Naomi Klein Debunks Bush's Offshore Drilling Plan (VIDEO)

Watch as Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, debunks President Bush's offshore drilling plan on Fox News. To read blogs from Klein go here. To read more about her book go here.

Comments

[coyote4]

Beautiful, smart and feisty.

Buy her book.

[DontSpinMeBro]

Not only is there a worldwide short of land rigs, there is also a shortage of offshore rigs. Rig sale and rental is a world market. Bush and his biys know this. They are playing this "stupid card" for mainstream America. The mainstream doesn't think about anything. They just react.
If anyone has an extra rig, please let me know. I'll pay you a huge finders fee.

[liberation4life]

Naomi essentially is on to a major point when you think about it. Its human nature to be most vulnerable when desperate for a solution. I'm the sure the current administration realizes this and corrupt minds can well take advantange of this.

[jimtree]

Question: If oil prices are high on the world market, why would added US production drop the price of gasoline any more than additional production in for example Brazil. The oil market is a world market. American production might help ease our balance of payment problems; but how could it actually affect the price except as an addition to the total world oil supply? As I understand it, substantial quantities of Alaskan oil are currently shipped to Japan. Wouldn't additional Alaskan oil end up in China or Japan rather than Ohio or Kansas if the oil companies could ge a better price? Wouldn't Gulf of Mexico oil end up in Europe if the price there were higher?

[DontSpinMeBro]

Exactly!

[sandiegoconservative]

It would probably drop the price slightly on a world market because of the increase in supply, but more importantly, it would drop the price in the U.S. because it can be drilled, processed and sold entirely in the United States, thus allowing us to better control the price we pay and to decrease the price that is paid for imported oil (in currency and value).

If the U.S. limited drilling solely to U.S. owned companies, with U.S. employees, taxed by the U.S. government, not subject to importation fees/issues and distributed by the U.S. market, it would be a huge win for the United States.

We import way too much of pretty much anything, and now we have a chance to remedy some of this problem. The government just has to make sure those parameters are in place and are adhered to.

[jimtree]

The only cost savings to the consumers would be from reduced freight which is proportionally a very small amount. Huge oil tankers result in very, very low shipping costs. It is cheaper to ship a given quantity of oil from the Middle East to New York by ship, than the same amount from New York to Columbus, Ohio by train. Prices would be pushed up to the world demand price as determined by the world market minus the freight savings. Any difference would be pocketed by the oil companies unless the difference was taxed away. Otherwise they would ship their oil overseas. We are now in a world market. The consumer gas cost will reflect the world oil price unless the domestic price is purposefully held down by the government. There is no such thing as a US oil company. They are international borderless corporations that can shift their investment where they wish. I rather doubt that these oil companies would care to make big investments in US domestic oil production if the US government takes their profits. They would simply shift their investment to their foreign offices and holdings.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

The video clearly shows that capitalism is for poor people, socialism is for corporations.

Socialize cost. Privatize profits.

[Huffingtonposter231]

Just think, if the democrats hadn't kept us from drilling in Alaska we'd have access to more oil than Saudi Arabia give us. And if they hadn't kept us from nuclear power, the world might not be melting down from a man made carbon disaster. We are still pretending we believe Carbon is the cause of warming right?

[Canaris]

Did you know that drilling in ANWR was brought before the Senate nearly a decade ago, and the bill to open ANWR to drilling, which had already passed Congress, was defeated by one vote. A vote cast by a Senator who was allowed to vote last, even though the Senate votes by the first letter of the Senator's last name.

The Senator whose "no" vote, the last vote cast, killed the bill to open ANWR to drilling?

Sen. John McCain.

Unless John McCain has switched parties in the last decade, it wasn't the Democrats who kept us from drilling in Alaska, it was John McCain. Look it up.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

Just think, if the GOP hadn't kept us from multiple alternate energy R&D and improving CAFE standards, we would have way more energy than drilling in 3 ANWARS, 3 Continental Shelf drillings, and a dozen Nuke plants, at the cost of half of one ANWAR and one nuke plant. We are still pretending the GOP is something besides a total failure, right ?

[celticjag]

Naomi Klein is spot on. She understands the economic con game that is going on.

[celticjag]

Naomi Klein is spot on. She is one of the most knowledgeable persons concerning the economic con game that is going on today.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

Damn, who is this lady? She pulverized that little bushie.

[MB141]

Naomi Klein may be the smartest guest to ever appear on Fox...they must be getting desperate. Both hosts seemed completely clueless to anything more advanced than "capitalism good, regulation bad." The concept of government using disasters to push through policies that benefit almost exclusively big business was clearly over their heads. On another note, thanks HuffPo for featuring a clip from Fox Business...otherwise, most of us would have never known this interview even happened! And what about that set...do they really broadcast a show from a bar? What the hell is that all about?

[longnow]

Yeah Niomi, tell the truth and take the Fox News 1950's loyalty oath.
Raise your right hand...
"DO YOU BELIEVE IN FREE MKT. CAPITALISM?
Yes I do.
ARE YOU ONE OF THEM THERE CLOSET COMMUNESSES?
No I'm not.
WANT TO WORK FOR ROGER?
No I do not.

[GuiltyByStander]

Hey! How did our oil get under their sand?!

If you're partial to feisty (Canadian) women, take a look at Linda McQuaig's book "It's the Crude Dude."

[Tommygun264]

I love to watch these two vacuous hosts squirming as they listen to perhaps their first guest who isn't a Bush boot-licker.

[marleysghost]

While everyone is talking about drilling for more oil, who's discussing the lack of refining capacity? Mexico has an abundance of oil, but refining capacity is so low as to be non-existent. Saudi Arabia wants to send us more heavy crude oil, but the market only want sweet crude oil. It's not drilling; it's using what we have wisely.

The high prices are overdue anyway since we are the grasshopper in the ant and grasshopper fable. We ignore the conservation method and we keep stalling on the diversification message as well. When we run out of oil, that's all she wrote. Until we invade another nation to secure its natural resources for ourselve, that is.

[bryansmith]

And then we will conveniently forget to include the cost of securing resources in the price of gas. I suggest we pass a bill that requires disclosure of taxpayer expenditures per gallon of gas. That way, people will see that we are really paying closer to $10-15 per gallon when we consider what it takes to secure foreign resources, maintain shipping lanes in the Straight of Hormus (don't feel like looking up correct spelling right now) and proved tax relief for oil companies.

I wonder how the wealthy would feel if they knew they subsidize gasoline for the poor.

[jimtree]

You would also need to add in the cost of the Gulf wars plus the cost of our troops in the Middle East.

[mjt218]

I think Naomi did a fantastic job and represented herself and her views very well. The male commentator got it handed to him. He's completely nuts to think that oil can be brought to market from nothing in 1-5 years. He's trying to confuse his Fox listeners with the subtle difference between beginning exploratory drilling and actually bringing the product to the market (probably 5-15 years out).

Only issue I disagree with Naomi on is that I think expanded drilling could be part of the solution. Congress should draft legislation that all royalties for new drilling areas after government regulatory operating costs should be used to subsidize alternative energy programs.

[jpshotwheels]

On Keith Olberman Thursday night, that the Republicans blocked the passage of a bill last week, to drill on the land they already have leased to drill on. If it so important to drill than why did they block the bill.

The answer and Naomi is correct to open up more land to drill on, before Bush leaves office, to allow the oil companies free for all, where they really want to drill.

Second thing she is correct on is opening up the reserves for right now and use some of that oil, when the price comes down some more than they can fill what we have used out of the reserves.

Most important, is closing "The Enron Loophole" this will drop oil prices by 30% within a week and stop Wall Street from the Speculation Scheme. Bush was best buddies with the Enron CEO's, as soon as he went in office, he passed a bill, so Enron could control the cost of electricity. They are doing the same thing with the oil, where the heck do you think Bush/Cheney learned all of this. The ENRON Criminals. Just as that company stole money from lots of Americans, BUSH/CHENEY are doing the same thing to all Americans. WE HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED.

[Huffingtonposter231]

The idea of drilling where there is no oil and keeping America from drilling where it knows it has vast amounts of oil is purely a left wing agenda.

[Redrover666]

Keith slanted the story to make you happy. The democrats tried to block offshore drilling by trying to force oil companies to drill where they didn't want to.

[DallasMike]

Maybe its because there is no oil on the land they have already leased.

[worldtraveller]

Just sayin... but wouldn't opening reserves with the declaration of replacing those same reserves later just offset any decrease in immediate price with the knowledge of now having increased future demand. Essentially August oil would drop lets say 3 dollars but then December oil (assuming replace in December) would go up about $3.00.

I can see the stopping of adding to reserves as doing something but the other alternative is net volume neutral particularly when you recognize that oil is really a stored asset in the ground anyway.

Also and most importantly, all OPEC would have to do is declare cuts equal to whatever we release in order to confirm who controls supply. Oh and to add comedy to that then we would have to hope they raise back up to earlier levels when we realize they just cut production and shoved it in our face.

I thought all 3 showed nothing in that convo.