Catchin' what I'm throwin'?
Yep. This is just a general answer to both you and finch (forgot to answer him). This is the way I think about it. We clearly have an oil-based economy, correct? The increase in oil prices is increasing the price of oh, I don't know....
everything. Most importantly for our survival, food. There are two prevailing economic theories about what will happen in the future based on our debt-based money system and oil . A) The US will continue on indefinitely because it is in the interest of everyone. B) The US economy will crash, and we'll suffer a horrible depression, rivaling the Great Depression....but it will be worse. Scenario A clearly is not going to be the case, because China and the Middle East don't give a damn about the US, nor do they need us (though those Saudis love our money and weapons). Europe's economies are walking circles around ours as well, and though they wouldn't be as profitable, they could certainly continue to survive if the US crumbled. How could scenario B be worse than the Great Depression? The simple answer is that we're no longer such an agrarian society, and most people live in urban areas. During the GD, the opposite was the case, and most people still ate, though not too frequently....at least they survived. If we have an economic depression of that sort again, a very, very large number of people would die of starvation and malnutrition. So, in my mind, avoiding or at least staving off that disaster seems a much better idea than keeping around a seal with an extra 2 hairs, especially if 3-haired seal would proliferate in its place.
Will someone show me some reputable numbers of what kind of an effect it could have on the environment? The closest I've found is, "environmentalists fear....". Environmentalists (the militant ones) are always kooky, and no one's fears amount to fact...
It's not unusual for some people to have to drive 60 miles to work, one way. Maybe that's the only job they could find because our economy is horrible, maybe they have to live there because of their spouse, maybe they can't afford to live closer to work, etc. From:
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/miscellaneous/americans-are-leaving-earlier-commuting-longer/
the number of people with an hour or longer commute grew over 50% from 1990 to 2000.
Because a ton of people have trucks/SUVs, and most of those vehicles get relatively the same MPG, let's just go with 18mpg. 120 miles per day divided by 18 mpg times 3.90 (what gas is here) = $26 per DAY in fuel costs,
just to get to work and back.
Median household income in the US is about $48,201. Divide that by 2 (2 working parents), then divide it by 2080, the number of hours worked per year (40 * 52), which means these people are making approximately $11.58 an hour, or $92.64 per day. However, once you subtract gas costs of JUST going to work, we're already looking at a net profit of $66.64. Federal income taxes on that household income are probably what....25%? So we're looking at people being left with $36,151 after federal taxes (if the rate is that low), minus $6,760 ($26 per working day X 5 days per week X 52 weeks), or $29,391. That's only $29,391 left over for state and local taxes, insurance, other gas needed to get places other than work, food (which is also going up because of gas), and other things. Since American incomes aren't rising, if more gas isn't drilled and it does hit $6 or $7 a gallon like most people predict it eventually will, which of course will make food prices go up even more, can you see what kind of problem we're going to be in? There's going to be a point where people can't afford to go to work anymore, and ergo won't be able to afford to eat with no money, or will continue working just to cover bills, but again will have food problems.
All that in consideration....I think me being able to eat is a hell of a lot more important than letting some polar bears stomp around. Sitting there starving thinking, "at least the caribou are happy!" is not going to make that situation any better.