Forums → World Events, Politics, Religion, Etc. → Oil Use, Good or Bad?
I would be posting this in the Great Debate... if it was still alive *glares at Moegreche*. Anyways, I'll play the devils advocate here. I am currently taking a debate class, and right now I'm looking at the effects of Oil. I know about Global Warming and all that so please don't post stuff like that here. Anyways, when you look at it the right way, United States oil addiction could be helpful.
I say this, as far fetched as it sounds, because our reliance on oil could have prevented us going to war with other countries, mainly Iran and possibly Russia. Oil would have prevented war because we could not attack any of our oil suppliers, most of which we had bad relations with.
What are your thoughts?
- 15 Replies
i think that the u.s. is stupid to be still using oil when we could run off ethanol like brazil which is like 30 something cents a gallon
Umm... Thamks. But that is not related to my post. This topic is about why oil use would be good or bad.
WRONG! They're paying about $3.17 per gallon ion Brazil for ethanol. It's less than gas, but NOT even close to your stat.
( http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/REG/796826254 )
Anyways, I am very skeptical about global warming. 99% of greenhouse gases are Water Vapor, not CO2. I see nothing wrong with oil and the oil industry. Politicians are the one's ruining everything with their corrupt policies and kick-backs.
You make a good point about it stopping wars. However, the U.S. is extremely dependent on the foreign oil now. If those countries take away our oil, we could not stand on our own unless gas prices went way up. Although it does prevent war, it also prevents the U.S. from being completely independent.
Oil usage is currently a good things as it allows for us to maintain a high standard of living relatively cheaply. However it has lead to oil dependence in many countries who are major importers like the U.S. which is most definitely a bad side to it as well as the potential that it could cause global climate change but more importantly that we may run out of it which is why we should be starting to switch to alternative fuel sources or electricity to power cars as well as other forms of power plants (such as nuclear, hydro, and geothermal) rather then coal and naural gas in the future.
That said oil and natural gases are still very cheap and for the most part available and should still be used until we can develop other technologies that could replace it efficiently and cheaply.
There are good and bad things about oil use.
Well, oil does run many things in our country, and without it, alot of our technology, such as cars and factories, would be useless. Cars and other vehicles are used for transportation of people, goods, etc.
Factories mass produce countless items such as cars, clothes, you name it! Macines inside factories need oil to work and create these goods.
Oil does add to Greenhouse gases, and is actually a significant amount.
@thelistman, actually, greenhouse gases consist of only 35-70 percent, and CO2 is anywhere between 10-25 percent. That percent may seem somewhat miniscule, but just that is alot.
Also, the oil companies are becoming corrupt and raising profits, so their pockets are filling up more by the day. Prices are skyrocketing, leaving many people in confusion on how to conserve their money.
I guess to add to more good qualities, you could say that many more people are riding their bikes, walking, etc.
I totally agree with you Thoth. But the U.S. really has to think of something fast!! We could mine our own oil but that would cost us more in the long run because of how much our workers have to be paid. But with the way things look with oil, I guess that will eventually be the option we will have to turn to.
Anyways, I am very skeptical about global warming. 99% of greenhouse gases are Water Vapor, not CO2.
How can you be skeptical about something when you don't even know the facts? Water vapor accounts for 36-66% of all greenhouse gases. That leaves at least 34% (most of the time it's more) to be done by the humans.
@TR you forgot about ozone, which is not made by humans. It is made by three oxygen atoms.
@dragoncrusher, where do you suppose we will drill for all that oil? If we drilled ONLY in the US, it would not even come close to the demands of people in the US.
Good point Estel, but we do have a 400 year reserve.
Of oil in the US? I'd be surprised if we have that much.
Alaska won't be that much of help because 97% of Alaska is wildlife reserve, and Mid-west states, and ocean oil refineries won't supply all of the US for that long...
I don't want to split hairs, but had you presented this in The Great Debate *glares back* you would have needed to define the parameters for what makes something "good" or "bad" in the world market and how we can know these are good or bad.
Why is preventing war good? I know this seems silly and I don't want to get anything started about war, but this just seems presupposed and I"m not sure it can be.
Also, couldn't oil usage also create more strife and tensions between countries that might lead to war?
Is there a formula or some maxim to use in order to determine what is "good" for something with such a global impact as oil?
I have to disagree with the original assertion. Maybe being on good terms with your oil-supplying friends is a short-term consideration, but you can be assured that as a chronic global oil supply crisis sets in, the dependence on foreign oil will be a point of tension between nations rather than a reason for peace. This will especially be true as oil supplying counties continue to gradually become oil-demanding countries and can no longer afford to be substantial exporters of oil.
You could made this argument about any kind of major trade relations though. One could say that the US hasn't warred with China for just that reason. But ultimately the decision to go to war rests on many other significant considerations that may trump the need to continue trading as other priorities become more important, so I don't think it's anything anyone can depend on.
Also, the biggest supplier of oil to the US is Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Iran have oil, but if they don't have a strong trading relationship with the US.. well.. its oil supply certainly didn't seem to stop them from going to war with Iraq, and for the same reason I don't see how it could prevent any imminent war with Iran, past or future. After all, a lot of people seem believe that these oil supplies were part of the reason that the war with Iraq did happen. And as major-oil producing countries gradually fail to be able to maintain their supply levels, we may very well see more wars for precisely that reason, as I already stated.
The assertion also seems to lose sight of the broader picture, where the entire world's ever-increasing dependence on a supply of cheap oil can only be described as pathological with its inevitable ramifications are fully understood. And this hold true even if we ignore global warming for the moment. The peak in global oil supply is coming and we are by no means ready for the severity of consequences that will shake our society.
Oil would have prevented war because we could not attack any of our oil suppliers, most of which we had bad relations with.
Well I think thats a fair statement. Except I think we should be independent from other countries for our oil but then we could attack them so that would be bad too.(They could also attack us.)
Well, Strat, I feel stoopid. I pretty much can't argue with you about anything you said. Except for one. Bwahaha. What you said about oil not stopping us us from going to war with Iran, well actually it might. Iran controls a strategic choke point, thus controlling 40% of the worlds oil circulation and/or trade. Message me for more details because I don't have the article right now, and the subject will probably change befor I get back.
You must be logged in to post a reply!