Fred Barnes writes a good article in todays Weekly Standard about the excuses Democrats give nowadays for their opposition to new drilling for oil:
BARACK OBAMA PUNCTUATED his opposition last week to offshore drilling for oil and natural gas with a clever jab at John McCain. “The politics may have changed, but the facts have not,” he quipped. A few days earlier, McCain had called for lifting the moratorium on exploration and drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
Obama was only half right. With gasoline at $4-plus a gallon, the politics have indeed changed–in favor of increased domestic oil production. But so have the facts. And it’s that change that has made offshore drilling cost-effective, environmentally safe, and no threat to become an eyesore off the beaches of California and Florida.
Advances in oil technology–which Obama either doesn’t know about or chooses to ignore–allow drilling to go far deeper beneath the sea and thus farther from the coast. Some oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are nearly 200 miles from land. Serious spills from drilling offshore have become practically non-existent. More than 100 rigs in the Gulf were damaged by hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single spill.
~~~House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week that the Democratic Congress is “moving America in a new direction for energy independence.” But preserving the ban on offshore drilling isn’t new. The ban has been in effect since 1981, but Pelosi said it’s not responsible for high gasoline prices. Who’s really to blame? The Bush administration and the oil companies, she said.
Pelosi’s most implausible claim is that energy companies are hoarding oil. If so, they’re doing this as gasoline prices have reached a record high price. And these companies are the same ones that Democrats accuse of being greedy and reaping “obscene profits.”
Hoarding oil–keeping it off the market–certainly makes no economic sense, which is why oil companies aren’t doing it. As supposed evidence, Democrats cite the absence of drilling in 68 million acres of federal oil reserves leased by oil companies. In truth, these areas are under active exploration that may lead to drilling. Drilling, of course, is the last step in oil production. Whatever Democrats may think, oil companies don’t drill first, then explore later to find if drilling is actually worthwhile.
~~~Democrats have also turned to several hardy perennials, claiming that gouging and “excessive speculation” are chiefly at fault for the rise in the price of gasoline. These charges were aired during the 1970s and found to be false. But there’s a new twist this time: the House authorized lawsuits against OPEC, the oil cartel, for price fixing. This tactic is unlikely to be pursued.
Found to be false then, and will be found to be false now. But that hardly matters because its only the message that matters. Just as the Bush critics have spent years sending the message about Iraq being only about WMD, and that no WMD was found (both charges found to be false), the message still pervades American society. Doesn’t matter if its false, urban legends are like that. The American public knows the stats of their favorite sports star inside and out, or all about the marriage turmoil of their favorite Hollywood starlet, but ask them their knowledge of world events and their eyes glaze over.
The MSM says its big oil fault, and it becomes so.
To add fuel to the fire they put the nuttiest people up on the nightly news to screech about man-made global warming and the doom of the planet, all the fault of big oil of course, which people eat up. Take for example the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hanson, who was behind the recent cooking of books to prove man-made global warming. He now says big oil should be charged with crimes against humanity.
You think I’m kidding? (h/t Newsbusters)
James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
~~~Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.”
He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen’s speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public’s attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding “it is time to stop waffling”.
20 years ago he said the planet was doomed. 20 years later and he still says it is as he fudges the numbers in his studies and growing evidence that the planet is cooling.
Democrats, wrong then…wrong now.
More here.
See author page
What we keep hearing from the left as another illogical excuse for not drilling in ANWR as well as other domestic locations is that “it won’t immediately affect the price of gas”. I know this is a poor analogy, but something I constantly hear with regards to health and fitness is that if it took you several years to get in poor shape, it’s going to take a while to get back in shape. Do we just stop watching our diet because we dont’ see significant weight loss over night?? Nay, I say.
In other words, each and every thing we do towards becoming free of foreign oil dependence is significant…I’m not so sure for that matter that we wouldn’t see some change in price immediately, but that’s just my opinion. I keep coming back to supply and demand, of course.
If I hear one more leftist Democrat say the “it wouldn’t help” and “we won’t see a change in the price of gas” mantra, I simply may just have to pull my hair out.
The basic idea behind not drilling in places like ANWR is that some people don’t want them to be spoiled. If a) spoiling ANWR would yield no immediate results, b) whatever results come of it would be short-lived (based on the amount of oil estimated to be there), and c) other options for energy exist (if only we had the will to go after them), then what is the point?
To tighten up you analogy, drilling in ANWR under the circumstances would be like lopping chunks off your body as a weight-loss solution when your healthcare provider will pay for gastric bypass surgery, assuming you had the gumption to sit through the counseling and fill out the paperwork.
Oh, I forgot: It won’t help, and we won’t see a change in the price of gas.
[If a) spoiling ANWR would yield no immediate results,] Your pretense is wrong…it wouldn’t “spoil” ANWR. What facts do you have to back up that we would “spoil” it?
[and c) other options for energy exist (if only we had the will to go after them), then what is the point?] Wrong again…attempts at exploring other options for energy are being pursued. In fact, I just heard John McCain say this morning at a Town Hall in Fresno this morning say that he would pursue SEVERAL and ALL options for alternative energy when he is President.
As far as your help with my poor analogy, I think I’ll stick by my poor analogy, but thanks anwyay.
I mentioned here a fairly detailed alternative energy plan that will naturally be complete in 2050 without government help although it could be much quicker with government help (such as by granting permits). The Democrats just squawk. They have no energy plan. They may have ideas, but there is nothing close to reality. Just pick and alternative energy source and you will see Democrats fighting Democrats on every single alternative energy source.
Hydoelectric dams? They help prevent some fish from spawning and wildlife that depend on those fish to eat.
Nuclear energy? Creates nuclear waste that no state wants.
Wind energy? Loud and kills birds.
Solar energy? It either takes up land used by wildlife or forces people like the poor to put the panels on theri roofs. Since solar power is the most costiest form of energy, the poor will “pay to much” for energy.
Thermo energy? Those sources are far away from energy grids and are often surrounded by abundant wildlife that can be spooked or disrupted.
Alternative fuels (plant waste, natural gas, hydrogen)? Plant waste (ethenol, alcohol) wastes farm land (driving up prices) and still causes pollution. Nobody knows how one is going to get hydrogen, but the Hindenburg is an example of what happens to a large mass of hydrogen when it catches fire. Not only that, to make fuel cells work one needs one of the most expensive and rarest metals out there, platnium. That will hurt the poor since portable fuel cell generators go for $6,000-$8,000. Cars will probably cost a lot more than regular gas cars and even the cheapo cars will probably get stollen as converters are being stolen for the same reason (converters also contain platinum).
If the Democrats were serious about alternative energy, they would quiet the discenters within their own party and come up with a plan. Meanwhile their alternative energy ideas are just ideas.
DW, if you’re not happy with repetative phrasing, why do you keep parroting ANWR, presented as the only place to drill? It is merely the poster child of what’s wrong with Congressional policy on energy independence.
To present, over and over again that ANWR alone will not solve the supply issue is pig headed stubborness to address the complete issue, nor to recognize the actual argument of using ALL… yes I’m shouting so maybe you’ll hear… ALLLLLLLL the possible US oil reserves. ANWR is ready to go, further along in the process of proceeding than anywhere else. And still Congress and their Senator candidates refuse to do whit.
ala… the “poster child” of Congressional idiocy and favors to enviro lobbyists
I really hate it that we only have Senators to choose from this year…. sidebar, BTW. Most of ’em I want out of the Capitol completely… not give them digs in the WH. But I digress.
As far as keep it pristine… it’s hardly a resort area so most will never see it in their lifetimes; the drilling will no more mar that territory than it did the North Slope; it will not affect the wildlife there, just as it didn’t the North Slope. This is all a bunch of BS hooey slammed down our throats by environmentalists.
BTW, Greg? Ditto to Dittman
First of all, I don’t think that “pretense” is the word you’re looking for here. Might I suggest “premise?”
Second: it’s the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. By definition, if we go in there and start an oil drilling operation, it is no longer a wildlife refuge. It’s an oil drilling operation that may or may not have animals living next to it.
That would seem obvious.
DW,
Are you clueless by choice or by genetics?
Over and over again the facts have been presented to you and yet you continue with the same meme.
You’re reciting the same lines that were used by the opposition when President Clinton vetoed drilling.
Talk about tired rhetoric.
Here are a couple of questions for you to see if you even paid the remotest amount of attention to the scores of posts that have already been made regarding this issue.
1) How many total acres are there in ANWR?
2) How many acres would be affected by the drilling footprint?
I’d be willing to be that you don’t have an inkling of an idea as to the answer to those questions.
Yet you present yourself as being some sort of expert.
Well, if you’d actually read my post, you’d notice that I suggested that people find other combinations of words to convey the same ideas. Not the same thing at all.
Also: it’s what’shisname up above who mentioned ANWR. I was just responding.
Shouting will not make me agree with you. Save your energy.
Bogus red herring. I’d never been to the WTC, nor did I know the people who died on September 11; by your reasoning, then, it wasn’t really a big deal. Not many people have climbed to the top of Everest; let’s tear it down and quarry out the rock. The bottom of the ocean is largely unexplored; let’s solve the landfill problem and go back to dumping our garbage offshore.
Dude: can I ship my sewage to your home and have you store it in a closet? Come on, man, it’s not like it’s a huge part of your house–it’s just a closet!
I can’t store my sewage in your closet? Why do you hate America?
Nice dodge but it won’t work for you.
You don’t know the answers and the facts don’t support your conclusions.
Not the same at all, DW. Drilling in ANWR is not the equivalent of terrorists flying into buildings and murder. Whether you visit the WTC had nothing to do with preservation of the WTC and it’s purpose. Creating a quarry on Mt. Everest is not only absurd for logistics, but it doesn’t “preserve” the original intent of the mountain. There is still “garbage” scuttled into the ocean… i.e. ships, even tear down of facilities. i.e. the old Tampa Bay arena was to be rebuilt. They took the garbage, and dumped it off the coast to create reef environment.
Not to mention you picked the first segment out of the sentence, and ignored parts two and three after the semi-colons. Don’t you call that “out of context” or “cherry picking”?
My point was this is a wildlife refuge that isn’t a resort area with high traffic… which would cause more damage to the refuge than an oil field. So if you’re assuming rigs and pipelines “mar” the pristine status of the refuge, you’re basing that on your visual objections, and not on the purpose of the refuge.
So now if you’ll stay on topic instead of bringing pears to the apple festival…
It most certainly can and would stay a wildlife refuge. Built into the ANILCA is the ability to use the territory for gas and oil drilling if it did not conflict with the purpose of the refuge… ala sustain the wildlife. (see excerpts here, and the full text here) Therefore it they can show that the drilling and infrastructure does not negatively impact the wildlife, it is possible.
This has already been proven in Prudhoe/North Slope. Our technology is even more advanced today.
Add to the mix that those who’d be most dedicated to preserving the refuge’s purpose (alal pristine) are the Alaskans themselves. The very same who want ANWR developed.
_______________________
UPDATE: forgot to add development is possible under ANILCA, but only with Congressional approval. Thus the annoyance with them side skirting the reality that the “purpose” for the refuge is not compromised.
It never ceases to amaze what passes for logic and reasonable argument. It’s really quite simple and doesn’t have to go beyond the ANWR issues at hand. 1) ANWR created during Carter admin’n with the “coastal plain” area specifically designated for “future” energy/resource exploration. There’s your precedent for considering the coastal plain well suited for oil drilling. 2) I’ve seen aerial photos of the coastal plain and the nonexistent boundary between it and Prudoe Bay. Same featureless tundra on both sides but petroleum processing going on w/out incident or despoiling on the PB side, nothing but gray, mosquito-breeding expanses on the ANWR side. Even the mountains nearest to the coastal plain are more visually akin to the worlds biggest gravel piles than the media’s favorite pristine, forested peaks and rivers you see on the tube. 3) The development will occur in the winter when “ice road” will be used. 4) With “directional drilling,” vast areas can be accessed with fairly small “footprint”. Photos were posted at NRO corner blog and, as they say, the pictures tell a small reasearch paper’s worth of words. Drill here, drill now, pay less–petition at americansolutions.com
Obama wants oil prices to skyrocket when the country’s largest ethanol producer, ADM is based in Illinois and Exelon is a huge contributor.
Obama has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the nation’s largest nuclear power operator. Exelon Corp. is the second-largest contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign, after financial services company UBS…Exelon executives and employees have given $161,000 to Obama’s presidential bid. He’s received an additional $86,000 since 1998 from Exelon’s political action committee, employees and predecessor, Commonwealth Edison. Obama got money from the company in his 1998 bid for the Illinois state Senate and for his failed 2000 congressional campaign. Exelon also donated to Obama’s PAC and his successful 2004 U.S. Senate bid.
ICPT,
You are correct about the Obamanation and his connections to ethanol and ADM.
[First of all, I don’t think that “pretense” is the word you’re looking for here. Might I suggest “premise?”]
LOL, thank you so much, DW! I thought of that later, but wasn’t at my computer all day in order to make the correction, but somehow I just knew you’d pick up on that…ironically, I found these definitions of “pretense” as well:
2. unwarranted claim: a claim, especially one with few facts to support it.
or, this one:
3. make-believe: make-believe or things imagined.
Guess it still sort of fits my point, eh?
What James Hanson advocates is prosecution for the crime of blasphemy against global warming, the New Testament of the church of environmentalism. Advocating the criminalization of speech and opinion is the desperate tactic of the holder of an otherwise untenable position.
As with the current campaign to revive the “Fairness doctrine”, the advocacy of less speech as a solution to effective speech relieves the proponents of restricted speech of the burden of defending their ideas against others.
Those who cannot, or will not, defend their ideas to the satisfaction of the American people, do not deserve the trust of the American people.
The question is: Does McCain have the smarts to spell out very clearly why oil prices will only rise further if Obama is elected?
It’s clear from the Democrat obstruction to nearly all forms of energy production, an obstruction that has been ongoing for DECADES, that the only answer they have is conservation and some pie in the sky promise of alternatives which will take twice as long to get online as any new oil production from drilling.
We could fund a Manhattan style alternative energy program with the taxes and royalties from domestic production of newfound petroleum resources but the Democrats would block that too.
Meanwhile, all lower income groups will pay an increasingly disproportionate share of the burden as price hikes impact them hardest.
The very groups of people Democrats claim to care about are put at greatest disadvantage by the backdoor schemes of Democrats and their radical/extremist environmental masters.
Is this the “change” Obama promises?
With lobbyist from McCain’s campaign who were tied in with Enron and supported the energy loophole [hedging bets on the futures of commodities like oil], McCain supporters whining about gas prices is the height of oxymoronicness.
JD,
Some links to support your claims would make you so much more credible.
Aye Chihuahua, Assuming you are talking to me, Google “McCain Lobbyist and the Enron loophole”, and pay attention to the names Charlie Black and Phil Gram.
JD,
I won’t do your research for you.
You’re the one trying to make a point, not me.
Do research for me? Google’ing “McCain lobbyist energy loophole” returned 240,000 hit’s, here’s just a few.
McCain Defends ‘Enron Loophole’
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml
Closing Enron Loophole Would Drop Oil Prices 25% – 50% Overnight
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/06/22/closing-enron-loophole-would-drop-oil-prices/
McCain Defends ‘Enron Loophole’
http://www.countercurrents.org/leopold20058.htm
If you need more pacification of your laziness, please let me know.
Interesting,
OBAMA CALLS FOR CLOSING ‘ENRON LOOPHOLE’
I will see if I can find the Congressional record.
And who is Gramm, a lobbyist for energy companies on McCain’s campaign staff.
John McCain’s Gramm Gamble
While we’re posting quotes…
We can play the quote post game. Note that article came from MSNBC, otherwise known as Obama Campaign HQ.
Shall I also jump up and down like a liberal and shout “guilt by association”?
It’s funny how Keating is brought out but it was found that McCain was innocent of these charges. Bob Bennett investigated and recommended the charges be dropped. The Democrats couldn’t allow that to happen though because the other 4 involved were Democrats.
Do we want to discuss surrogates of the campaigns? I’ll play your game.
(ed. Added Bennet info)
Well, John Doe. The same legislation was introduced Dec 15th 2000 in the Senate as S3283 (106th Congress). Sponsored by Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) with co-sponsors of two DNC menbers (Harkin (IA) and Johnson (SD), one almost-a-DNC, Hagel (NE). The two R co-sponsors were Gramm and Fitzgerald.
The House version was HR 5660, introduced the day before and referred to the House Judiciary.
Both bills died, and it was instead consolidated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (HR 4577). The Senate had passed this bill back in June. Per GovTrack records of the legislation:
The Senate passed it 52-43 in the prior June, with 5 not voting. Oddly enuf, Gramm voted against the original version of the bill in the previous June. However the conference committees resolved the differences with amendments added in House over Senate’s prior version.
I’m curious as to where the Texas Observer obtains it’s historical record. They certainly do not provide links to the Congressional record they mention. But it’s obvious as to their political bent. Their headline subtitle is :
That might more honestly be said about BHO himself, rather than about Mac’s associates. Afterall it is His Messiahship that garners the big campaign bucks from banking and investments… a lobby and industry far more wealthy than “evil big oil”. It is BHO who employed ex Countrywide head honchos. It is the DNC who are getting the banking “VIP” mortgage breaks.
I suggest you and the Texas Observer obscure the facts in comfortable speculation.
BTW, John Doe… of course your Google search of the story title returns so many hits. It’s the reproduction of the same Leopold commentary (note, op-ed, not news…) in different media. That proves two points… that you found one op-ed with this nonsense, and that you haven’t a clue how to do internet research.
Uddercha0s,
I’m an independent who thinks both candidates are flawed. But, as I stated earlier, with lobbyist on McCain’s campaign who were responsible for helping energy prices shoot up almost 300% in less then seven years, republicans whining about fuel prices is an oxymoron.
Though it might be for you, leaving a country worth living in for my kids, is no game. So please, save your partisan punches for the mental toddlers at both FOX and MSNBC.
I too am a registered Independent and think both candidates are flawed. We have a Marxist and a Democrat to choose from. If I had my way the American people would tar and feather all politicians in DC and run them out of town and begin again.
And since 2006 when the Democrats took majority control of Congress the price of energy has gone up how much? You don’t even have to leave this site to research that.
Once again, do we want to discuss PAC money bundling and lobbyists for Obama?
I have a long rant that I can go into here but I will spare the readers the agony. I am happy for your children, I will even gladly pay my share to help school them. I do not wish to pay to babysit them, feed them, indoctrinate them, provide them condoms or teach them in Spanish. They can earn their way into college but that does not entitle them to a job when they get out. I have given enough of my pie already.
Games? I don’t have time for them and you have nothing to bet with.