What is crude oil exploration?

Science - Extracting Oil?

  • So my task is to choose the pro or con side of this resolution: Be it resolved that Canada should drastically reduce crude oil exploration, mining, transportation, use and export. ...show more

  • Answer:

    There are no perfect solutions, just intelligent choices. People tend to imagine that they can have the benefits of technology without the processes that produce those benefits. Canada is a 1st World society. If you are lucky enough to live a First World Lifestyle, you must be willing to accept a Second or Third World Lifestyle. Why? Because First World Lifestyle depends on expenditure of energy to create and maintain it. And, the burning of fossil fuels is the only energy source concentrated enough and dependable enough to do that. Even nuclear with all its’ waste disposal and environmental problems cannot replace fossil fuel. 3 Example Questions you must address if you give up fossil fuel Food: Do you intend to become a subsistence farmer? How much land will you need for that? Have you checked out the lifestyle of subsistence farmers? Or, do you want diesel trucks and trains to continue to deliver food to your nearest market? Is it OK for farmers to have diesel tractors? Are pesticides ok? How about fertilizer? What is your plan to deal with the manure? Heat, Air Conditioning, and Light: When it gets cold, hot, or dark what is your plan? Are you ready to give up your computer, Smartphone, HDTV, etc? If you say "No" to the above questions, then you must be willing to accept the environmental effects associated with fossil fuels. If you say "yes" to the above questions, then what society do you intend to model your life style after? This may have no meaning to you, but: Thoreau was able to stand Walden only 2 years and then returned to "living on the grid." Living off the grid is tough.

QWFZDG2JWQH37QZ3U25SB34RQM at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Con: Canada gets a lot of revenue from oil, and without money your choices are strictly limited. You can't even cut spending without changing laws, and in a democracy that can be impossible Pro: Burning fossil fuel is solidly linked to climate change and pollution, and that if unaddressed will destroy Canada as a nation in a couple of hundred years. Con: Canada unilaterally cutting production while everyone else continues would just shoot ourselves in the foot while climate change continues unabated. Besides, there's inertia built into the system - everyone stopping now would not immediately stop the changes, though they would not be so bad. "drastic" is too soon; we need to take the revenue and build a sustainable society with it

adaviel

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.