat's") don't know anything!"
June 30, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, you still cite NO facts, opinion and "falsisms" repeated often do not make facts, if an oil company researched, and produced, and patented an alterative viable energy source, why wouldnt they market, especially if it was easier and more cost effective to produce, oh, wait, they are republicans, right?