Talking about climate change and green energy out of one side of his mouth
while not inhibiting or regulating practices that generage fossil fuels.

Can't go around bad-mouthing gawd.

The "Obama Bashing" group meets on Sunday's in the basement.

this guy.

And you never know what the jury will say. If you want to be safe, cut the subject line down to "This guy..."

Just a thought.

BTW, I agree with DeNiro.

misinterpreted. Regardless I'll leave it up to the jury. I think it would be a ridiculous hide. But we'll see.

I tend to judge on the post alerted on and the post to which it replies, unless the alerter specifically mentions other posts by number, or some other reason is obvious, but some jurors read the thread.

It's called corrective criticism.

If, let us say if, Obama believes that...what would the license to start limited drilling under heavy regulation mean to Shell, as they are the only ones with the potential license?

Extremely expensive exploratory drilling, if even feasible, for a declining demand and price resource that would have to double in price from current levels and remain that way for many years to be extracted involume and then...transported...to where. How is that ever going to be economically feasible unless Inuvik's population is that of NYC?

Is that all likely?

The President does know better.

"With Shell planning to begin drilling in the oil-rich Chukchi Sea within days, Gore said in an interview with the Guardian that Obama was wrong to ever allow drilling in the Arctic.

It was the only real point of criticism from Gore of Obama’s efforts to fight climate change, at home and through a global deal to be negotiated in Paris at the end of the year."

I can find no reference to Shell "planning to begin drilling...within days", except this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33379982

"Oil and gas giant Shell is expected to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic within the next two weeks.
Thirty ships left Dutch Harbor in Alaska on Thursday for the Arctic to support two initial exploratory wells.

The company has already committed about $7bn (£4.5bn) to the controversial project, and is confident it will find huge quantities of oil in the region.

But if the initial wells do not find oil, Shell will contemplate walking away from the region entirely.
The US Department of the Interior gave the green light to Shell to commence Arctic oil exploration in May this year, and the Anglo-Dutch group clearly believes it will get the remaining necessary permits in the next week or two."


And wasn't Pandora's box opened and all contents released? Not just poked about?

They are very familiar with the geology as it is similar to the North Slope. There is oil. It's a question of whether we want to enrich a few multi billionaires at the expense of the entire planet.

Pandora's box!

I guess the real problem is the analogy used is far fetched, two exploratory wells versus the end of the world.

climate gets little beyond lip service and it is THE issue. Gore is correct, drilling should be banned along with fracking.

We need to grow up and address our filthy energy and what it does to the environment. Future generations depend on it.

The 1% media reporting on this in such mass numbers can mean only one thing - Obama has had a very, very excellent adventure, lately.

Sometimes I think Barrack hoists a policy rag up the pole just to see who demands it be burnt.

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. And have the wisdom to know the difference.

Surrounded by teeming hordes of fascists and charlatans, opportunists and vampires, and just your regular everyday idiots, good folks need to get a grip and take note of the one person they all hate the most.

And support than one.

he's had his hands on some great decisions and some horrible ones.

I will applaud the good ones and criticize the bad. This is a part of how democracy is suppose to work.

Makes me wish that we voted on policy separately, then voted on who we wanted to carry it out.

If he were a DU member, I'd alert on him.
I'll bet he's a Trump supporter and a Rove plant.

I mean, why else would he say such hateful things?!

Can not have such corrupt and Unpure members hanging around DU, who cares if he was a Democratic Party VP and and rightful President?

Purity First. Perfection is Purity.

If one were not to wade through the threads (or really, just the first hit) in the google search one might just assume that DUers (or the extremists in the party as you call them) were calling her a hero for calling Al Gore a racist.

I left off the sarcasm tag for purity's sake.
Perhaps that wasn't wise.

argument is pretty weak:


"President Obama began by pointing out that he has already shut off the most sensitive Arctic areas to drilling, including the Bristol Bay, home to a number of endangered species and 40 percent of America’s wild-caught seafood. In April, his administration also finalized a proposal to set aside a majority of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, which prevent drilling across some 12 million acres across northeastern Alaska.
But according to the president, it’s impossible to stop oil exploration in the Arctic completely."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/28/3663715/obama-twitter-chat-arctic-drilling/

Here is another article where he tries to justify his position:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/242170-obama-defends-arctic-drilling-approval

While that may have validity, in my view it no way justifies the arctic drilling, no matter how many supposed "safeguards" are in place.

It is "impossible to stop oil exploration completely".

I agree with you, I wish he would do more and especially crack down on our Federal DOI much harder.

That federal dept. is the stronghold of the industries and their 'good old boys' who have have ruined our lands and wildlife for decades.

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

...

Not to mention anyone reading the article might want to avoid mention of all the praise Gore bestowed on Obama...

As an aside...am I on the right site....this is DU, right?

Stilling putting the "white tears" chum in the water?

....is allowed on DU as long as it's directed at the evil crackers and honkys with their white privilege because that's not race-baiting...or something

I'd love to hear the creative stories about the historical oppression of Caucasians in America simply for being Caucasian. Otherwise, the pretense we're being race-baited when 'white tears' is used illustrates a dramatic amount of petulance.

Or something...

The title of the article had fuck all to do with oppression, and everything to do with race-baiting.

Try reading. .. or something. ..

No breaks. Ever.

Gore was already elected lest you forget.

allowed. Maybe you should examine his presidency a little more thoroughly. The sad part is that there is a grain of truth to what you say: that truth is that he could have been the greatest. Unfortunately, he threw that chance away almost immediately. If you still want to call him the greatest, we'll just have to disagree.

Here is one minor and largely insignificant example that foreshadowed the coming general trend of bad appointments, lack of messaging, etc.:

I agree in principle with some of his points, but he is no longer a trustworthy messenger.

I'm curious?

He uses his immense wealth to buy offsets for his ridiculous lifestyle, and continues his campaign?

I'll pass.

But thanks for the reply.

not to be mentioned!

Newsmax, you let one escape!

Link:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy_2.htm

snip:
"We are urged to view Gore's lifestyle as hypocritical because on the one hand he advocates energy conservation by all, while on the other consuming an "extravagant" amount of energy in his own home. And put in just those terms, it may seem an open and shut case. But how far, really, do Al Gore's deeds differ from his own words?

In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change.
First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly -- like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible -- all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself. Second, he preaches activism -- voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role. Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does -- offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.

So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn't one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets -- and you might even be right -- but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he's a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him is a sham."

American regulated Shell drilling in the Arctic will be bad but not as bad as other countries like Russia drilling in the Arctic.

The deep water Horizon happened during his watch (which should have ended ocean drilling) and the next thing he does is authorize exploration in the Artic. This kind of makes the chronyism much more apparent in his adminsitration than first suspected.

You can't argue the facts, so you make it about Gore, not the policy.

I said it was an insane policy long before Gore.

We have no basements.

I will be there for the TTP/TPA meeting though. Those never get old.

tricky for you. Unless you want to continue to be mocked every time you make a not so clever remark about someone else's grammar and spelling.

What Obama is doing now is, looking at the current low price for oil, knowing that there is no way arctic drilling can be economical at current prices, knowing that previous efforts have been expensive and humiliating failures, and just telling oil companies to go ahead, knock themselves out. He gets a two-fer, in that he can deflect criticism of his climate change policies by saying "Hey, we allowed exploratory drilling in the arctic",
and the oil companies get basically nothing except the chance to blow through a lot of money....

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/06/29/shell-rushes-back-where-wise-men-fear-to-drill/

Might be cheaper to get oil from Pluto.

Capitalism abhors a vacuum of profits.

But at least Foxconn believes in safety nets.

says that Obama's good record would be better without the Arctic exploration. Not really the way it is presented in the OP.

Knee jerk defenders: "Al Gore has white people tears over Obama. The arctic is white. Coincidence? I think not."

Knee jerk critics: "Al Gore is calling Obama a VichyDem Corruptocrat who's trying to ruin the planet. He's speaking Truth2Power!"

I love the smell of hyberbole in the morning.

Well, "love" is probably the wrong word. Let's just say it makes me laugh.

Good for Gore. Keep telling the truth, even if it looks like a personal attack. I wish Bernie would start stepping up the criticism on Hillary.

If not then he can shut the fuck up and let the President do his job.

Shell officials are still hoping to launch exploratory drilling this month at the company’s Burger prospect, 70 miles off the coast of Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, even though a key ship in its fleet was forced back to port before it had even left the harbor last week after a 3-foot-long gash was discovered in its hull.

The company has to send the MSV Fennica to Portland because Terminal 5 at the port of Seattle, where Shell’s two drilling rigs were stored before they departed for Alaska, is a cargo terminal that doesn’t allow heavy repairs. It is expected to take several weeks to repair the Fennica, according to FuelFix. The trip to Portland alone will take more than a week, and the Fennica appears to still be in Unalaska in the Aleutian Islands right now. But Shell has already begun moving its fleet into place in the Chukchi Sea, and does not plan on waiting for the Fennica to return before commencing drilling activities.

The Fennica is one of only two icebreakers in Shell’s 30-ship fleet that are essential for keeping ice away from the drilling rigs. It’s unclear whether or not the US Department of the Interior will give the company the go-ahead to begin drilling, however, given that the Fennica was also carrying critical equipment needed to cap the well in the event of a blowout or other emergency.

Ed. - Emphasis added.

The Coast Guard is reportedly still investigating what caused the 39-inch breach in the Fennica’s hull, but surveys of Dutch Harbor since the ship’s accident have revealed shallower-than-charted areas along the route the ship was taking. Shell appears to have opted for speed over safety in sending the Fennica along the route it did. Some of the charted depths in the Fennica’s path gave it just seven and a half feet of clearance in some areas — even at high tide, as it was when the ship was under way on July 3 and the hull breach was discovered. Shell could have sent the Fennica on a slightly longer route out of Dutch Harbor that would have kept it in deeper water.

EDIT

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/16/shell-proceed-arctic-drilling-ship-carrying-critical-emergency-gear-heads-portland-repairs

Ed. - so yeah, ALL OF THE ABOVE!! Let's give them a permit, given their outstanding track record:

The rig was being towed from Dutch Harbor, Alaska to Seattle when its tow vessel lost control of the massive platform during a harsh winter storm. After numerous attempts to secure the equipment failed, it settled near the shore of uninhabited Sitkalidak Island in the western Gulf of Alaska on Monday night and remains there – with nearly 150,000 gallons of fuel and other fluids on board. The Coast Guard is coordinating a 500-plus person response to assess the damage, but neither they nor Shell has any idea when or how they will regain control of the foundering giant.

Adding insult to injury, on Thursday, the Alaska Dispatch reported that the reason Shell was working so feverishly to move the rig in such harsh conditions was to avoid paying millions of dollars in state taxes it would have owed if the rig was still in Alaska waters on January 1.

Far from an isolated incident, the latest fiasco is just the most recent in a litany of technical failures and struggles with Mother Nature that continue to accentuate Shell’s lack of preparedness to operate in the region. As Christopher Helman writes in Forbes, “It would be a comedy of errors, if the stakes weren’t so high.”

EDIT

September: After repeatedly failing to receive Coast Guard approval for its containment barge Shell was forced to postpone exploratory drilling operations until 2013 and settle instead for beginning to drill two non-oil producing preparatory wells.

September: Just one day after beginning its long-awaited preparatory drilling operations,Shell suspends drilling as a massive ice pack covering approximately 360 square miles drifts toward the site.

November: More than a week after preparatory drilling ended for the season, Shell experienced numerous complications as it tried to get its Kulluk rig out of the Beaufort Sea as winter sea ice encroaches.

December: Internal emails between Interior Department officials reveal the September test of Shell’s oil spill containment system was not just a failure but a complete disaster. The containment dome “breached like a whale” and was “crushed like a beer can” – and all in the comparatively temperate waters of Puget Sound.

December: Shell’s second drilling rig, Kulluk, slips its cables while being towed out of Alaska waters on an accelerated schedule in order to dodge paying Alaska taxes in 2013. The rig, along with its 150,000 gallons of fuel and drilling fluid, washes up on an uninhabited island along one of Alaska’s most pristine coastlines.

EDIT

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/06/timeline-shell-s-arctic-drilling-debacle-2012