McCain Wants to Lift Ban On Offshore Drilling! [Reader Post]

By 16 Comments 313 views

Atta boy Johnny, you may just pull this thing off after all. McCain has previously said he supports individual states’ decisions to drill. See video here. Though he still opposes drilling in ANWR, he has followed the advice to make gas price reduction his issue. Today he came out with a great proposal.

As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”

Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”

Obama is on the wrong side of this issue and McCain has finally gained a definitive leg up on an issue that will largely control this election.

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

16 Responses to “McCain Wants to Lift Ban On Offshore Drilling! [Reader Post]”

  1. 2

    luva the scissors

    it would be nice not to have to rely on foreign oil. we should be drilling where we have it, while looking for alternative sources or fuel. how hard is this to figure out? global warming is a crock of shit.

  2. 3


    Global warming is a crock? What if your wrong? If those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the worse that can happen? Cleaner air, alternative fuel sources, less smog, more trees. If you are wrong and there is time to make a change, then we are all screwed. Is it really worth taking a chance? Tell me, what bad could happen?

  3. 4

    Aye Chihuahua


    Global warming is a crock?


    What if your wrong?

    We’re not.

    If those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the worse that can happen?

    Industry shutdowns. Massive unemployment. Poverty. Starvation. Economy taxed into collapse.

    Is it really worth taking a chance?

    There’s nothing at risk. Global Warmening is not a threat.

  4. 5


    How do you know you are not worng? Thousands upon thousands of scientist…experts on the field…and 100% of them are wrong? Can you really be sure?

    Why would industry’s shut down? In fact, there would be more employment because of all the new american made machinery for windmills, solar plants and more. Millions of dollars in flooding the economy, more jobs, more money. Starvation??? What do you mean, starvation. In case you have not noticed, you great Ethanol plan is doing that already. Econcomy taxed into collapse? Like it’s not there now. Get your head out of your ass and look around!

  5. 6


    Here just a couple links disputing what you say. Sorry, Rush did not write them so I know you won’t believe it. George Bush thinks there is global warming. John McCain thinks there is global warming. Newt even thinks so! It’s not a political issue anymore, it’s a fact. Stop trying to destroy the world.

  6. 7

    Bill Dupray

    Jim, how will you prove that any of the changes you want to make to combat global warming are working? China and India don’t care. The Brits have been taxed to death for years and they have had enough.

    The poll showed

    More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.

    The survey also reveals that most Britons believe “green” taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.

    The reason is that proponents can’t ever show any benefit from the taxes. It is a socialist scam to confiscate our money.

    Mike Childs, the head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth, blamed the Government for generating a cynical response to “green taxes”. “People do get cynical unless they see benefits,” he said. “The Government is playing a dangerous game. They are using climate change to identify potential new taxes and revenues but the public aren’t seeing anything in return. The public aren’t being helped to go green. The Government could put a windfall tax on the big oil companies and use that money to insulate homes or introduce a feed-in tariff to pay people to produce renewable energy.”

  7. 8

    Dave Noble

    Wow, Aye Chi, that was impressive. Nary a fact , nary an argument. Just a list of dogmatic assertions. Is there someplace one goes to learn the anti-global warming catechism?

  8. 9


    Dave Noble, Aye Chi’s reference to the economic fallout from emissions agreements and cap and trade is well documented in analyses by economic specialists.

    i.e., from the American Council for Capital Formation testimony for the Senate committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion Hearing on “U.S.-International Climate Change Approach: A Clean Technology Solution” Nov, 2005:

    Further, several different economic analyses show that if the EU were to actually meet its emission reduction targets under the protocol the economic costs would be high. For example, new macroeconomic analyses by Global Insight, Inc. show the cost of complying with Kyoto for major EU countries could range between 0.8% of GDP to over 3 % in 2010. (See Figure 1.)

    According to Global Insight, the reason for the significant economic cost is that energy prices, driven by the cost of cap/trade emission permits, have to rise sharply in order to curb demand and reduce GHG emissions. The tighter targets being considered for the post-2012 are also costly, with GDP losses ranging from 1.0 % of GDP to 4.5% for a 3 reduction to 60% below 2000 levels of emissions in the year 2020. Even the EU Commission for the Environment admits that emission reductions could cost as much as 1.3% of GDP by 2030.


    Near-term GHG emission reductions in the developed countries should not take priority over maintaining the strong economic growth necessary to keeping the U.S. one of the key engines for global economic growth. Establishing an ETS system in the U.S. would impede, not promote, U.S. progress in reducing emissions

    The Brits are already rebelling on proposed increased “green” taxes.

    “Saving” the world is not only far from cheap, but the proposed plans via Kyoto and other amendments promise not to save the environment, but to possibly break the bank of the wealthiest developed nations (like the US and Britain), slowing the advance of needed clean energy for developed, and developing, nations.

    Al Gore, however, will continue to be one wealthy SOB for perpetuating, and taking advantage of, the economic plan to “save the world”.

  9. 10

    Dave Noble


    My objection to Aye Chi’s post was primarily concerned with his unsupported assertions that global warming is a “crock” and “not a threat.” That flies in the face of the scientific consensus on this issue.

    There is no argument that there will be costs associated with any legislation that attempts to reduce green house gases. Whether the Lieberman-Warner Act is the most cost-effective means of reducing green house gases is a matter for debate. The ACCF, which issued a joint report with the National Association of Manufacturers, is not a neutral entity on this issue. Then again, who is? But we need to take into account the bias/agenda of the authors of reports that are often disenguously presented as a rigorous objective analysis.

    For your consideration, the following is from a press release by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

    While the models offer valuable insights, they do not tell the complete story. They reveal long-term assumptions are at best only approximations. For example, accurately predicting the availability and cost of technologies 50 years in the future is nearly impossible. The models do not fully represent the Lieberman-Warner bill, often omitting potential cost-savings provisions including certain energy efficiency inducements and the Carbon Market Efficiency Board’s role in regulating allowances. The models also fail to consider the costs of inaction, and any credible analysis finds that unabated climate change will cost far more than reasonable climate policy.

    Finally, it’s not about Al Gore.

  10. 11

    Aye Chihuahua


    That flies in the face of the scientific consensus on this issue.



    There is no consensus on this issue.

  11. 12


    Dave Noble, global warming has changed to the cliche phrase, “climate change” for a reason. Warming trends are no longer, and again fluctuating. It was subtle, and so few seem to notice the rallying cry as altered to fit the ever changing weather patterns.

    The argument for most has never been about whether the climate “warms” or “changes”. Absurd to think climate is status quo. It’s about whether it’s caused by man. As Aye Chi says, for every report you can find that claims “consensus”, there are reports that deny “consensus”.

    Al Gore is the iconic poster child for what this is IS about… power, money, and control. That is “climate change” BS in a nutshell. We are, as I’ve said here before, what equates to be a gnat on the butt of an elephant. Man will never be able to control Mother Nature, but he can control other men under the delusion of reigning in natural forces.

    And I agree whole heartedly. No one is neutral on the issue. However how they choose to address this still contested issue has global economic effects that will cause guaranteed catastrophe, even if climate change does not.

  12. 13

    Aye Chihuahua



    You say things so well.

    I am not as gifted with the ability to turn a phrase as you are.

    My entire point about Global Warmening is that it’s just another scare tactic used by those who want to control our lives and limit our freedoms.

    The people who push this garbage want to control how I light my home (those bulbs contain mercury which is extremely harmful to the environment), what temperature my home is, what I drive to work, and how far I drive to work. They want to prevent tax me for using my outdoor grill if I am in the mood for a juicy piece of Salmon.

    Heck, there are even those who want restaurants to only serve what is in season or pay a fine for doing otherwise.

    Every bit of this nonsense is an imposition on my freedom.

    Throughout recorded history our earth has warmed and cooled and warmed again. There’s nothing new here. Over the past 100 or so years the earth has warmed 6/10 of one degree Celsius.

    6/10 of ONE degree Celsius.

    Global Warmening….that 6/10 of One degree Celsius has been blamed for an amazingly long list of things:

    Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, increase in stray cats, Costa Rica frog die-offs, faster greens at the Masters, deadly jellyfish migration….all the way through to wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, world at war, world bankruptcy, world in crisis, world in flames, and yellow fever.

    Those are just a few of over 300 things blamed on Global Warmening, this “crisis” that doesn’t exist. Global Warmening has even been blamed for a decrease in circumcision.

    Give me a break!

    There is no “crisis” here.

    It’s such nonsense.


    By the way Dave, don’t ever accuse me of “dogmatic assertions” or any other such gobbledygook.

    There is always a source or a well-documented set of facts upon which I base each and every post.

  13. 14


    Thanks for the compliment, Aye Chi. But I suspect my fingers are perhaps only better in sync with my keyboard, as I find little fault with your reasoning most all times.

    But there’s a perfect example of the global warming/climate change racket that escapes most. And that’s the planting trees/carbon offset biz. (of which Gore is vested with Generation Investment Management… he sells his high energy footprint to himself…)

    [Update note: GIM invests in companies, not trees that I know of]

    First off, the further away from the equator the trees are, the less gain for planetary cooling. ala per Dr [Govindasamy] Bala [of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] and colleague Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, (which I picked up off the site):

    Their analysis indicates that three key factors are involved:

    *forests can cool the planet by absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide during photosynthesis

    *they can also cool the planet by evaporating water to the atmosphere and increasing cloudiness; a deck of white clouds reflects incoming solar radiation straight back out into space

    *trees can also have a warming effect because they are dark and absorb a lot of sunlight, holding heat near ground level

    “Our study shows that tropical forests are very beneficial to the climate because they take up carbon and increase cloudiness, which in turn helps cool the planet,” explained Dr Bala.

    The further you move from the equator, though, these gains are eroded; and the team’s modelling predicts that planting more trees in mid- and high-latitude locations could lead to a net warming of a few degrees by the year 2100.

    “The darkening of the surface by new forest canopies in the high-latitude boreal regions allows absorption of more sunlight that helps to warm the surface,” Dr Bala said.

    Okay.. we now have a study by the global warming types themselves that say planting trees in the wrong area could actually increase planetary warming. So what are these carbon offset companies doing with the money from the wealthy and gullible?

    Amakhala Conservation Centre is reforesting the eastern Cape of South Africa
    UK’s Carbon Neutral is planting in the Carrifran Valley in Scotland, and in Canada (see my next post below for update)

    PrimaKlima-Weltweit is planting in Hungary and Germany
    EcoNeutral is planting in Canada
    Carbon Counter is planting in Oregon
    The C-change Trust is planting in Wales
    Cleanairpass and Tree Canada are planting in Canada

    To see specifically what these bright lightbulbs are doing, here’s a list of various carbon offset projects worldside. Bar none, reforestation is the prime money useage for carbon offset monies with 99 projects going. The closest 2nd and 3rd in number of projects is wind (49 projects) and methane (25).

    Only 10… count ’em… *10* projects out of 291 total are dedicated to fuels.

    Here’s a link to the google map with the reforestation projects marked. A quick glance can show you the bulk of the reforestation projects are, if not worthless, detrimental to the quest.

    Duh…. like I want to to economic and financial power to these bozos? Man, they’re making it up as they go along, fer heavens sake!

  14. 15


    UPDATE #2

    I mentioned above that I didn’t know if Al Gore’s GIM was involved in the tree planting business. They work with two carbon offset companies.

    One is Carbon Neutral (assuming on the UK one at this point… another branch in Australia). See them in the list of idiots in my other above post.

    They have 28 projects going, 13 of which are reforestation. Nine of those are not equator proximate friendly. Six are wind… 3 in India, one in China, one in New Zealand, one in Turkey. Only one fuel project in Hungary, and two methane projects – one in Pennsylvania, the other in Germany.

    The second carbon offset company they work with is Chicago Climate Exchange. They’re not showing up on the carbon offset site at all, so I’m in the process of reading thru the company site.

  15. Jim at #5 asked:

    “How do you know you are not worng? Thousands upon thousands of scientist…experts on the field…and 100% of them are wrong? “

    100% Jim?

    31,072 scientists, many with advanced degrees, have signed the following petition:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    And add this to your enlightenment on the issue:

    “U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *