I think the thing that gets on my nerves the most about Bush, aside from his poor decision making, is that he treats everyone as if they're stupid, generally by playing to their fears.
This off-shore drilling thing is a perfect example of that. Any economist will tell you that such drilling will not have any affect on gas prices, for the obvious reasons that it takes five to ten years to finally get oil, and the total amount available is about two and a half years of our (current) consumption. Spread that out over several decades, and you don't need to be a statistician to see that it'll have no impact.
What's worse is that the dummy is now attributing high gas prices to the "Democratically controlled Congress." Nevermind that the rise started well before they assumed "control," and that it's market forces that dictate the price of oil.
I can't wait for this moron to be out of office.
Okay, lets assume that drilling for oil on the OCS will not impact fuel prices (FTR I'm in that school of thought that gas prices will not be affected outside of +/- %10 per gallon). What is so bad about drilling for oil on the OCS anyway? Why the federal ban? Why can't the states decide whether or not they would like to drill for oil off of their coastline? I'm just curious of your opinion on this.
Why? Environmental impact is a start. The only entities to benefit are oil companies, and I'm not a big fan. Besides, at issue is political jockeying and fear mongering, which I've very much had enough of. I'm tired of a president that treats the public as if they're stupid (and maybe they are seeing as how half of it elected him, twice).
Your first argument is the only one I see as valid. The rest are all a matter of opinion. Jobs are created not just by big oil, especially when the environmental impact studies are done, which sometimes take years to complete. We complain about not manufacturing our own products anymore, yet when given the opportunity to do so we ban ourselves from doing it. As far as leadership treating those as being stupid, isn't that exactly what you are doing by deciding what is best for others by citing just one valid drawback to something that potentially provides many more advantages to us and our economy?
I don't expect to change your view on this, I'm just curious as to why it's such a terrible thing to want to manufacture our own petroleum, a natural resource that is used many different ways besides powering cars. So far, the only valid reason I see is the impact on the environment, something that I can agree with being a drawback. I just don't think that should be the sole reason for banning drilling.
You can't trash the environment for minor, virtually immeasurable impact. We did that through the entire industrial revolution, and we're still cleaning up after it.
I'm not telling anyone they're stupid. When the president says, "We should do this, just because, take my word for it," which he has a long history of doing, bad things happen.
Oil is a dying technology. Producing more of it doesn't solve any problems, even though Bush suggests that it does. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of any economist with the slightest bit of common sense.
And if you want to attribute the price of oil to something, consider first the beyond weak dollar, which is the currency oil is traded in, and irrational commodities traders. If oil were traded in Euros, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I mean, the Saudis say they'll increase production, and gas prices still go up.
If oil is the dying technology then what is taking its place? Oil isn't just used for powering cars, it's used to heat homes, make plastic cups, make clothing, paint walls, cover copper wiring and I can keep on going. Face it, the use of oil increases every year. Why not take the opportunity and capitalize off of it?
How is it again that you telling others that drilling offshore for oil is a bad idea, isn't just "taking your word for it"? It's the same principle. Bush has his opinion, you and other environmentalists have yours.
The environmental risks are there, yes, same thing for mining salt, mining coal, logging, and mining iron. Does that mean we should be banning it too? Volcanoes spew out tons of ash, carbon dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide, every year. Do we need to send a bill to the Earth for their carbon footprint?
I'm not saying we should go and kill the environment, but I think if the proper precautions are taken, like what is being done with current drilling, what is so wrong about drilling for our own oil?
What's taking its place is the big question, isn't it? We should probably figure that out quickly, because geologists are revising their end date for oil by decades now. The DOE believes that we'll peak around 2037 and then drop off very quickly. That estimate, when I read it, ignored the growing consumption of developing economies like China.
So we can figure out the alternative now, and start using it with nice coastlines, or we can cause further harm to the environment with little to no benefit and be out of oil and have a trashed planet. Don't be so shortsighted.
Bush doesn't have an opinion, he's a moron. Read what I'm fucking saying here, Rob. When he plays off fear and says there will be an impact, but economists universally don't, there's no factual basis in his "opinion."
Your comparisons are silly. Volcanoes? Yeah, we've got all kinds of control over those.
So let me say it again, the problem with drilling for our own oil is that the environmental cost is too high and there is no economic development, the very thing that Dubya says we'll get out of it. Perhaps he should listen to his father who pushed the ban in the first place.
I'm all for finding alternative fuels but the thing about oil is that it solves our problems for now. It's relatively cheap, it wields lots of energy, and can be used for quite a few things.
You say that Bush is a moron, in some ways he is. He isn't very firm when it comes to attacks against him and he did conservatives a disservice by working with the liberals on the other side of the aisle. On the flip side, I think environmentalists in general are morons, too. They play the same fear mongering card that you accuse Bush of participating in. For example, when I was in elementary school, the environmentalists were teaching that we were entering an ice age, about the same time when Bush 42 passed the ban on drilling oil because of climate change. We were told that we'd have a completely different climate and that we only had "20 years" to live.
In 1998 we recorded the hottest summer ever. Today I'm hearing that it's actually going to be cooler for the next 10-12 years. I thought the Earth was burning up? I thought we were freezing to death? What gives?
Listen to what I'm fucking saying Jeff. When I use swear words I can make my point just as strongly as you do. If you really want to be a true environmentalist, put your money where your mouth is. Move into the city on top of other people, buy a bicycle, mount some solar panels on your 20' x 20' apartment and actually become part of the solution and not just someone who is pretending to.
In the meantime as a consumer and a firm believer in capitalism I think we should drill, just like we do when we recover other natural resources. Did you know the average car on the road today is 14 years old? How many new cars produced today will still be on the road 14 years from now? How many of those cars are still going to be consuming fuel?
Why shoot ourselves in the foot and basically tell the typical working person "tough crap, we know better than you, buy one of these 'green cars'" that's exactly what environmentalists are doing. Hybid cars that came on the market 8 years ago are becoming cheaper and will provide the segway to the next infrastructure necessary to power the economy. Eventually something else will come along and completely replace oil.
Speaking of "green" energy, last I checked nuclear (something that is here today) is completely clean yet environmentalists are completely against it. Why is that?
You're making generalizations about a group of people and I'm talking about one guy with a history of being stupid. The fact that Bush is a Republican or conservative is irrelevant. Your defense of the guy always comes down to that, or so-and-so is the opposite.
Your assertion about having a cool summer demonstrates that you don't get anything beyond the sound bites regarding climate change. You should watch An Inconvenient Truth so you can get a good overview of the science, not politics, of the issue.
I don't need to give you my environmental resume. Don't be an ass. Dozens of little things I do make a difference. Don't dodge the debate.
What do 14-year-old cars have to do with anything? And who is telling working people anything? You keep coming back to "environmentalists" as if they're another political party, and it doesn't contribute to the debate. Yes, there are environmentalists who think nuclear power is wrong, and they're radicals not living in any realm of science. That's why your generalizations are not helpful, or a counter argument to any actual issue.
I'm not handing Jeff's ass to him, we're having a civilized discussion. In the end, we never change our minds and as far as I know things are cool.
Back to Jeff, yes I'm making generalizations about environmentalists but aren't you doing that about Bush? You act as if Bush snuck is into Iraq (a war that I was really on the fence on in the beginning, but now we need to finish the job) in the dead of night, while people are forgetting that Congress needed to authorize the war and continue authorizing the funds for it, presently under a slight Democratic controlled Congress they are still funding it. You talk about leadership being crap for the last 8 years and I whole-heartedly agree with you, I just disagree that the crappy leadership solely lies wtih the President, I think Congress is just at bad (Republican and Democrats alike) in the fact that they get nothing meaningful done.
The problem I have with ban on drilling is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It sucks either way because, yes, it's not great for the environment, but there are other countries right off of our shoreline drilling the oil, so why can't we? It's not a scare tactic, it's the truth. Why should we limit the state of Florida or Alaska their right to decide whether or not they want to be a part of the oil industry? It would be like the federal government banning wind tubines on the south shore of Lake Erie (which is considered one of the windiest parts of the world) because birds fly into the turbines...hmm bad example.
Meanwhile, Alaska is more than happy to have the jobs created through drilling oil, something that is good for their economy. More power to them. I think Ohio can capitalize on the alternative fuel market and we should continue to do so, but as it stands now our way of life is dependant on oil, that is until Dr. Octopus gets his invention right.
Again you're going off-topic. I'm not talking about Congress or anyone else. Bush has made a great many decisions that have led us down a negative path, and suggesting that we allow off-shore drilling is one of them. At this point it's not a generalization or even an opinion, it's the record.
There is no shooting ourselves in the foot. To suggest that is to imply there is a greater benefit to the nation if we drilled. There isn't, especially not the benefit he's claiming. Factor in the environmental impact, and not only is there no greater good, it negatively impacts everyone. This isn't about states' rights.
If you're going to link to something, at least do it to something that's actually news, not a Fox News wannabe. We don't control who is drilling in Cuban waters. We control who drills in our own. The Chinese show greater disregard for the environment than we do (and Cuba is opportunistic given our irrational trade embargo with them). They cane people too, so does that mean it's OK for us?
Again, to summarize:
Off-shore drilling will not reduce gas prices, as Bush indicates. See above comments about economists, weakness of the USD and a mess in the commodity markets. These are the reasons not to lift the ban. "It couldn't hurt" isn't true, nor is it the justification that Bush is using.