What if we drilled offshore 20 years ago?
Katrina nailed rigs, but they didn't spillWhat if America had drilled offshore for the last few decades, would America be as dependent on foreign oil as today? I have no idea, but I'd bet that we'd be in the same situation. Nonetheless, there are many Americans - probably not a majority - whom believe that greens are to blame for not allowing any drilling. And, what, other than foreign oil, has replaced this lack of drilling? Thus, when greens talk about global warming, these constituents do not trust them.
So, why not open up some drilling, on the condition that there is guaranteed money for other alternative energy products? While Democrats keep claiming we can't drill our way out of foreign oil dependency, you can't do nothing and end foreign oil dependency either. The job of Congress is to create consensus-driven legislation, not to just blame the other side and never accomplish anything.
Labels: Foreign Oil Dependency
posted by Dahcredyns at
11:09 AM
16 Comments:
Because using oil is an environmental disaster. What's the point in continuing this lunacy?
If we had spent even 1/3 of the money we have already pissed away on this pathetic war, we'd have already had an alternative energy infrastructure in place.
What's stopping us from doing anything is greed and power..nothing else. No one cares about anyone else...no one cares about people's lives. Even in this transitional stage, it's not about caring, it's about how they can make even more money.
Until that changes, we can drill, we can solar-ize, we can generate wind-power, we grow algae up our butts, it won't make a difference. We'll still end up digging out own ditch and we're well on our way.
drilling in the middle east, venezuela, the gulf of mexico, etc, etc, isn't an environmental disaster? continuing the use of foreign oil, instead of american oil, is less of an environmental disaster?
at least if we were drilling our own oil we wouldn't have to fight as many wars in the middle east. that alone would help the environment.
still, that isn't the point. the point is, opening up a little more drilling as a compromise to more alternative energy funding should be on the table. unless we revert to the buggy and horse, we are going to need a lot of oil for the next few decades no matter what we do today.
still, congressionally speaking, we've had no compromise for decades, and look where we are today. it's time for Congress do something more while in office except getting richer while acquiring medical benefits the rest of us would kill for.
yet, i agree, fundamentally, this is about greed. but that greed is perpetuated in urban myths, lies and deception.
the top 10 percent of americans are worth far more than the rest of us. the top 1 percent own 90 percent of All the wealth in America. Democracy, consensus, has the ability to change that, doesn't it?
otherwise, we might as well just start the war now and get it over with.
for now, i'll sit on the side of consensus.
My point is adding to the drilling is no better.
If we spent the money to obtain alternative energy, we'd not have to drill in the middle east, Venezuela, or where ever else.
I disagree about requiring alot of oil. If we change now and invest now, we'd reduce consumption to a point where even today's amounts would be sufficient and sustainable. We aren't. We little to nothing about it. No one want's to sacrifice anything. That's the problem. Yet we're all screaming about it.
Instead of wasting huge amounts of money, time, and effort to make more rigs to drill, we need to completely change focus and direction. This is the only way we are going to stand a chance in the future...otherwise we're going be driving horse and buggy whether we like it or not.
I agree that we need to be energy independent. But remember that we were energy independent at one time....then we dried out resources up and built more rigs elsewhere. It's out fault...it's our doing. Yet we still haven't learned that oil is an energy source that is now, from this point on, better forgotten.
i'm not arguing that more drilling will really accomplish anything, other than consensus. if we start drilling today, it will take at least 5 to 7 years for that oil to come on line, probably more like 10 years.
however, if that drilling is agreed to only on the basis that alternative energy funding move along aggressively in the interim - and we can make that happen today - then i say 'let's make a deal.'
lets agree to take one step back ward and 3 steps forward. that's positive momentum, and that's far better than what's been going on.
By the time offshore drilling offered any saving on gas prices gas will probably be $10 a gallon. We should just focus on alternative energy sources that will free us from our oil dependency.
mycarauctionreview.com
All we've done is take steps backward like this and people now think that's the direction to go! They need to stop and check where we supposed to be going here and track our progress on the map. Stop the car! We're going the wrong way!
I'm at the point where I don't care if my kids will know the pleasure of driving a car or not. I just don't want them to be feudal serf's fighting to scrape by in a contaminated world.
we've been talking about more alternative energy resources for decades, yet they make up like what, about a percent - maybe a couple of percent - of our energy production?
how many more decades are we going to keep talking?
and, yes it will take a long time for that new oil to the hit market, just as it will take decades for solar to become cost-effective, etc, etc.
ANYTHING we do today will take a long time to have an impact, other than conservation - something American's are particularly horrible at.
i'm simply saying that we need some consensus. we need to start taking action today. i'm tired of our parties never doing anything as they wait for a majority that either never comes, nor lasts long enough.
kp-
i don't think we've been taking steps backwards. we've been standing in the same spot for a few decades as our oil consumption has increased, and since we could buy oil cheaply from OPEC, on one really cared to accomplish anything.
instead of new oil rigs, i'd rather have a huge gas tax that makes our fuel prices comparable to the European average, but that will never happen.
we're heading to disaster not because we've been taking steps backwards, but because we've been standing in the same spot with our heads in a hole.
and, let's think about our political system.
a few years ago, gwb tried to make social security a major political issue. dems squashed it claiming there was no crisis in the social security system - as a party - because they didn't want bush and republicans to gain any positive momentum. of course, dems knew full well that the social security system was in big trouble, but it wasn't the right time to act because republicans had power. so, we've now waited years to resolve a problem that is getting bigger by the minute.
repubs. will probably pull the same shenanigans when dems try to make big changes.
this kind of political gridlock might have worked a few hundred years ago when it took weeks to send messages across the country via the pony express, but it doesn't work in today's 'business at the speed of light' world.
in my opinion, real change is going to require compromise.
Too little, too late. Peak Oil, over-population, Global Climate Change, ... AND America (its people and government) is greedier than ever.
NOT THE SAME SPOT, that is lost ground my friend.
Compromise on the environment, etc., has been the policy since it became evident in the 60's and we've only made things worse.
Active expectation adjustment is the only way. Offshore drilling is denial with a capital D!
Put down the kool-aid.
Denial is thinking that alternative energy can replace our energy consumption in the next few decades. It can't, unless you are talking about nuclear, which will still take decades and massive amounts of capital to get going.
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT DRILLING FOR OIL IS A SOLUTION, JUST THAT IT MIGHT BE PART OF AN EFFECTIVE COMPROMISE.
Every single American that drives is buying NEWLY drilled oil regularly, its just not drilled in US territory. Every American that doesn't want new drilling should STOP driving or just keep drinking the kool-aide and pretend that just because it wasn't drilled off American shores, somehow its greener and safer oil.
And btw I take the subway for 95 percent of my travels, so i don't have to drive.
I don't need kool-aide. i already live what i believe.
et tu, dahc? more oil drilling? how could u?
Dahc,
You're to be commended for your authentic green habits. Seriously.
But (and I don't mean to preach to the choir) look out the window while you're on the subway at the quagmire of traffic under the smog. Look at the expectations for the economy. Look at the foreclosures. This nation is in denial. Flat screen tv's are still selling like mad to people who shouldn't even be wasting their money on cable! Most people still haven't heard of Peak Oil, much less understand it.
No. Compromise is watching what $8/gallon gas does to the tipping point of the economy. Wasting time wishing on possible oil that we wouldn't see for a decade is ludicrous.
I truly empathize with your hopes for turn-around, but you're forgetting how uniquely informed you are compared to Mr. and Mrs. Main Street USA and who is actually reading your posts.
-- a tired choir member --
I'M NOT.
I'm only saying that I would support drilling if it led to a compromise that started a huge alternative energy program today.
we might not be drilling off the coast of California anytime soon, but we'll be drilling oil shale soon at our current pace, and that's a much bigger environmental disaster waiting to happen.
kp-
i hear you. i made this post after working on a story about how could congress not extend the solar tax credit. i mean make it better under obama, if he gets elected, but keep it going in the interim.
i guess i just have little faith in congress. somehow, the people need unity on this issue, so that we can achieve meaningful action through congress.
i'm just trying to figure out a way to bring the people together.
Congress may just be doing what the people want. The problem (as I see it) is that people don't realize the severity of our current position. They think its like the 73 embargo. Just a phase. They think some miracle technology will save us all.
The reality is that the general public needs to be concerned about energy consumption, but the just won't be inconvenienced (note I didn't say can't).
If gwb had any balls and wanted to salvage a legacy of anything but complete failure, he'd make a public plea to cut energy consumption by 50% immediately (or at least before he leaves office). If he can stump for security vigilance from all Americans like he did after 911, he can do it for energy conservation because it really is that much of a threat.
kp-
and for an oil man, the worst thing he could do is bring up drilling - that's what everybody expects him to say.
however, if he did come up with some sort of conservation stand, it might actually cause people to listen and think.
of course, its been pretty obvious over his presidency that out-of-the-box thinking isn't gwb's speciality. at least this duck is almost dunked.
Post a Comment
<< Home