Bush lifts oil drilling ban, wants Congress to act

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bush lifts oil drilling ban, wants Congress to act stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

BEN FELLER | July 14, 2008 10:53 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Bush makes a statement on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf, Monday, July 14, 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling and challenged Congress to follow suit, aiming to turn the enormous public frustration about gasoline prices into political leverage. Democratic lawmakers rejected Bush's plan as a symbolic stunt.

With gas prices topping $4.10 a gallon nationally, Bush made his most assertive move to extend oil exploration, an energy priority of his presidency. By lifting the executive prohibition against coastal drilling, Bush rescinded a White House policy that his own father put in place in 1990.

The move will have no practical effect unless Congress acts, too. Both executive and legislative bans must be lifted before offshore exploration can happen.

Bush had called on Congress a month ago to go first, then reversed himself on Monday. He said the country could no longer afford to wait.

"Failure to act is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the American people," Bush said in an event held in the Rose Garden.

"Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I've taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration," Bush said.

The president's direct link between record gas prices and offshore drilling glossed over a key point. Even if Congress agreed, the exploration for oil would take years to produce real results. It is not projected to reduce gas prices in the short term. Even the White House routinely emphasizes there is no quick fix.

That did not stop Bush from building his case around today's prices at the pump.

Story continues below

He said every extra dollar that families must spend on gas is one they could be using to put food on their table or to send a child to school. The American people, he said, are now "waiting to see what the Congress will do."

The White House says that acting now on a long-term solution would send a serious signal to the market that more oil supply will be coming on line. That, in turn, could ease oil prices, advocates say. Business groups and many Republican lawmakers applauded the move to expand the energy supply in the U.S.

Democrats were unmoved.

"The Bush plan is a hoax," responded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence."

Several Democratic leaders in Congress said oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres of public and coastal lands.

Yet a proposal by Democrats to release oil from an emergency reserve has been rejected by the White House as a gimmick that won't reduce prices.

So the election-year stalemate remains.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have long opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, including the current one, has sided with Congress for each of the last 27 years in barring drilling in these waters.

The main goal has been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies. But Bush says that with today's technology, exploration can be conducted along the Outer Continental Shelf in ways that keep the drilling out of sight and protect the environment.

The congressional ban is renewed yearly, typically as part of a spending bill. The White House said it was too soon to comment on a potential Bush veto.

Under Bush's proposal, states would help decide how drilling would be conducted off their shores. It is unclear how much oil would be available. Bush said it could eventually be enough to produce 10 years' worth of America's current oil production.

Both presidential campaigns weighed in.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush's move "a very important signal" and prodded his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, to drop his opposition to offshore drilling. "If we can show that we have significant oil reserves off our coasts, that will clearly affect the futures market and affect the price of oil," McCain said.

Obama favors another economic stimulus package that includes energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels. "If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither."

Environmental groups also criticized Bush.

The public, though, is growing impatient for answers.

Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center last month said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came from those who had previously viewed exploration as a less important priority, including people who identified themselves as liberals, independents and Democrats.

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling and challenged Congress to follow suit, aiming to turn the enormous public frustration about gasoline price...
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling and challenged Congress to follow suit, aiming to turn the enormous public frustration about gasoline price...
Filed by Katharine Zaleski  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
958
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
photo

Support California and Florida in resistance to off-shore drilling! It destroys the oceans, beaches and wildlife living there. Try cleaning off the black tar after walking along the Texas gulf coast.
There is no short-term answer to high-energy costs. More drilling just adds to oil company profits and won’t bring prices down at the pump…EVER! We red-state Texans pay more for gasoline than our neighbors and we allow drilling wherever they please!
There are too many consumers on Earth and only a finite amount of irreplaceable oil. Small limited supply + high demand = high prices forever! The only answer is to supply our energy needs in other renewable ways…BUT ones that do not take the food out of our mouths. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Tidal energy are the best options but must be made more efficient. Nuclear fusion is great, but it needs much more research. Nuclear fission is a possible answer BUT NOT until we can recycle or dispose safely of the radioactive waste. We cannot keep storing radioactive waste in water tanks at the nuclear power plants forever!
We need a call reminiscent of President Kennedy’s moon challenge…a call from President Obama for us to become energy independent within one decade. This vision/goal would powerfully unite us. It would create millions of “green” jobs through science education and ingenuity in breakthrough technologies. Our children must have a secure energy future. Yes, we can!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 PM on 07/14/2008
- TxAggie I'm a Fan of TxAggie 5 fans permalink

Hate to burst the bubble of a fellow Texan but those tar balls come from naturally occuring oil seeps that you're gonna be cleaning off your legs whether we drill or not. As for your other points there is no way I can dissuade you from your opinion but I would point out that in the GOM our oil industry has an excellent record where 30% of the domestic oil and 21% of the natural gas is produced- no doubt you are the beneficiary of those activities. As a result of the efforts of the oil and gas industry, $16 B goes into the US Treasuring which logically has resulted in your income tax being less than it might otherwise be. In addition to the royalties paid, the industry has created jobs, paid taxes, made charitable contributions and made your quality of life better. Operations in the Texas State waters are largely responsible for the fact that you live in one of the few states without a state income tax. I don't believe you realize which side of your bread is buttered and from whence the butter came. We have sufficient reserves to carry us through transition to other energy sources and it would be stupid not to develop our resources. As for "President" Obama- I wouldn't count those chickens just yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 07/14/2008
- Diogenis I'm a Fan of Diogenis 66 fans permalink

Well fellow bloggers, G W Bush is hell bent on doing all the damage he can do..before he leaves "office"! I am organizing a Big Good Riddance Party. As long as McCain does not get in....The World Is A Safer Place"!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 07/14/2008
- TheBlackCat I'm a Fan of TheBlackCat 288 fans permalink
photo

Conservatives posting on this thread ARE correct in that alternative energy and conservation can't fix the problem alone. We can only conserve so much.

However, before we turn to more drilling, why not improve our infrastructure? Most electrical wiring in America is done with outdated, cheap wiring materials which prevents a huge amount of electricity that travels along these wires from actually reaching their destinations. Double paning windows saves an absolutely ENORMOUS amount of energy from heating and cooling buildings and homes. Better insulation is another thing we can do which gives us a huge reduction in oil use.

Improving our existing infrastructure saves us more in oil than we would GET from offshore driling. Also..

1. It does not infringe on state's rights issues
2. It does not threaten our natural environment
3. It is cheaper than expanding drilling
4. It can be done on the local level and does not require huge beaurocratic federal projects which will undoubtedly waste billions in mismanagement
5. It does not require Americans to change their way of life, which we all know Americans hate doing.
6. The energy and money savings will be experienced IMMEDIATELY, not decades down the road as with drilling.
7. The monetary savings will be felt by citizens, companies, and government alike. It's a win-win-win situation.
7. These are permanent fixes. If we drill for more oil, that will still run out. Improved infrastructure is a gift that keeps on giving.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 07/14/2008

We can conserve tens of times more oil than we can newly drill for. The rest of the argument is thus hollow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 07/14/2008
- TheBlackCat I'm a Fan of TheBlackCat 288 fans permalink
photo

I don't understand how my argument is null because conservation saves more than drilling. My argument IS about conservation, but in a way that would be more acceptable to most Americans because it is passive and will not require them to change or do anything. I am all for conservation in general- smaller cars, public transit, etc. I still will support companies and politicians who promote this. But infrastructure renewal has less of an oportunity to be stonewalled by the public or by politicians as an "attack on the American way of life." I believe in outright conservation, but that is something it will take awhile for Americans to get on board with. Infrastructure improvement is something than can be IMMEDIATELY implemented because it doesn't require a change in our national ideology or in the energy paradigm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 07/14/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 37 fans permalink

And if we conserve AND produce, we can generate 20 times. Your point is as hollow as the cheap plastic body of your Prius deathtrap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 07/15/2008
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 9 fans permalink

"We can conserve tens of times more oil than we can newly drill for"

Simply false and ignorant. We can drill the Green River oil shales using steam extraction technology pioneered by Royal Dutch Shell Oil. There are at least 1.5 Trillion bbls equivalent recoverable, enough to supply the US for 250 or more years at current rates of consumption. Some experts think there are 2.0 + Trillon bbls equivalent recoverable there. Thats more than 300 years worth.

Even if you are able to conserve 50%, which I think is overly optimistic, it would take 600 years to equal that amount of oil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 07/17/2008

"What I think the president ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up. OPEC has gotten its supply act together, and it's driving the price, like it did in the past. And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price."

~George W. Bu$h, January 26, 2000

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

ROTFL!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

Mark my words, Gas prices won't come down until the idiot in the White House and all his minions are removed, or ride off down the dusty trail.

He is the most hated leader of this country all over the world in this land's history.. The ones who can make a difference in our prices are seeing without any doubt whatsoever that this country makes a change, or they will absolutely just let us screw ourselves.
How do I know this? A gut instinct, I guess, but probably because I KNOW if I was a leader in the OPEC cartel, I would be all about doing that exact same thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 07/14/2008
- SmellyOne I'm a Fan of SmellyOne 28 fans permalink
photo

Gas prices are NEVER coming down.

4 bucks a gallon is here for life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:41 PM on 07/14/2008
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 9 fans permalink

I've got $20 that says you are wrong. Never is a long time, pal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 07/17/2008

Gas prices in 2010 will be around $6/gallon. And it won't matter if the first name of the next US president is John, Barrack or Rumpelstiltskin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 07/14/2008
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 661 fans permalink
photo

Drill...................Drill................Drill................

Ah, I feel better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 PM on 07/14/2008

It's always good to let go of the hot gas.

:-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 07/14/2008
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 661 fans permalink
photo

The comment I made hasn't already been posted, that is mathematically impossible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 07/14/2008
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 661 fans permalink
photo

As long as there is a serious investment in weening us off of oil that is a fair compromise. What ? there is no serious investment in weening us off of oil ? Fahget about it !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 07/14/2008
- SmellyOne I'm a Fan of SmellyOne 28 fans permalink
photo

There is serious investment in Alternative Energies, it's just at the beginning.

Both candidates for prez have AE investing in their Energy Plan.

Drilling for oil will not hold back AE. AE will thrive because of the Free Market and Capitalism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 07/14/2008
- k6007 I'm a Fan of k6007 237 fans permalink
photo

Your opinion stinks:)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

You assume to much, as in a "free-market" that isn't stacked in the favor of oil companies, and that doesn't hinder AE efforts on behalf of those oil companies. That is the situation right now, and if Big Oil has anything say about it, that's the way it will remain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 07/14/2008

The only serious investments people are making right now is in buying hybrids and insulating their natural gas or oil heated homes. These are the only two measures of ANY economic relevance to this discussion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 07/14/2008
- wolf58 I'm a Fan of wolf58 35 fans permalink

From 2000
Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.

''I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply,'' Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. ''Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.''

Implicit in his comments was a criticism of the Clinton administration as failing to take advantage of the good will that the United States built with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Also implicit was that as the son of the president who built the coalition that drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Mr. Bush would be able to establish ties on a personal level that would persuade oil-producing nations that they owed the United States something in return.

''Ours is a nation that helped Kuwait and the Saudis, and you'd think we'd have the capital necessary to convince them to increase the crude supplies,'' he said.

''The fundamental question is, 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' ''

He went on to suggest, as he did in answer to other questions, that voters should simply trust him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 07/14/2008
- woodchips I'm a Fan of woodchips 2 fans permalink

Wow. I never thought I'd say this, but he was absolutely correct. After all his administration has done in the Middle East, they owe us something. Now he can use all that political capital to convince them to give the US what we've earned. Now bend over...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 07/14/2008
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 661 fans permalink
photo

Anyone got a Band-Aid ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 07/14/2008

Why can't we allow offshore drilling? Couldn't we make restrictions? Couldn't we demand acreage of land already permitted in exchange for offshore drilling?

Couldn't we restrict coast line that would be more greatly impacted by offshore drilling?

I mean we already drill in the gulf. If it means we could possibly cut our dependency of foreign oil, why not?
Couldn't the democrats use offshore drilling to pass certain legislation. Couldn't we use it to stop tax breaks to oil companies.

Someone please explain why this couldn't be done in addition to some democrat goals. Why can't we have the best of both worlds?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 07/14/2008
- k6007 I'm a Fan of k6007 237 fans permalink
photo

Do you have any idea, at all, WHAT is going on with the current level of pollution, in the world's oceans? Are you, even, the least bit curious?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 07/14/2008

Please read my response to LiberalBuzz.

Our oceans are very important. And drilling with US restrictions is probably better than offshore drilling elsewhere. If not then we need to make it so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

First off the environmental damage potentially could be horrific.

Secondly WHY BOTHER?

It will NOT lower the price of oil or gas. WITHOUT Exception the oil executives all said it will only make them richer and not do a damned thing about gas.

As well AND this is the kicker that MSM and even Huffpost ignores to great extent.

Right now the oil companies hold almost SIXTY EIGHT (68) MILLION ACRES OF OIL LEASES NOW and they refuse to drill on them.

WHY?

Congress didn't bother asking those questions or if they did they got left out of the public discourse on the matter.

So explain to me why anyone would want to encourage the oil companies to push for more leases when they already have millions of acres of leases they refuse to drill in now??

Best explanation I have heard is that they use these leases as collatoral on loans they make against the future value. It also inflates their value as a company.

It really is nothing more than a scam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 07/14/2008

I understand the possible environmental implications. That's why I suggest limited and restrictive. Much like the way the FAA approves an area for a new airport. I'm not suggesting open up all our shoreline to the oil companies. I'm saying if an oil company wants to drill in a particular area, a government run agency looks into the environmental impact.

And for the 68 million acres of land, why not call the oil companies bluff. Suggest for every acre of shore line they give up 2 acres of already leased land.

I guess my point is, the republicans and the democrats are in a stalemate. Neither of the two will budge. In the meantime the American economy suffers.

Why not give Bush and McCain a restrictive counter offer that only benefits them if they are looking after the best interest of America. The Oil companies claim there is a shortage. They will not give up land, loose their tax brakes, and possibly add windfall taxes unless they really could produce more oil in offshore drilling.

The Democrats make an offer that weakens the republican argument unless the republicans accept. Either way the republicans no longer have an argument.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 07/14/2008

Mica, they are dire health consequences associated with defecating where you eat. Though I guess a nice Bernaise sauce would make oil soaked fish more palatable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

Take a small boat tour of the gulf coast, starting in Venice, LA and go west down the east coast of Texas; report back on what see.

There are few if any viable tourism beaches on that stretch, but still the damage from the oil industry is obvious to even the untrained eye.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 07/14/2008

I guess I really don't know what other impacts are caused by offshore drilling other than a spill. I live in the midwest and see none of that. I would like to know more. Do you know of any studies that show what kind of impact off shore drilling has?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 07/14/2008
- TxAggie I'm a Fan of TxAggie 5 fans permalink

Rolo- that's bull$hit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 PM on 07/14/2008

Once again, US citizens and their politicians are being only concerned with short-term fixes instead of long-term solutions. And this isn't even a short-term fix.

Being a native Texan and growing up with oil wells, they don't bother me that much, aesthetically.

But there are known environmental costs . . . drilling off of the gulf coast has caused land subsidence (see NOLA: Katrina). And I'm not even taking into consideration the horrible effects of an oil spill.

Also, the oil companies are sitting on something like 68 million acres that they don't drill on. They haven't been clamboring for more offshore leases -- only stupid republicans have.

We don't have the refining capacity. We don't have the oil rigs (and it takes 10 years to design and build a rig).

Event T. Boone Pickens is calling for us to end our dependence on oil.

This is just a cheap stunt to help the Republicans and oil speculators. It won't help the citizens of the US in any form or fashion.

Also, I feel quite strongly that no oil drilling will take place. If there was oil out there, the oil companies would have already been drilling for it .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 07/14/2008

I really appreciate your responses. I don't completely understand all the details. But I do believe the democrats could call Bush's bluff by combining offshore drilling with restrictions, taxes, and the threat of taking away already leased land from the oil companies. That could expose Bush/McCain and their real agenda.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 07/14/2008
- TxAggie I'm a Fan of TxAggie 5 fans permalink

Tex-Being a Texas you have no real good excuse for being so ignorant- bone up on the subject just a tad. Offshore drilling has no more to do with coastal subsidence than does fishing, ship traffic or any other activity in the OCS. The rig count is at a 22 year high, when you read the Dem talking points about the leased acreage that companies aren't "using", well where do you think the oil and gas is coming from? Do they mention the leased acreage where we can't get drilling permits because the government want grant them? Do they mention that geology has just a little bit to do with it? Let's talk the GOM- there are 40 MM acres leased, there are 7500 or so leases, it produces 30% of the oil and 21% of the natural gas proudced in the country- and these %'s are growing- do you think that has happpened by not drilling? We are drilling more andmore wells and finding less per well- that is why we need new areas to explore in. It is not really that complicated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 07/14/2008
- SmellyOne I'm a Fan of SmellyOne 28 fans permalink
photo

Energy Freedom For Regular People

http://blog.regularenergyfreedom.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 07/14/2008

Blogs are SUCH a good source for factual information.

(sarcasm off)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 07/14/2008

What could we do with $153 Billion per year? If continental oil resources are used the US will save over $153 Billion a year that will stay in the US, that will pay US taxes and fees, that will pay ten of thousands of US workers, et al. And if the US were to use enough domestic resources maybe we could reduce the hidden costs for our necessary involvement in the Middle East saving the US another $60 Billion a year. We need conservation, alternatives and conventional sources such as oil, coal and nuclear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 07/14/2008

If we weren't destroying the ME in our quest for hegemony and oil, we could save $12 to $13 billion per month or $144 to $156 billion per year. Ending foreign aid to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would result in an additional savings of more than $5 billion. Ending domestic aid to Big Oil would save $7 billion per year. Add it up, I'm sure you can do the math.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 PM on 07/14/2008

division : Oil = Middle East Involvement

Go Carol !!


-ralph

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

Nope, never happen. It would be 10 to 20 years before we see the oil and by then the price of gas is going to be so high why bother.

How about the U.S., instead of pandering to nonsense about offshore drilling, start a huge push to get us OFF OIL?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 07/14/2008

There is no way "it would be 10 to 20 years before we see the oil" where did those numbers come from. Some of the oil would be "seen" in as little as 1 year with most of the offshore production going within 6 years. The it won't come on line for years is the very same reason not to save for retirement. ALL solutions will take years to work so that's not a differentiating factor. Get us off oil, how we're getting 39.818 Quadrillion BTU of energy from petroleum? The EIA estimates the US will have to get more than 85% of its total energy from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. The long term solution is nuclear and the short term is increase conservation, alternatives and conventional sources.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 07/14/2008

We can save $150 billion per year by not fighting an unnecessary war.
We can save $500 billion per year by driving more efficient cars.

Why bother waiting for an elusive solution when you have real ones that can be implemented today?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 07/14/2008

The Republicans will benefit by doing this and talking about energy independence, something Americans want to see happen. The Liberals can talk about hugging another tree as a path to energy independence if they want to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 07/14/2008

The people of Florida do not want drilling off shore. Neither do the people of California.

This is not a smart move to make.

Democratic registration is surging in Florida. This will just cause a multiplier effect.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 07/14/2008

Yeah VolvoB, try to explain to an idiot how people are not as stupid as they are.

Hehehehe.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 07/14/2008
- TheBlackCat I'm a Fan of TheBlackCat 288 fans permalink
photo

As I've posted throughout this thread, when I lived in Florida there was NO Floridians, civilians or politicians, who were FOR offshore drilling. The Republicans in power there were extremely vocal about protecting Florida's ocean resoucres and well being and were constantly having to assure voters they would fight any attempt to every start this practice. Gov Jeb Bush and President George Bush were constantly at odds on this issue. Florida's entire economy is based upon its beautiful but fragile ecosystem. The most conservative Floridians are STILL for portecting the everglades and the oceans. There may not be a state more concerned with protecting its natural environment than Florida, because there is no other state so dependent on the pristine quality of its ecosystem for its economic survival.

States rights is paramount to the Republican platform. If they try and use the federal government to try and force Florida to drill offshore, then the Republican party is truly dead, and something else has taken its place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 07/14/2008

Dude, you might want to check those logic circuits...
They seem to be Stuck on "Strawman"...


And really, when did ANY conservative EVER want the average joe to have real independence of any kind?

When they are independent, they are alot harder to exploit, aren't they ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:23 PM on 07/14/2008
- Diogenis I'm a Fan of Diogenis 66 fans permalink

Oh, ah Brad, you are from Pennsylvania? Now I understand. You are brain dead too, and quite uniformed. Try to think for yourself. Logic! Ya, I know it's hard for you, cuz you have been braintainted! No, I am not a "liberal"...and I do not hug trees! I am not a native of Pennsylvania, yet, I reside here now, and I am amazed how "brain tainted" most are here. See, I did not say "brain washed" cuz, that implies somehow..a clean brain. What I see ...are tainted brains here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 07/14/2008
- Chris I'm a Fan of Chris 12 fans permalink

Many posters here criticize but few offer soltuions. So please huffster tell us all your plans for immediate price reduction and long term solution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 07/14/2008

The "posters" here are not elected officials to solve problems! Mr. Mrs. Ms.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 07/14/2008
- lornejl I'm a Fan of lornejl 661 fans permalink
photo

First give me 100 million acres of land and cut my taxes, then I will tell you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 07/14/2008
photo

Anyone who is informed already knows the short and long term solutions. We've discussed them ad nauseam on this site. The dilemma is that the Government does not want to create solutions that are in our interests. They create problems for the public, that benefit corporations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 07/14/2008

In the end the people will have to pay for the solution. If Joe is holding off insulating his house for an elusive 20% government tax break that might or might not come anytime soon while paying 40% more for his heating bill next winter, Joe simply has not done his home economics homework. Same for buying a hybrid car.

I think it will take another year or two before the Joes of this country realize that waiting for the government to do something does not help them. After that, around 2009/2010, we will see much larger scale efforts by the population to take matter into their own hands.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 07/14/2008
- chendri887 I'm a Fan of chendri887 24 fans permalink
photo

My god, it is beyond depressing to internalize this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 07/14/2008
- TheBlackCat I'm a Fan of TheBlackCat 288 fans permalink
photo

Have the government pay to double pane every window in America. This won't solve our energy problem, of COURSE. However, for a short term fix, it is far better than drilling. The oil that would be saved in just the first 5 years is more oil than exists in the entire Arctic Wildlife Reserve. It would save more heating oil than would be procured by offshore drilling. It can be implemented immediately, no need for building an infrastructure and pipeline first and then actually getting to and refining the oil. It would costs billions less than offshore drilling. Also the effects will be seen immediately, as cold weather happens every year. we would start saving us money within months, not within decades. Double paning every window would benefit all of us immediately without encroaching on our environment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 07/14/2008
- TxAggie I'm a Fan of TxAggie 5 fans permalink

have the government pay- what's stopping you from double paneing to your heart's content?How would it save oil for folks like me (and most americans) that don't use heating oil? How do you know that more oil would be saved with double panes wehn you don't know how much is in the OCS? Why are you concerned with the cost of infrastructure? Were you planning on paying for it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 07/14/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (19 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect