Skip to main content

At Grist, Philip Bump writes Fossil-fuel extraction on public land yields massive economic boom, kind of:

Good news from the L.A. Times:
Energy development on public lands and waters pumped more than $12 billion into federal coffers in 2012, $1 billion more than the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“These revenues reflect significant domestic energy production under President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy and provide a vital revenue stream for federal and state governments and American Indian communities,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement.

Yes! Win win win win win. Winners all around. Lots of cash money/moolah just pouring out of the ground like so much crude oil, thanks to the president’s staunch commitment to fossil fuels. Everyone line up for your cut! [PDF]

Just such good news. But we need to do a smidgen of accounting work here.

So: $12 billion in profits from fossil-fuel extraction, great. Of course, $4 billion of that goes back to oil companies in subsidies, so it’s really more like $8 billion. Oh, plus another billion or so to the coal industry. So $7 billion. Still good!

We should also probably consider that the use of those fossil fuels results in $120 billion in healthcare costs each year. In 2009, 35 percent of U.S. healthcare spending was from Medicare and Medicaid [PDF]. Thirty-five percent of $120 billion is $42 billion. Hm.

And then there’s that $50 billion that Obama is seeking to repair damage from Hurricane Sandy. But let’s take only the $5 billion the New York area Metropolitan Transportation Authority needs due to the flooding that was certainly made worse by climate change. Don’t want to be unrealistic, after all!

So, let me get out the adding machine here … Boom. Done. That brilliant all-of-the-above energy approach has indirectly resulted in a rock-solid economic benefit of negative $40 billion to the U.S. economy. [...]


Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2011Joe Walsh reportedly offered $3.5 million in election help to switch districts:

Wow. I've been mystified as to why Joe Walsh, the most visible trainwreck of the Republican freshman class, changed his mind and decided to seek reelection in the heavily-Democratic 8th CD rather than in the very red 14th where he'd long been planning to run. Walsh got deliciously screwed in redistricting and wasn't left with a lot of good options: The 14th is also home to fellow GOPer Randy Hultgren, so that would have meant a major primary battle. But the redrawn 8th isn't really a district that Republicans have much of a shot in, especially baggage-laden out-and-proud tea partiers.

But it looks like we might finally have our explanation:

Walsh — lured by the thought of an easier primary and the promise, according to top Illinois GOP officials who requested anonymity and influential Barrington Republican Jack Roeser, of $3.5 million in general election fundraising help from House Speaker John Boehner — will now make a bid in the recently drawn 8th District, roughly centered in Schaumburg and including Addison, Elk Grove, Hanover and Wheeling townships.
Again, wow. Does Joe Walsh really think this money will be there for him? It's not like he'd even have much of a chance at victory even with such a huge infusion of coin, but I guess he's stupid enough to believe he might get it. However, I can't believe Boehner would be stupid enough to spend this kind of cash—or any cash—on a guy like Walsh in a district like this. And forget about the general election—Walsh might need the dough for the primary.

Tweet of the Day:

I put on a Grateful Dead song and my 5 year old said, "That sounds like video game music."

He's in time-out forever.
@RexHuppke via web






Every Monday through Friday you can catch the Kagro in the Morning Show 9 AM PT by dropping in here, or you can download the Stitcher app (found in the app stores or at Stitcher.com), and find a live stream there, by searching for "Netroots Radio."


High Impact Posts. Week's High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:30 PM PST.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  642,678 registered users on dKos now. (18+ / 0-)

    Here are the 10 newest registered users on dKos.  Hope to see their comments and diaries here soon!  (If they're not all spammers.)

    Karlene
    julievbb
    unlOckiphOne44s (user #642,671: spammer)
    wren5plate
    pasquinocomb49
    skingbird (user #642,674)
    sumariekingbird (user #642,675)
    bwmqqq36
    girdlesudan4
    weight64crack


    And since our society is obsessed with numbers that end in a lot of zeros as milestones, here's a special shoutout to user #642,600: l3vypaul (spammer).

    We've added 106 more users in the last 24 hours.  This is a continuation going back to May where we've been absolutely flooded with new users.  I'm pretty sure almost all of these new users are spammers or bots.  While the rate had been getting faster, it seems they suddenly started slowing down right when Hurricane Sandy hit.  It slowed down to under 1,000 new users in a 24-hour period, and now we're back down to about 200 new users every 24 hours or so.  What were they planning?


    And for your Diary Rescue music pleasure, here's Improv Everywhere's "Mall Santa Musical".

  •  Congratulate me. I just heard from SS. (14+ / 0-)

    If I were working 40 hours a week, come January I'd be making 12.5 cents more per hour than at present. Twenty whole dollars a month.
    Am I bad? I must be. People I don't even know have spent millions telling me that I am, and who am I to argue with that?
    I suppose it's too late to do anything about it, though.

    Well, except to congratulate my sorry ass.

    Fuck Big Brother...from now on, WE'RE watching.

    by franklyn on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:31:40 PM PST

  •  Everyone should watch... (14+ / 0-)

    the Nat Geo show Seconds from Disaster, which carefully details major disasters in recent world history, and the chain of events that went horribly wrong that led to disaster.  With manmade things, there's almost always some regulation that a corporation wanted to skip to reduce costs, and lack of oversight from that evil government the Republicans and libertarians always want to cut back on.

    Well, folks, this is what happens without regulations, when you let private industry dictate the rules.  Here's the entire episode about the Deepwater Horizon explosion, looking at how it actually happened despite the checks they have in place.

    Many of the episodes are available in full on YouTube.  Watch them while thinking about what could have been done to prevent those disasters from happening, and in almost every case, it's government that could've mandated some extra check or regulation to stop the disaster.  And usually, they DID end up stepping in, but only after the disaster happened and hundreds of people died.

    These episodes also show why the Ron Paul crowd is delusional when they think corporations will police themselves, or that the public will shame them into good business and safety practices by ourselves.

  •  Ok, tonights tweet, I really like (15+ / 0-)

    But you knew that already, I'm sure.

    :D




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:34:49 PM PST

  •  If we were to... (19+ / 0-)

    strip mine the fiscal cliff, that'd solve two problems at once, would it not?

  •  That tweet made my day. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, Aunt Pat, commonmass, DeadHead, WSComn
  •  I cannot help but think (12+ / 0-)

    that as a nation, American voters are allowing themselves to be thrown to the wolves, one failed idea at a time.

    We're hearing here in Maine about the possibility of sending tar sands products from Canada through an existing pipeline (which runs the other way). Mostly crickets. I wonder, what will the Great Environmentalist Angus King have to say about it when he gets to the Senate? While we're somewhat relieved that he'll "mostly" caucus with the Democrats, I'm wondering, who will caucus with the Earth?

    I am gay, and I'm getting married in the Episcopal Church, just like my great-grandmother did.

    by commonmass on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:49:36 PM PST

  •  Dear Prudence (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, nellgwen, DeadHead, randallt

    To this day I can't explain why I like The Jerry Garcia Band's version of Dear Prudence over the Beatles original.

    Maybe 'cause it's like 9 freaking minutes long.  Regardless...
    Yeah... Time Out For Life for the wee tyke.  No doubt.

    "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say." - Robert Hunter

    by WSComn on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:02:03 PM PST

  •  We've sank the Hokey Smoke. (10+ / 0-)

    Bacon you'll fry for this.

    I found this the other day. A short documentary about The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. It's not the greatest documentary in the world but it's amusing.
      And it did talk about some things I did not know like Peabody was fashioned after Clifton Webb.
      And at one time Jay Ward had a signed petition he took to Washington D.C. to get Moosylvania official statehood. Unfortunately the day he went was the first days of the Cuban missile crisis so he was "encouraged" to leave the White House grounds immediately.

    Of Moose and Men.

    Princess Bubbles?
    Tune in next time for Woman Overboard or
    One Good Stern Deserves Another.

    "Too much. There's too much fucking perspective now." David St. Hubbins

    by nellgwen on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:02:10 PM PST

  •  and Aqualung is Muzac nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WSComn, nellgwen, commonmass, DeadHead

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:04:28 PM PST

  •  T Boone Pickens' strategy was never about... (6+ / 0-)

    filling the federal coffers. The "all of the above" meme has always been about diverting as much political force away from renewables as possible, while engaging in enough feel-good jibbering to make everyone think we're somehow "moving in the right direction".

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:05:23 PM PST

  •  bottom line regarding "public land rights" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, JeffW

    be they mineral rights, mining or timbering rights, grazing rights or other "rights" where private interests get to exploit public resources (because that is what they are) is frequently bargain basement historically.
    this is due to lackadaisical enforcement, a frequently slanted bidding process and sadly public corruption has allowed the rape of resources that are ultimately nonrenewing.

    As noted, even worse, the very exploiters frequently are rewarded for their behavior through grants and favorable tax treatment.

    In the past, when elected officials and bureaucrats failed, there were nonprofit watchdog groups which could be counted on to blow the whistle on the most egregious outrages.

    I am not so sure that is true any more with some of the the larger environmental organizations  

    •  Well, this: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN
      even worse, the very exploiters frequently are rewarded for their behavior through grants and favorable tax treatment.
      Exploitation, tarted up with high rhetoric and ideology, of workers and resources, is clearly nothing new. What IS new is that after a brief blip between about 1880 and 1980 is that increasingly, workers (especially) seemingly are open to it. As long--I suppose--as it's not in their back yard. Where the environment is concerned, it's going to be in people's back yards sooner rather than later. As an optimist, I don't think it will be "too late" to ameliorate the damage (though too late to reverse much of it, clearly). It will, however, eventually, be "too late" for the exploiters. They invite intentional action in the face of this exploitation, which often is ugly, and history tells us that they whine about it all the way to the firing squad.

      I am gay, and I'm getting married in the Episcopal Church, just like my great-grandmother did.

      by commonmass on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:16:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "negative $40 billion to the U.S. economy." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sky Net, AaronInSanDiego, condorcet

    seriously misleading.  The assumption of that little bit of arthmatic was that for some reason only the 12 billion that went to federal taxes was the ONLY contribution to U.S. economy. That is not a reasonable assumption. Not even close.  

    I do not use/own a car but.....

    Imagine taking away all of your gas. Not just yours but all gas available. No public transport no private transport. just no gas period.

    Can you or the average american get to work? No? Can you get to your Dr?  Can your Dr get to their office? Can you get to the grocery store? Can food get to the grocery store?

    There is going to be a lot more damage to the economy than the tax you paid on your tank of gas........

    Philip Bump's post is just a silly meaningless rant with no real discourse value. .

    •  it would take a lot of restructuring (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      given the American shift to mobility following WWII but the situation you describe was the reality for the US a century ago.
      Maybe moving Americans and their work and shopping to neighborhoods again instead of out of city limits malls might be a good thing and something to look at

      •  And what energy source(s)... (0+ / 0-)

        ...would we use to make this happen?

        And how about rural areas, where the food is grown?

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:32:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mankind managed this for 8000 years (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

          without an oil based society and there are still nations today which accomplish this.  I would point out urban dwellers used to raise their own livestock and veggies and such, even as late as the 1930's

          •  You either have a city environment... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead, AaronInSanDiego

            ...or a country environment. Which is it? Rearranging the cityies would take energy and cost money.

            Mt wife and I live presently on a 25'-4"X126' lot in Chicago. One of many in a 660'X330' block. Some lots have 2-flats. I doubt there's enough space for a decent small garden on most of them. The City does allow you to keep chickens, but you can't breed them or butcher them.

            Next year, we hope to move to our 40-acre mini-farm. We'll need some sort of conveyance to get to town for business. Maybe a horse cart? We're planning to install a wind turbine, but how will we get the parts in your future?

            Some of those nations you mention are trying to claw their way into the 21st Century, like India. Others suffer from wars over resources and land. Where will we bury all the bodies if we go that route?

            Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

            by JeffW on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:52:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  check out square foot gardening which used (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

              to be available from Rodale Press for ideas on growing your own and cutting trips to corporate supermarkets

            •  Actually, space isn't the real problem. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JeffW, DeadHead
              My wife and I live presently on a 25'-4"X126' lot in Chicago. One of many in a 660'X330' block. Some lots have 2-flats. I doubt there's enough space for a decent small garden on most of them.
              It's lack of sunlight.  Between trees and buildings, a vegetable garden wouldn't get enough sun to be decently productive.  
              The City does allow you to keep chickens, but you can't breed them or butcher them.
              People would notice if you had a rooster, but who's gonna know if you whack the occasional chicken?
              Next year, we hope to move to our 40-acre mini-farm. We'll need some sort of conveyance to get to town for business. Maybe a horse cart?
              Ox cart, for the local 800-person town.  Electric car, for the county seat.
              We're planning to install a wind turbine, but how will we get the parts in your future?
              Electric train to nearby, ox cart for the last few miles.  

              Renewable energy brings national global security.     

              by Calamity Jean on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 09:15:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You'll find out, probably in your own lifetime. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          Fossil fuel prices will keep continuing to climb, as the sources continue to get harder and harder to extract.  And expect more deep sea drilling accidents, more mountains beyond the 500 already destroyed by mountaintop coal removal, more water tables polluted by fracking whose production drops by 9% within a year...

          We'll either find renewable resources and switch to them, or it's right back to that pre-automobile existence for all but the extremely wealthy.

      •  There are many things (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, condorcet

        which can be done to reduce the need for fossil fuel. But my main point was that the original author's argument is simply bull.

        I personally use the train every day with no car use at all and live less than 2 miles away from my job. I like the model of work being close to your home.

        However that simply is not an option for many industries. Heavy industry and agriculture come to mind.

        •  I live on the farm which I own and which produces (3+ / 0-)

          various products; I am unaware of any of my neighbors with a substantial commute to work.  It is usually measured in feet and not miles

          •  I do (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW

            imagine that there is substantial effort involved with getting to whatever particular field needs work on a given day. And or the delivery of said products. Additionally I imagine there is significant effort needed to have supplies delivered on site.

            Above are indeed not considered part of the daily commute but I feel they are still part of the general issue of trying to  have small centralized work/life environments.

             

            •  actually most of the work is done in fields (2+ / 0-)

              surrounding the home and most of the product is used at home.  As late as the 1940s, many small farmers remained largely self sufficient, selling enough products locally to generate cash to pay taxes.  My grandfather used to make annual trips to the ocean to boil seawater for salt.
              But what do I know?  I have only been farming for 45 or so years...........

              •  I wonder why there isn't a DK group (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                entlord, Calamity Jean

                for farmers (and gardeners to learn from the farmers ;).  Lord knows I wouldn't mind picking your and farmerchuck's brains on agricultural issues.  And the site really could use a base from which those actually affected by agricultural legislation and budgetary issues could speak.  and I'm sure there's more than just the two of you around.

                •  maybe part of the reason is the average age of (3+ / 0-)

                  American farmers is about 62 now or that many of us who are old enough to remember that other era (I remember running with a pig's bladder on a stick as a balloon or using it as a float on the iron pot of boiling water on slaughter days) are now too stove up to really participate more than sporadically.

                  However a farming group is a stroke of genius I would say; if someone would care to set it, I would certainly participate

    •  not really (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      it is the accounting of the public costs not borne by the industry. The benefits you cite are all privatized to the company that gets value from selling the oil or coal.  

      Yes, they aren't the "economy" which includes the private economic activity, but they are the net costs born by the public at large and so represent the subsidy to the company in the form of externalities the company does not have to compensate for.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:35:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the author meant that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, Sky Net, condorcet

        Then they would also need to take into consideration the tax revenue the fed gets from all the economic activity.

        The author does not do that....

        For some reason  I think that additional tax revenue would amount to a lot larger number than 40 billion... or even 200 billion.

        Ofc the government is probably going to end up short somewhere.... if we were not....we would not have a deficit.

        •  That's a good point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          The tax revenue (if any, since a lot of large companies pay no taxes or very little) does need to be in the equation.

          You have a great point that this kind of accounting is pretty complicated to get right.

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:53:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes big companies are (0+ / 0-)

            tax cheats more or less.

            But hell the fed would loose out on my  X0,000 a year I pay in income taxes, if there were no fossil fuels. That goes for just about every American.

            Obviously this sudden take away situation is extreme itself, however, this thought experiment was just to show these fossil fuels do play a extremely important role as a economic lubricator.

            •  not quite (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

              US Suppliers aren't the only place to get fuels.  Also, if companies were to pay for the costs they impose, fuels would still be available.  Thus, the idea that but for the subsidy the economy would stop isn't really that realistic or accurate.

              Besides, there are still bicycles in the world.

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:27:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well, there is also the income tax (0+ / 0-)

            from their thousands of employees.

            "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

            by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:44:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't think we would still need thousands (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mindful Nature

              of employees if we had to switch to different fuel types?

              The point of the author was that these specific fuel resources have additional economic burdens above and beyond what other fuel types might, economically.  Certainly, if we switched subsidies over to renewables, we'd have the same subsidy costs to factor in.  But we wouldn't necessarily have the same healthcare and pollution costs, unless, like 'NNadir' you always burn strawmen (biomass) as your 'renewable'.

              •  Um, um, um... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                O112358, SpeedyGonzales

                While it is true that I often make the point that the external costs of biomass burning are huge, and often cite World Health Organization figures and the primary scientific literature to show this, a nuanced view - which I certainly don't expect to receive - would show that I object to almost all of the so called renewables on differing grounds.    I hardly limit my objections to straw (switch grass or other kinds).

                If you look, for instance, you will see that I have raised the point of lanthanide mining and cadmium mining for the low energy density approaches that are so popular in the "rote-think" community, where solar and wind are supposed to save our asses, our assinine asses, our uneducated asses, and general asses all included.

                Except, from what I observed when my power got turned back on after hurricane Sandy, our asses have not been saved.

                I not only object to so called "renewables" on external cost grounds, however, but also on internal costs grounds, since I actually give a rat's ass about poor people and their ability to pay for energy.    

                I actually think it matters to poor people whether their electricity costs as much as French electricity or German electricity, the latter being 3 times as high as the former.

                I also hold the ridiculous opinion that a few thousand deaths (at most) from nuclear related energy technologies over a six decade period beginning in the 1950's is irrelevant when one considers the hundreds of millions of people who have died from air pollution since the first commercial reactors started in 1954.

                Finally I object to so called "renewable energy" rhetoric because it generates far more complacency and wishful thinking than energy.

                There are zero countries that have phased out any fossil fuel because of renewable energy.

                And in fact, there are former renewable energy countries (read, um, Norway) that can't drill oil and gas fast enough.

                I also object to so called "renewable energy" on the grounds that they are, in fact, not really sustainable, because, again, of energy density issues.

                The word "renewable" is, in fact, if you consider the question even on a cursory basis - something most people are preternaturally uninteresting in doing - is an oxymoron.

                Is there really "renewable" neodymium?   Lanthanum?   Cadmium?   Tellurium?   Lead (or lithium) for all these magic batteries we're always hearing about?  Phosphate (for biofuels)?   Can the atmosphere contain an unlimited amount of N2O so we can have biofuels and food?

                How about water?    No stress on the international water supplies?

                It strikes me as slightly odd that my very simple ideas - easily verifiable with only a little bit of effort - are taken as extreme, but as time goes on, I hold a more and more and more jaunticed view of humanity's willingness to reject ignorance.

                Anyone who fights ignorance will lose.

                The real problem is simply glib and simplistic thinking, but look, you need not worry much more about me saying too much more about that.    I recognize that anything I say is merely pissing renewable nitrogen into the wind.

                I recognize finally that it doesn't matter what I think at all.   The deal is done.    The last drop of gas, oil and coal will be burned while we all wait around - like Estragon and Vladmir waiting for Godot - for the grand renewable nirvana, a nirvana that will surely arrive after Godot does.

                To the more than 3 million people who die each year from air pollution, while we rehearse "Waiting for Godot," we may add those who are already dying in extreme weather events (including heatwaves, which, for instance killed 70,000 in Europe in a few weeks in 2003), floods, hurricanes, droughts, blah, blah, blah...

                The numbers will surely continue to rise, but, Godot...when he come...

                Um, to quote a major writer here, um, "pressurized reactors are dangerous..."

                We deserve what we are getting.

                It is now the end of 2012.   This year is on track to be recorded as one of the 10 worst ever recorded for increases in dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere.

                The last 50 years of jaw boning did nothing, and nothing will come of the next 50 years of repeating the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

                Thanks for your consideration of my views however, no matter how silly such consideration may have been.    I appreciate being remembered.

                Have a nice evening.

    •  12 billion (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      And remember, that 12 billion is just the receipts from mineral rights, it doesn't include gas taxes.  That's another $38 billion.

      History will be kind to us because we will write it.

      by Sky Net on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:11:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, the article said (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sky Net, condorcet, JeffW

      "energy development". Is any of that energy development in sources other than fossil fuels? Also, how much does the amount of fossil fuel development on public lands compare to the total amount of fossil fuel consumption? The health care costs are attributed to all fossil fuels consumed, so those costs cannot simply be subtracted from total energy development revenues from public lands.

      "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:42:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The math is actually worse than shown. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet, JeffW

      From the website linked in the $120 billion (of which only $35 billion is counted)  

      n the form of detrimental impacts on resource availability, the environment, and human health. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel subsidies cost the United States $120 billion in pollution and related health care costs every year.
      The reality is that the ENTIRETY of the $120 billion should be counted.  The number should be negative $125 billion each year to the US economy, not negative $40 B.

      And, the US being what it is, we would obviously scramble to replace fossil fuels with some other energy sources if we had to, as we will have to, when we run out of fossil fuels anyway.

  •  The "little people" vs. big dollars. (0+ / 0-)

    How does that usually play out anyway (i.e. Wiley Coyote in Roadrunner cartoons, except you know what’s coming and it still ain’t funny)?

  •  Walking the beach at dusk yesterday I saw an Owl (12+ / 0-)

    hunting, flying silently back and forth along the Keystone Spit.  I'm pretty sure it was a barn owl.


                                          A Barn Owl

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:20:46 PM PST

  •  Drill/Dig Baby Drill/Dig! (3+ / 0-)

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Lefty Coaster on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:29:24 PM PST

  •  Good Morning (3+ / 0-)

    so why am I awake at this hour on the east coast?

    carry on

  •  This just in, and it's not from The Onion: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    Intelligence Institute Study shows Fox News viewers have an IQ that is 20 points lower than the U.S. National average.

    Question is, did their lower IQ get that way before or after they started watching Fox?????

    Handmade holiday gifts from Jan4insight on Zibbet. Get 10%off everytime with coupon code KOSSACK.

    by jan4insight on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:13:54 AM PST

  •  Bad math is bad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet
    So: $12 billion in profits from fossil-fuel extraction, great. Of course, $4 billion of that goes back to oil companies in subsidies, so it’s really more like $8 billion. Oh, plus another billion or so to the coal industry. So $7 billion. Still good!

    We should also probably consider that the use of those fossil fuels results in $120 billion in healthcare costs each year. In 2009, 35 percent of U.S. healthcare spending was from Medicare and Medicaid [PDF]. Thirty-five percent of $120 billion is $42 billion. Hm.

    And then there’s that $50 billion that Obama is seeking to repair damage from Hurricane Sandy. But let’s take only the $5 billion the New York area Metropolitan Transportation Authority needs due to the flooding that was certainly made worse by climate change. Don’t want to be unrealistic, after all!

    So, let me get out the adding machine here … Boom. Done. That brilliant all-of-the-above energy approach has indirectly resulted in a rock-solid economic benefit of negative $40 billion to the U.S. economy. [...]

    How much of that climate-change-related cost can be attributed to the fossil fuels that generated the $12 billion?

    In other words, how much of the total human-generated atmospheric carbon dioxide load is derived from the fossil fuels extracted from U.S. public lands in 2012?

    Similarly, how much of the total atmospheric load of pollutants is derived from the fossil fuels extracted from U.S. public lands in 2012?

    What percentage of government fossil fuel subsidies would be eliminated if there were no drilling on public lands?

    Multiply those tiny fractions by the $50 billion, $120 billion, and $5 billion figures, subtract the result from the $12 billion in profits, and you'll have a more accurate accounting of the economic impact of drilling on public land.

    I'm not saying that a pure cost-benefit analysis is the right way to approach this problem. I certainly think there are other considerations. But if you're going to do a cost-benefit analysis, you have to do the math right.

    "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

    by kyril on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 12:37:26 AM PST

    •  Incomplete math, sure. (0+ / 0-)

      I think the point of it was to point out that fossil fuels topload on hidden economic costs that would not be created by non-polluting renewables.

      But lives shortened, water tables polluted, mountains destroyed, animal populations decimated...  There are a hell of a lot of non-monetary costs associated specifically with fossil fuel use as you note.

      •  No, not incomplete (0+ / 0-)

        Flamingly misleading. Deliberately so.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:20:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How So? (0+ / 0-)

          What is the conclusion you assert is meant to be taken from that story and in what way is it wrong?

          Read my conclusion:  Fossil fuels create a lot of expensive health and environmental issues that are not associated with various renewable sources.

          Is that incorrect?  Or are you suggesting that I'm drawing a 'different conclusion' than is intended?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site