The president knows, as his own administration has stated, that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant -- promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road. Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the president is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America's pristine beaches and in other protected areas.
The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.
Today, the New Direction Congress will vote on legislation to bring down gas prices by taking crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures market. The president himself could lower prices by drawing down a small portion of our government oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The New Direction Congress will continue to bring forth responsible proposals to increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers, and transition America to a clean, renewable energy independent future.
This post was first published on the Speaker's blog, The Gavel.
Plain and simple.
Designed to fool voters who don't the facts with the help of a compliant media.
You could plug in your car at home or any business. End of story.
a: it may take ten years for any tangible results to arrive.
b: when they do arrive, the savings will only be only miniscule to the consumer.
c: and perhaps most importantly of all, we should be off of oil by then - in ten years. And we should be relying by then on clean and renewable energy resources.
Shouldn't the debate be focussed on how to get to clean, sensible, renewable energy resources as soon as possible rather than on whether to ratchet up one of the major causes of today's problems?
So why are the Republicans treating this issue as if it were a holy war? What's in it for them? For even regarding the profit motive Big Oil and all the politicians Big Oil owns won't see the benefits for many years to come. And, hopefully, by then we will be on another track. If not, well..... we have an idea of the consequences.
B. Maybe, maybe not. Saying it will just do a little is a pointless argument because every little bit helps
C. Off of oil in 10 years? What magical fuel will be using in our cars and how long do you think it will take to turn over the every car in the US population? 10 years off of oil, you're are dreaming buddy . . . maybe 50 is a decent estimate.
Oil is going to be needed, it is basically in damn near everything you own . . . you think we won't have plastic, air conditioners, computers, paint, etc. in 10 years?
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilproducts.html
The rest of the world is feeling the pain, too. But we are feeling twice the pain with our weak dollar and gas guzzlers. Low interest rates did not just destroy our housing and banking industry, it destroyed our currency. So instead of drilling offshore and hurting the tourism industry, let's look for long-term solutions.
Were Congress to announce a windfall tax on oil, investment (speculation) would flee from oil. Prices would come back down to reality. Besides, at this point in the bust and boom cycle, one's money would perform better if invested in alternative energy. Exxon is a foolish investment suited for the 20th century. We need to be thinking 21st century.
Instead of treating our sewage and letting it flow into the ocean, we could be turning it into gas using algae. We could also turn every dump into a fuel refinery using garbage. Sure beats turning our food into fuel! It's time to send the market a signal. Congress, Mr. President, we're waiting.
Agree, but you do know if we drill 50 miles off shore, you won't be able to see the oil rigg?
The thing that bugs me is people like Pelosi believe that oil won't be a part of the ultimate solution and the long transition we are moving towards.
Impeach them, Madam Speaker. Please.
In 2000 the U.S. was drilling 25,000 gas and oil wells a year. In the last 7 years, the Republican's oil soaked "Drill Here and Drill Now" energy policies have approved increased drilling at every opportunity. In 2007 there were 49,000 gas and oil wells drilled.
The result of this mania for gas and oil is that oil is approaching $150/barrel and gas has increased from $1.50 to $4.50 per gallon.
Seven years of "Drill Here and Drill Now" have demonstrated its complete failure as a national energy policy. On the other hand a few months of reduced consumption has had immediate effect!
It's clear to any informed observer that it will be years before any oil gained from a new drilling initiative becomes available. It's also clear that this oil, when available, will be sold on the open market like anything else, not somehow piped to the "American people".
The sad truth is that the vast majority of Americans are completely ignorant of this, any every other important policy issue, and the only way to gain their support is to pander to their ignorance. The Republicans have been aware of this for years, and it is why they win elections. It is also why our country is in for some very tough times ahead.
a major advancement
in the production of energy from the Sun.
In ten years we will not need oil
to power our homes and other elecrical devices.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
Sure, the oil companies have 68 million acres but are they in a stage of development? Getting a lease is just step one, it can take years to get a permit to actually drill and another permit to extract the contents. I also haven't seen them back up there claim with saying how much oil is actually on that land, just because they have a lease doesn't mean that there is a significant amount of oil there.
The other argument is it will take 10 years to get . . . so what? We will need in oil in 10, 20 and even 30 years. Hopefully not as much but there is little doubt it will be needed. Bill Clinton said it 13 years ago and looking back, sure would be nice if he wouldn't have made that weak excuse because ANWR would have been up and running.
The last argument, it won't lower prices . . . so if you blame the speculators you basically contradict yourself since they are setting the price in the FUTURES market on what they think the price will be in the FUTURE. If they think supply will be tight and we won't add to the supply, the price will
It is just possible that there are other compelling reasons to oppose unfettered drilling than the purely environmental reasons.
The main reason I am opposed to relaxing current restrictions on drilling is because it offers us no solution to the problem. If we are addicted to oil, we cannot break the addiction with more oil. It is for economic reasons too that I oppose such a plan. Burning oil, or other fossil fuels, besides fouling our planet, also are the technologies of the PAST.
This is the 21st Century. We have the technology to totally eliminate oil as a source of energy to propel our vehicles. If we embark on a 10 year plan to replace the internal combustion engine with electric engines, or fuel cells, we can leave the oil in the ground for future use. The price of oil will plummet, because demand will also plummet. The oil companies are wetting themselves over the possibility of our escaping our addiction, and would like nothing better than to scare you (us) in to ignoring the alternatives and securing their own economic future.
Mercedes Benz will cease making gasoline powered vehicles in just a few short years. They see the future. There must be Democrats running that company! :>)
Other than harming the environment, what exactly is bad about our "addiction to oil" if oil is plentiful off our coasts and in ANWR? If it's more cost efficient to run combustion engines than electric engines, why make the switch at all? Why is leaving the oil in the ground a good thing if there is so much of it?
WHY ISN"T THE PRESENT ADMINSTRATION PUSHING FOR EXPEDITED EXPLORATION/EXPLOITATION PERMITTING ON THE EXISTING 68 MILLION ACRES PRESENTLY LEASED???
That would certainly be the most expediant process!
OR is that the present administration is looking to lease lock the last existing exploration/exploitation opportunities?