Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I can't add much to your post, which is well-nigh perfect, except two comments.
First, the market for oil is a world market. If the US drills more oil, then one way or another, directly or indirectly, other countries get most (75%?) of it. I don't care about that personally, but the flag-wavers might.
The second point is that when facts change, people are entitled to reconsider their opinions. The price of oil and gas has jumped far beyond most people's expectations a year or two ago. People like McCain are entitled to change their opinions without being accused of flip-flopping. Accusing them of being wrong is of course appropriate.
President the lame duck Bush lays the blame for high gas prices--hold on to your oil rig hats, everyone--on the high price of oil. Yes, it's now seven fold what he was when Bush Cheney, oilmen forever, took office, and two and half wars, much global warming, free trade with China, and record profits for the Bush Cheney friends in the Persian Gulf and the big oil companies later, the solution--are you listening John McSame?--is more of digging the deep hole he got us in to. How awful and eeerie it is to have such a dufus for commander in chief. Worse though, is the outside chance--Bush's cynical poltical assessments of corportate greed and short term self interest have always been on the mark--that the Congress may allow itself to be panicked into believing this barrel sized crock. Even the cleanest, most accident free production of oil, and coal, and shale will take decades, and suck the investments needed now for clean alternative energy into hundreds of newly created black holes in earth and sea. Only a man who truly cares nothing about his country, his fellow citizens or the world could stand before us and take no share of the blame for the fix he has put us in. To allow this President to end his term by opening up oir natuaral areas to oil, coal, and gas instead of investing in the future is a Christmas gift that evry American will pay for for decades to come.
Actually, nuclear reactors are not terrible options. They release far less pollutants into the atmosphere than burning coal or oil and use fewer resources. Western Europe has been using nuclear power for decades without problems. Conservation is obviously important, but it won't be enough. We should all be getting behind the cleanest energy alternative that we have at our disposal at this time.
I live in propane country. Lots of the country lives in heating oil country and/or big grid natural gas.
As oil prices drive up heating prices, electricity will have to fill-in ... likely to bump demand to summer air conditioning levels if not beyond.
Bumped heating prices affects everyone -- more or less -- including children, the disabled, the retired, and others and -- unlike gasoline consumption -- is much harder to cut-back on, or be more efficient with -- price climbs over the last few years have probably effect most of the low-hanging-fruid wrt efficiency.
I know it's only June, but Fall and Winter will see a whole other face of "the oil crisis"
A little over a year ago, when oil prices were at $70 I made an investment in a drilling venture. We hit oil. Now, a year later, with prices at $136, I have effectively hedged $4.00 gasoline. It is risky, requiring steady nerves and about 10-50 large. The opportunities are in this country. It takes the sting out of high pump prices and offers an alternative to a bouncing stock market. Forget he politics and concentrate on the money.
To actually write that this is "a profound choice between two world views", shows an amazing lack of intellectual capacity. Framing the so called "debate" in such polarizing terms suggests there are no other solutions available. Or Leonard, like Obama, would rather complain and finger point, rather than come up with real solutions. We can't drill for oil AND develop alternative sources? The concept of multiple approaches to the energy problem is academically too taxing to consider? Alternative energy research would mysteriously end if we allowed off shore drilling? That's a helluva prediction to make. Based on what?
We're sitting on the largest coal deposits in the world, which could be converted to oil; refuse to drill into known oil deposits, refuse to build nuclear power plants; and then wring our collective hands over wind farms. Meanwhile China is drilling 60 miles off the coast off Florida! ........I guess luddites like Leonard won't be happy until we have a third world economy and are all gathered around communal campfires. After all, to paraphrase Churchill, "Socialism IS the equal sharing of misery"
I find extremely suspicious that all the pro drilling politicians can not trot out one reputable economist to make a prediction about how much ANWR and offshore drilling will decrease gas prices. An increase in domestic production probably will not have a great impact on gas prices. Recently gas price increases suggest that world-wide demand is relatively inelastic and growing. Any small price reduction may just mean higher consumption and thus little price impact.
The other crucial variable is that the majority of the world's oil reserves are controlled by foreign state run oil companies that can always reduce production either in concert or in the case of a big player, like Saudi Arabia, alone to maintain a particular price target.
A good quarter now, at the risk of financial disaster next year?
The essence of Pascal's wager: it's a better bet to believe in God, because eternal damnation is a big risk.
Of course, the risk - of "financial disaster" or "global warming" - is just as hypothetical as hell.
No drilling. Too little too late. Check
No coal. Too dirty, hurts mountains. Check
No nuclear. Too scary. Check
Ok, so other than starving in the cold and dark, what have you got?
Ah..somebody is speaking the truth. How mysterious and rare. Our oil deposits are like retirement accounts that will continually appreciate. Their value will only accelerate as oil grows more scarce. So why are the conservatives saying we should plunder them now? It is insane, unless a person is totally negligent in their planning.
It is super important to speak the truth about this and make clear which party is fiscally responsible. The readers of Salon know this...but not the working stiffs who vote Republicans because they don't read the news or follow the issues, they just let themselves be swayed with "wedge issues."
So speak up, Obama, and all you resurgent Democrats. Tell the truth about which party is fiscally responsible!
Here's another "Big Lie" that should be pointed out: the idea that Reagan led an economic revival. Ronald Reagan's "boom" was based on maxing out the national credit card (i.e. running up debt). It's time Democrats stopped letting Republicans put an unrealistic gloss on the fiscal malfeasance of the Reagan years.
After Clinton bit the bullet and raised taxes (inspiring all sorts of predictions of economic doom around 1994) which actually led to a stronger economy and a surplus, George W. Bush took things to a new height, essentially using Clinton's surplus to pay off Bush's richest donors. Republicans like to say that the Clinton economic boom ended a few months before Clinton left office, but they neglect to point out the Republican's intentionally kneecapped Clinton toward the end and refused to cooperate in any initiatives for the last 10 months or so of Clinton's term. That was when things started trending down.
But it was Bush who really pulled a fast one, and again, this seems to have gone right over the heads of the less savvy voters who tend to fall for wedge issues. Here it is: Bush's tax cuts were NOT (as he maintained) designed to stimulate the economy. They were designed to pay off his big donors. For stimulus purposes, a dollar is a dollar (and poor people are much more likely to spend a "stimulus" check, but leave that aside for now). Why on earth should Bush's giveaway of the federal surplus have been based on *percentage of income*? The original rationalization of Bush's tax cuts was that they would stimulate the economy in a time of possible recession, so all all taxpayers should have gotten the same amount of reduction *in dollars* rather than in *percentage*. No way should the tax reduction have been based on percentage of income! That had the predictable effect of increasing the gap between rich and poor dramatically during W's tenure. This year's tax rebates were a slight pay-back, distributing the same amount to everybody so it had more impact on the poor than the rich, but it should have been that way from the beginning. Instead, Bush basically skimmed off Clinton's (the nation's) surplus and used it to repay his wealthy corporate and "top 1% of income" donors, one of the most amazing and galling political tricks in many a year and the cause of our current deficit.
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
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
