http://www.redstate.com/blogs/josh_p...ca_no_you_cant
The Democrats really don’t care about the environment but it’s about forcing you into mass transit and taking away your personal freedom of travel and how they actually love high gas prices now before the election.

__________________

Join Bush Country - PoliticalForum.com's Largest Member Community

"Because he's the hero America deserves,
but not the one it needs right now...
and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it.
Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian,
a watchful protector...A DARK KNIGHT."

Hehehe, another domestic drilling thread.

Bring it on, libbies!

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

drilling and high taxes...that is how we will win in november.

__________________

Join Bush Country - PoliticalForum.com's Largest Member Community

"Because he's the hero America deserves,
but not the one it needs right now...
and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it.
Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian,
a watchful protector...A DARK KNIGHT."

I find it curious that Democrats are being blamed for the problems of a lack of refineries and drilling in the U.S., considering that both Congress and the Presidency were controlled by the GOP for six years under President Bush.

According to wtrg.com, the first signs of these problems began as early as 1999, and by 2001, became more and more prevalent.

"Prices began to recover in early 1999 and OPEC reduced production another 1.719 million barrels in April. As usual not all of the quotas were observed but between early 1998 and the middle of 1999 OPEC production dropped by about 3 million barrels per day and was sufficient to move prices above $25 per barrel."

Given that these problems began in 1999, and have grown worse since, shouldn't the GOP, which had control of the gov't at the time, made the necessary preparations.

This is exacerbated by the issue of building times for new drills and new refineries.

To begin drilling in ANWR would take at least 9 years to build the necessary infrastructure to drill, as explained in an article by MSNBC.

So, shouldn't the GOP, knowing how long it would take to build oil wells, have taken the necessary precautions?

I don't see how you can blame the Democrats for this problem, given that the GOP could have fixed the problem years ago, but chose not to.

Perhaps because they realized that drilling in ANWR just isn't worth it. Most studies state that at best, it would only reduce the price of oil by 50-75 cents, which would have a minor affect on gas. Furthermore, we would still need to import about 2/3s of our oil, so we would hardly be energy independent. Buy into the environment or not, domestic oil accidents have happened, and will happen. Considering how much it would cost to build the oil-wells there, how little it would help, and the risks it entails, perhaps even the GOP (at the time) realized it was a bad decision. Now, it seems like little more than a speech-act to get the votes of the populace when price of gas is so high (similiar to the stupid gas-tax holiday idea).

I agree that we need to become energy independent, but ANWR isn't going to make that happen by any stretch of the imagination. I agree that alternative-energy is a pipe-dream with no conclusive track-record, and very poor energy/econ ratios, so I don't think that is the solution either.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

I don't care who takes the blame for it, and blame doesn't really matter, policy does.

If I could get you to click my first link below .......

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

don't u mean LOW taxes?

Oh, I already did. I was relieved at first, but then I did some research, and I was less relieved.

I say relieved, because I don't want Peak Oil Theory to be true, so I keep looking for new massive oil wells to at least prolong the problems.

First, let me say that unlike most liberal fear-mongerers, I don't believe Peak Oil Theory will happen tomorrow. The fact is, we have no idea when it will happen. But the other fact is that it does eventually have to happen.

But I am becoming more and more convinced that Oil Shale is the solution that will buy us a lot of time. But that is, what, another decade or so from becoming viable?

I was impressed, at first, by the supposed 200 billion barrels under South Dakota, but that turned out to be a massive speculation. Your article refers to a USGS study, but that they hadn't released the report yet. Well, unfortunately, they did release the report. On April 10, 2008, their report had this to say.

"North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation."

Although this is still 25 times more than the initial estimate 10 years ago, it is still far short of 200 Billion. At the end of the day, 3-4 billion really isn't that much, considering that the U.S. uses about 7.6 billion barrels every years, this hardly more than a drop in the bucket.

Considering that ANWR is estimated to contain only 10.4 billion barrels, even if we could get all the oil now, it would only make us fully energy dependent for about two years, give or take.

If you have evidence to supplement or refute this, I would enjoy reading it. Anything that makes me feel comfortable fore-stalling the inevitable long enough for us to complete Fusion, or some other real solution.

__________________
A [person] has a property in [their] opinions and the free communication of them. -James Madison

So strong is this propensity of [humanity] to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts -James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10

James Madison for President -White Fox

I'm a democrat (however begrudgingly) and I care about the environment. I do think mass transit is a good, necessary idea, but I'm not sure why you're against it. I certainly don't think anyone should be forced to use mass transit.

No one should be forced to pay for mass transit if they don't use it.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

They do use it. Keeps their air clean, keeps people out of hospitals, keeps health care costs down ... benefits everybody, see?

By your logic, men shouldn't be paying for breast cancer research and women shouldn't be paying for prison.