Time to sever a sordid tie: An oil stock

  • Article by: BONNIE BLODGETT
  • Updated: December 22, 2012 - 5:33 PM

As with guns, the question is: What will it finally take to make us act?

  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bootsy07Dec. 23, 12 3:12 AM

If you're selling the stock, that means someone else is buying it. I'm afraid that's not going to save the planet.

17
4
comment229Dec. 23, 12 5:24 AM

How many ad campaigns do you see on TV telling the American people how great coal and oil corporations are in this country? They are the hear and now, but certainly not out kids' future. There are some that belittle clean energy, but that day is coming and the first steps have been taken, even though some Americans still belittle Obama for trying. OK, perhaps he got the wrong solar company, with the wrong people, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Solar power is in its infancy and someone, somewhere, in the USA is going to come up with that battery that is going to make it all work. We have started in on wind farm programs too, but it is just a start there too. Times will change and I fear it will be driven by the doctrine "necessity is the mother of invention." Let's hope we realize our limitations sooner, rather than later. When you get in your car tomorrow, to do your daily commute, just look around at how many cars there are going down the road with you, with one occupant. Then, start thinking, "we have met the enemy, and they are us."

6
15
goferfanzDec. 23, 12 7:56 AM

Of course, Bonnie's thesis is dependent upon the fact that one believe in AGW, outside of the massive urban heat islands or rural farm fields that so skew basic temperature data collection. Meanwhile, in the here and now, the reality IS: billions more people are living far longer, far healthier lives-->unless one subtracts the obesity epidemic from all the abundant food. Of course, the AGW'ers were all abuzz over the Mayan science predicting the recent global demise. Well, it didnt happen, nor will a 1 part per 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO2 cause some horrible fate. Sell Bonnie, I will be a buyer. So is the guy likely giving those "talks"--that's the best part!

14
7
sundialDec. 23, 12 8:43 AM

Bonnie: Good for you. One divestiture won't make a difference, but a divestiture movement will. Oh, and by the way, a correction: Joe's name is Scarborough, not Yarborough. :)

6
10
probsolverDec. 23, 12 8:53 AM

I expect the writer to swear off using any vehicle with an internal combustion engine and forgoe any/all petroleum based products in her daily life. But that may be inconvenient.

13
3
SnippetDec. 23, 1210:32 AM

Until there is a viable alternative to petroleum products, they will be used by someone. If it makes you feel better to divest your stock, that is your prerogative, but you can't sell something without someone else buying it, so the wider world hasn't been changed one bit.

14
2
bwotheDec. 23, 1210:39 AM

Scarborough, not Yarborough

4
0
paulskiDec. 23, 1211:11 AM

oil and coal, both 20th century products in the 21st century. Of course we still use them. But the trends are against them. The sooner we get off them, the better. A person / country / planet climbs a mountain one step at a time. Every step we take to get out of coal and oil, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction

3
9
leewatsonDec. 23, 12 1:55 PM

Joe Scarborough's speech last Monday on Mornin’ Joe advocating gun control legislation likely precipitated his interview with PBS reporter Robert Siegel which Ms. Blodgett takes issue with in her criticizing Mr. Scarborough (in addition to her valid concern about global warming). If she watched Mornin’ Joe later in the week she would probably have been apoplectic with his interview of Kansas Congressman Huelscamp, when both Guns and the Cliff mess were discussed. Somewhat exasperated by Congressman Huelscamp’s refusal to consider any gun legislation directed at assault weapons nor any compromising on “no more taxes”, Mr. Scarborough, former Republican Congressman for several terms from the Florida panhandle, demonstrated what true conservatism used to be. Although I vote and think liberal, I know and often talk with many conservatives, most of whom think like Mr. Scarborough. They too have always advocated compromise and many of them, voting Republican in every election since 1952, abandoned “their GOP” starting in 2006 as it was progressively hijacked by T-Partiers favoring such “luminaries” as Mr. Huelscamp, Mr. Akin, Mr. Mourdoch and Ms. O’Donnell over excellent conservatives, including Senator Richard Lugar. The Indiana Tea Party’s“landslide” ousting of Senator Lugar in favor of Mr. Mourdoch, the advocate and apparent founder of the “Ecclesiastical Rape School” was a political watershed if there ever was one. Senator Lugar was an incredible Statesman and his ouster now serves as a telltale of the now mature dismantling of the Grand Old Party where excellent politicians were favored over obviously incompetent ones. Whether we are conservative or liberal we should all be at least as exasperated as Mr. Scarborough at the regressive metamorphosis of Conservatism in this country. We need both robust liberal and conservative parties which are willing to debate and compromise. At present, the T-Partiers and other hyper conservatives, using our own form of government, intended to promote compromise, have acquired sufficient control of the US House of Representatives to refuse compromise and impair that means of lawmaking and governing. Issues such as guns, the deficit and global warming should be extensively argued, compromised and laws enacted as soon as possible. But if there’s no willingness to compromise, there’s probably no use in argument nor even continuing our present form of government which is so dependent on it. Lambasting Joe Scarborough for compromising, or even changing, his position on gun control and taxes is foolish. He should be commended for it.

3
3
bernice3Dec. 23, 12 3:06 PM

In today's America, grade-schoolers are probably more aware of climate change than the many adults who, unfortunately, fall for the "clean coal" commercials and our government's refusal so far to admit that tar-sands oil costs more to extract tha it is worth while causing utter destruction to Canada's arboreal forest. Newspaper, magazine and TV journalists should be presenting photos of the damage done to that forest. Oil is extracted by (1) removing the trees in a small area, (2) removing and discarding six feet of soil to reach the oil-soaked sand, (3) heating water from the river until it is hot enough to separate the oil from the sand and the oil rises to the surface, (4) returning the used water to the river, where it has killed all the fish and can no longer be used by the downstream native tribe for either fishing or drinking. Google "pictures of tar sands destruction" or something similar to see how bad it really is.

3
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT