White House: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[Manedwolf]

It's a bit difficult for the older houses here to "roll back". A lot had fireplaces blocked up in the 1950's and 60's in the period of "advancement" when a Shiny New Furnace With Automatic Thermostat was put in, and the furnace flue was run up the old chimney. Others have chimneys that are crumbling, and would need a full liner put in to use their fireplace again. I've also seen many that have plastered-over flues for a woodburning stove in each room, (the place where the potbelly's pipe joined a branch into the vertical flue) or a hole in the floor where the stack went up, but none of the old branching systems would ever meet modern fire codes to allow a new stove to be put in. They'd have to be completely relined.

So, ironically, restoring an old house to its original heating design to save a few thousand dollars can cost tens of thousands of dollars to get done.

[mtnbkr]

How long are your computers going to last without climate-controlled environments? 

They'll last quite nicely thank you.  A friend of mine lives in an old farmhouse without central heat or air.  He heats with a single woodstove in the den and has a single AC window unit in the bedroom.  He's been on the Internet for the past 8 years (I got him hooked by giving him an old Linux laptop and directing him to the nearest ISP).  The laptop lasted a couple years (was already a decade old when I gave it to him) and the desktop he replaced it with is still running.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

Maned, then those folks will need to turn their heat back.  Really, a 50-60deg house is livable when the alternative is no heat at all.  It sucks, but it might be necessary if you can't afford the fuel.

Some folks had to do this even in the days of cheap oil.  The cost of oil isn't the only budgetary constraint.

Chris

[wmenorr67]

The way you guys talk we should never have gotten as far as we have as a civilazation.  I mean how did the cave men and women survive without central heat or air?

[Ezekiel]

All I am saying is that talk of death is alarmist.

[longeyes]

They'll last quite nicely thank you.  A friend of mine lives in an old farmhouse without central heat or air.  He heats with a single woodstove in the den and has a single AC window unit in the bedroom.  He's been on the Internet for the past 8 years (I got him hooked by giving him an old Linux laptop and directing him to the nearest ISP).  The laptop lasted a couple years (was already a decade old when I gave it to him) and the desktop he replaced it with is still running.

I think if you examine "modern life," not just here but around the world, you'll notice that certain environmental conditions are synonymous with the type of society we enjoy and take for granted. Productivity requires it.

Yeah, we may "survive," but it won't be the life we have now, in many ways.   And what you and your kids think is "civilization" dates back about fifty years.  Welcome to the good old days when life was "nasty, brutish, and short."

[mtnbkr]

What is your point again?

My point was not that we should revert our standard of living to the early 20th century but that folks who's income does not allow them to keep their homes at 72deg in the middle of winter with the current cost of fuel should consider stretching their budget by reducing the heat in their homes to a point that allows them to get through their winter within budget (holy run on sentence Batman!).  I used examples from prior generations merely to illustrate that people can live this way and not "freeze to death", not that we should, as a society, reduce our standard of living "just because".

Chris

[longeyes]

And my point is that getting by is not the world very many of us are going to be happy with.  I realize we can survive but I don't think we are going to survive very well.  A few may; most won't.

[mtnbkr]

Really?  You think?  I never said you should "just get by" if you have the means to do better.  However, the claim that people are going to freeze to death simply because they can't afford to keep their homes warmed to 72deg is asinine.

Chris

[RocketMan]

Really?  You think?  I never said you should "just get by" if you have the means to do better.  However, the claim that people are going to freeze to death simply because they can't afford to keep their homes warmed to 72deg is asinine.

Chris

Tell that to the relatives of the folks that have died each winter the past few years in this country.
Mostly elderly, living on fixed incomes, no means to move, making choices between paying the bills for food, shelter, or utilities.
You've all seen the headlines.  If you haven't, then you weren't paying attention.

[mtnbkr]

Which is why it might be prudent to use your limited heating funds to keep the house at 60deg for 3 months rather than 72deg for 1 month.  It's simple rationing.  You have a fixed amount of heating oil, do you burn it up keeping the house toasty warm or you stretch it out by keeping the house habitable?

Hell, I keep my house cooler in the Winter than I prefer for this very reason.  Paying $150/month to keep the house around 68 at night (sunlight brings it up to the low 70s most days) is better than $250+ for 72deg.

Chris

[charby]

Speaking of costs of heating, I keep my house at a constant 65 degrees during the winter and my 1600 sq ft ten year old duplex at the most cost $138 for a 34 day billing cycle this winter. I would have went lower to 62 degrees but Mrs Charby said no way. She wanted 75 degrees all the time.

Realistically in the future if people want to afford to live in their climate controlled houses at the levels they desire they are going to have to live in much smaller houses.

[Balog]

I agree with Chris re. turning the stat down. But it is a fact that a lot of elderly people die every time it gets really hot in places like Chicago that have no real cooling provisions. Dunno if the same is gonna be true for cold and heating oil, but.......

And saying "Well, that 80 y/o granny wouldn't have died if she'd just been smarter and lived the way I do" seems a bit.... crass. I hope no one reading this thread has had a death in the family from an issue like that.

[Manedwolf]

Which is why it might be prudent to use your limited heating funds to keep the house at 60deg for 3 months rather than 72deg for 1 month.  It's simple rationing.  You have a fixed amount of heating oil, do you burn it up keeping the house toasty warm or you stretch it out by keeping the house habitable?

Hell, I keep my house cooler in the Winter than I prefer for this very reason.  Paying $150/month to keep the house around 68 at night (sunlight brings it up to the low 70s most days) is better than $250+ for 72deg.

Chris

A lot of times, someone will just not be able to get down to the basement to see what the tank level is. When it runs dry, it's an absolute surprise, and there's no money to place an order for a refill.

[mtnbkr]

Do they just hope and pray it won't run out on them?  They have to know roughly what their rate of usage is just like I know roughly how far I can drive on a tank of gas even if the fuel gauge isn't working.  What do they do when it runs out, order more oil and hope it gets there in time?

When I was a kid, we had an oil fired furnace, but the tank was outside.  I don't recall it ever running out.  I also don't recall my parents checking the level.  Then again, this was piedmont NC and a tank might have gone all winter for us.  I'll have to ask my parents.

My grandfather had an oil fired furnace as well and he used to check his level with a dipstick (it was buried underground).

Chris

[Ezekiel]

We spend 2-3 years here (right?), masturbating intellectually about how we should all be self-aware and responsible adults, in control of our own destinies with the power to take a life in our hands, then come all to pieces because Grandma may have to wear a sweater?

I keep my home in the low 60s (wearing a sweatshirt) during winter and the high 70s (wearing little) during summer.  I think the rest of America can adjust...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Really?  You think?  I never said you should "just get by" if you have the means to do better.  However, the claim that people are going to freeze to death simply because they can't afford to keep their homes warmed to 72deg is asinine.

Chris

Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately.  Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer.  There is nothing asinine about it.

The way you guys talk we should never have gotten as far as we have as a civilazation.  I mean how did the cave men and women survive without central heat or air?

Many people didn't survive cold winters in ages past.  Mortality rates were much higher, average life expectancy was much lower.  The ability to heat and cool our houses is one reason (out of many) that we can all expect to live more than 40 or 50 years.

Death from cold winters is rare these days, but only because we have HVAC.  It wasn't particularly uncommon back before we had HVAC.

[MechAg94]

They aren't in the frozen wastelands of the North, but my parents don't have central air.  They have two or three window A/C units that operate some or part of the time.  One covers rooms that only need cooling when us kids visit. 

For heat, they still depend on a fire place.  My dad has a wood stove mounted with the fire place that uses a lot less wood than it used to when I was a kid.  There are air pipes built into the brick behind it and above it with fans to circulate air around the fire place and get more heat out of it.  That works really well.  They use a few electric heaters in other rooms at need. 

[seeker_two]

All I am saying is that talk of death is alarmist.

But it sells papers and buys votes..... 

[mtnbkr]

Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately.  Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer.  There is nothing asinine about it.

They'll freeze at 60degrees?  The Elderly have a higher freezing point?  Interesting, I was unaware.  As for them suffering, yes, they will, but less than if they burned their finite quantity of fuel more rapidly trying to maintain an unreasonable (for their budget) level of heat.

Chris

[lupinus]

and even at 60 degrees a home in the northeast goes through an amazing amount of oil.

I'm in the south now I love it when people bitch about cold or snow.  Grow up in one of the houses I spent most of my childhood/teens, at current rates it costs a hell of a lot to heat a home up there. 

It's not as simple as dialing back to 60 degrees and wearing a sweater.

[longeyes]

I keep my home in the low 60s (wearing a sweatshirt) during winter and the high 70s (wearing little) during summer.  I think the rest of America can adjust...

You going to keep your office at 60 too?  Or 40?  Or 105 with high humidity?

As was posted, modern climate control and longevity are connected, not to mention general productivity.

I wonder how many people will be living in Las Vegas?  Or Phoenix or Tucson?  Or Austin?

[mtnbkr]

and even at 60 degrees a home in the northeast goes through an amazing amount of oil.

But still less than it would at 70+, which is the entire point when you have limited funds.  Kind of like driving, you reduce the amount you drive so you only have to buy gas once a week if you can't afford to fill the tank every other day.  Or, you use all your gas in two days and do without...

Chris

[roo_ster]

Here's something pretty neat:

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill  and Oil Drops $9!   [Larry Kudlow]

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isnt this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices wont decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain  all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. Thats the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.

The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. Theyre talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.

Theres also a gang of 10 in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So its possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.

So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.

Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.

[Manedwolf]

Local paper, regarding one idiot dem's opposition: