Monday 28 Jul
 
 
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg

 

OKG Newsletter


Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · Misspending...
Letters to the Editor
 

Misspending money


Chadwick Cox November 2nd, 2011

Regarding “Crude awakening” (News, Bryan Smith, Oct. 12, Gazette):

I attended the Keystone XL pipeline public comment meeting on Oct. 1 at the Reed Center in Midwest City.

The long-term consequences of the pipeline produce another risk that I have not seen addressed. The investment money to build the pipeline would be better spent developing renewable energy sources. Money removed from developing renewable energy, especially substituted for developing fossil energy sources, reduces our efforts to address the predicted crisis of an overheated earth.

Once the pipeline is functional, the advocacy for further fossil use will be increased because recovery of the expense of constructing the pipeline will be demanded and because more oil will be available. Unfortunately, at this time of financial calamity, the pipeline will most likely be permitted.

The only chance that it won’t be is if the State Department concludes that the long-term consequences of neglecting to act on reducing the driving force of global warming outweighs the short-term benefits of the pipeline and then makes the apparent politically suicidal decision to deny the permit. A vision of mankind as lemmings headed for the cliff and led by America comes to mind.

—Chadwick Cox
Norman

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
11.02.2011 at 06:26 Reply

If I were you, I'd expect an uneducated and bias response to this coming from 'Oily' Mickey McVay.  Defending the industry that feeds his family seems to be his Modus Operandi.

Anyone responding to you will undoubtly attack the science of climate change, that's their go to thing as soon as it's brought up as a factor.  That's fine, it only illustrates that they are refusing to comprehend a much larger issue.  To them my response would be to ignore that and point out the limited nature of oil.  It's not an unlimited supply, so why are we going to spend funds on pursuing something that is guaranteed to end.  We could more intelligently spend money on something that is not a limited resource such as renewables.  For as long as the sun shines and moon orbits our earth we'll have unlimited access to Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and Tidal energy.  That's what we should spend money on harvesting. 

The reason why they won't spend that money on it, is because it is something everyone has access too.  Meaning anyone with property can harness it.  This means it's too socialist; too free.  If they can't use the limited nature of the resource to add zeros to their bottom line, it's simply not going to get promoted.

We'll stop being lemmings when it becomes more financially benefitial to stay home than to drive ourselves to work.  And unless something is done to combat inflation, a gallon of gas will be $12 in 20 years.  That might be the time people start realizing they've been ignorant the whole time.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close