Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
All of it, not just near Florida but the part in the Arctic as well. Then drill for the oil. Self half directly to China, use the money to buy back all our T-Bills. Sell the rest on the open market. Invest that money directly into R&D for renewable/alternative energy sources.
We get:
Short term reduction in price of gas. (more supply)
Stronger dollar. (less T Bills)
Increased employment. (Multiple large R&D firms funded by this)
Pay down our foreign debt. (by buying back the T Bills)
A lot of the hard work done on making new energy solutions feasible.
Yes, there will be drawbacks, yes some local environmental systems will be harmed, but long term this could help us out of a number of jams.
I know it will never happen, just say the word "nationalize" and people think your Castro.
My own sister and brother-in-law have drilled two new wells in the past few years. All this blather about, "No new drilling for 25 years," is baloney. So please stop writing it.
Truth: Drilling offshore or in Alaska or anywhere else will not solve the problem. From a personal finance standpoint, it's wonderful, but there isn't enough to keep us going for more than a few years. Why even bother?
And, please do NOT keep saying that wind and water and solar do not work. Silly maybe (but true) example: I own a sailboat you can waterski behind. And it's not some special hi-tech boat. It is a normal production Hobie Cat.
the problem we have is not only oil but also we way our infrastructure is set up.
our sprawling suburbs have been zoned by municipalities and built by developers with the idea that some cheap form of energy will always be available. The very clear separation between commercial and rezidential zoning make it close to impossible to live life without a car. Plus, residential real estate prices are inversly proportional to the distance to commercial/cultural centers. In effect higher gas prices will affect the lower middle classes who can't afford or can't fit (for reasons of family size) a condo in the newly spruced-up downtowns or a house close to those downtowns.
It's tough to undo what seventy years of building according to zoning that's been segregated into residential/retail/commericial/industrial have done. While the zoning assures beautiful clean neighborhoods, it made us perrenial commuters, and forever hooked on some form of cheap energy.
"...But Democrats are like Toyota, making a bet on what makes economic sense for the future."
Clearly a comment from someone who knows knothing of the auto industry. Ask any Toyota executive about the wisdom of their very recent multi-billion dollar capital investment in the Toyota Tundra and Sequoia assembly plants in indiana and Texas!
Yes Democrats are like Toyota - Since 1942 doing everything they can to convince americans of our incompetence.
In most of the USA, we can set up hydrogen gas stations. Each station can have its own well, for water. And it can have its own solar collectors, for energy.
Each station can produce its own hydrogen, and more productive stations can feed less productive stations, also feed higher deman stations using the same tankers that now deliver your beloved gasoline.
Don't get me started. I have written too much here. Sorry. Please continue.
On the radio last night, it was featured briefly that people who desperately want to get rid of their gas guzzlers czn't find any kind of buyers ... so there's zero trade in value.... which makes that new car even more expensive --- and of course, fuel efficient cars aren't being discounted ... and there are few used vehicles.
There is still MASSIVE amounts that can be done "structurally" to reduce drive-alone commuting consumption ... driving 10 miles to the park and ride, and THEN taking the bus begins to make better sense... as do shuttles and company sponsored shuttles (from park and rides along busy corridors)...
Here around Denver, public transport use is way up ... so much so they are talking about RAISING PRICES ... ha!
I have zero problem with heavy government subsidy or nationalization of some services to meet the dual goals of reducing dependency on imported energy AND reducing greenhouse gases/global warming ...
The "private sector" is going to demand public funds anyway ... and they intend to make a profit ... privatization is a false promise ... just like those absurd promises wrt the breakup of Ma Bell and too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power.
It's not the eevull environmentalists that are keeping us from getting American oil, it's the fact that we've been very, very good at finding and exploiting oil resources. As a result, American oil production has been declining since 1970. Bringing Alaskan oil on-line in the early '80s only slowed the decline. Yes, there are some marginal fields that could yield a bit more oil, but for the most part, the major oil companies have moved offshore and, beyond, to other countries.
On top of that, most countries besides Saudi have had declining production since the 90's, if not earlier.
For what it's worth, I am in favor of developing our Atlantic continental shelf. (I'm against developing ANWR; the environmental cost is too high for the payoff.) But other countries fringing the Atlantic--Canada, Norway, Brazil, Nigeria, etc--have successfully extracted oil there. The geologic setting is similar all the way around the basin, and countries with high environmental standards and significant fisheries have managed to develop oil fields with minimal impact. As others have mentioned upthread, the transport of oil is more hazardous than offshore exploration and production. The real obstacle has been those pesky people living in the coastal states, on both sides of the political spectrum. Get them to go along with drilling!
But it's still not going to solve our basic energy dilemma, nor our greenhouse-gas problem. There's no excuse for not pursuing conservation throughout our economy. In many cases, that will require government incentives. Coal will continue to be exploited, yes, but we've been increasing our usage of that, too (doubling every ~30 years), so that "250 year supply" we had back in the 70's will probably be gone sometime in the mid-century. Renewables need to be developed further--this will require some real support for research. Nuclear power plants should be built, although I understand that right now the economics are against new-plant construction. But, by any measure, the short-lived fossil-fuel age is coming to an end, like it or not. I hope we can transition to whatever follows without destroying ourselves or our environment in the process.
Oh, and for the last time, Cheney's lying (surprise!): CHINA IS NOT DRILLING OFFSHORE CUBA. (Click the sig.) They're doing some landward seismic near Havana; that's about it.
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
