Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
There is no ban on drilling. Even my little sister is drilling. Now. In the USA.
But even if we drill more, it will not help. In ten years, we can be out of it. We already have started with the alternatives.
This thread has entered the fact-free zone. ANWR + the continental shelves = one bottle of Perrier, when we need the Nile, = an ice cube, when we need the snows of Kilamanjaro.
Please stop with your predefined fake arguments, and address reality.
All the scenarios you mentioned for the Republican proposal are at least possible if not probable. The predictions you list for the Democrats are fantasies.
First, when was the last big oil rig spill you can recall? The last one I'm aware of was almost 40 years ago and technology has changed immensely since then. Second, we're already drilling offshore in many places (without incident, by the way), you only object to a few more places. Third, I guess offshore drilling is okay for places like Britain and Brazil and Venezuela but not for us. You're perfectly happy endangering their environments, but not in our back yard. Finally, you're saying that if we open up a few more areas for drilling, we're looking at catostrophic global warming (of course, you say that was already happening so what the hay!).
You people need to get your messages straight. The Obama campaign is ridiculing the McCain proposal because opening up a few more areas to drilling will have no significant impact on oil prices or the supply of oil on the market and will only save the oil companies a few more dollars that they don't need. Or are we to believe, from you unsubstantiated analysis, that opening up for drilling will only contribute to our energy crisis. Odd logic that is. Has it occurred to you that we can both look for new renewable energy sources AND drill for more oil at the same time?
The plain and simple fact of the matter is that you oppose drilling not based on any factual analysis but because you relish higher oil prices as a means to enforce your ecological agenda. Meanwhile, the middle-class working people you allegedly champion lose their jobs, can't afford to drive to the grocery store, and can't adequately heat their homes. But, if the masses have no bread, let them eat cake, you say.
Thanks.
I realize my previous post, "An Note on 'Class Warfare,' is super-long, and therefore will not be read by most people here, but this is exactly what I was trying to get at. This drilling issue is their "refocus," as you so perfectly put it.
And it really is perfect. The moneyed class is literally trying to drill a hole through the gigantic--indeed monolithic--coalition of average Americans everywhere who are sick of getting screwed by the moneyed and privileged elites who profit from the short-sighted and often just flat-out criminal governmental policies--mostly agreed to in Congressional back rooms--that only benefit them.
Had Bill Clinton not stopped drilling, we would now have the oil we need to be more indendent. But no. The liberals/socialists have an agenda. This article is ridiculous. We have more oil under U.S. soil and OCS than all the mideast combined! We need to drill now. It is our land. Not the liberal jerks in Washington's. There are millions of us, 67% of whom want to drill our own oil, compared to a few hundred of the "officials" in Washington. Andrew Leonard is, so obviously, a liberal that this article is nothing more than propaganda. So utterly disgusting. I fought for my country, has he?
Actual USA Energy Needs = Chuck Norris.
Drill like the dickens, but it will not make any difference. You need alternatives no matter whether you drill or not.
Consider an analogy which Mr. Leonard seem to have absolutely no consciousness of.
Ten years ago, flat-panel TV's were barely available and very expensive. Now, even large sets have broken the $1000 barrier, and they will surely go lower after the transition to all-digital television. Even if digital broadcasting hadn't been mandated by the government, it will probably be impossible to buy a cathode-ray TV set in a few years. Best Buy has already stopped carrying them.
That is the analogy to keep in mind when considering oil and drilling. Like early flat-panel TVs, we can already see oil's replacement technology on the horizon: Honda just started leasing the first fuel-cell cars a couple of days ago. Expensive now, of course, like the first flat-panel TV's; but the technology is understood and will surely become much cheaper over the ten or twenty years. So is the energy source; hydrogen is already not that much more expensive than gasoline, and the energy needed to produce it can be easily derived from solar or wind. Again, a little expensive now, but probably not in the long run.
So, let's complete the analogy: did the government need to forbid or restrict the manufacture of cathode-ray TVs to launch the transition to flat panel? Was there some reason why we needed to limit the sale of cathode-ray sets at Wal-Mart?
No. In a few years, they won't be able to give 'em away, and no one will be manufacturing them, either. What Mr. Leonard seems absolutely unable to conceive of is that the same thing is going to happen to oil as a transportation fuel. Oil isn't a necessity; it's a transitional energy supply, which only needs to get us through the next two or three decades. Then, we'll be done with it, except for industrial uses (which there will still be plenty for.) Meanwhile, what's the point of restricting supply? Like cheap cathode-ray TVs for the second bedroom, let's make the most of what's available during the transitional period! Drill and drill, make it available to everyone as cheaply as possible, just like cathode-ray sets at Wal-Mart. This is not just blindly kicking the can down the road; it's making the most of old technology while it's still around. In the twinkling of an historical eye, it will soon be just a memory.
This is just not a "problem" that the government needs to "manage."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
