"
“We have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production,” he said. “It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.”
McCain delivered the speech before heading to Texas for a series of fundraisers with energy industry executives, and the day after the speech he raised $1.3 million at a private luncheon and reception at the San Antonio Country Club, according to local news accounts."
So we know the real reason now for his ‘support’ of offshore drilling, but who’s surprised? I’m sure not.
I think he’s more focused on his strong stance on getting elected before he dies of old age. After the last couple of years, does that really surprise anyone?
No, but before that I had great belief in his campaign to try and fix what was wrong. Now he appears to be just another stooge. It’s sad to see this kind of thing happen. He’s doing everything he promised he’d never do (attack ads as well). Thought we were getting a Republican who identified with the crisis’s facing middle-America and the loss of jobs, dollar, etc. instead we really do seem to have just another Bushy. I guess integrity is meaningless.
Ironically I’m an environmentalist, but I’d open up off-shore drilling as well. But I’d have it massive restrictions and guidelines so we don’t destroy our shores and oceans. But I wouldn’t accept a dime from big oil themselves. Instead of buying back stock they could be putting those billions into actual new energy like windfarms, solar farms, (Nuclear if the NRC gets its head out of its ass), and algal ethanol development, and Hydrogen from water (not natural gas).
You know, Hillary was just as deep in the oil interests. Just saying.
Also, I favor off shore drilling. I’m voting for Obama, but I’d be willing to bet that he allows it if elected. We are facing an energy crisis and it’s time to rethink a lot of things. If your solution is that we all start using less tomorrow, I think you are kidding yourself. The reality is that we need to transition away from our oil dependency, but that’s going to take time. We can hardly bitch about the Saudi’s when we aren’t willing to drill our own oil. That’s the same hyprocritical attitude that says we have to save the forests here while we buy wood furniture made from the forests of other parts of the world.
All opening up offshore drilling will do is guarantee more windfall profits for whichever company snags up the rights. At most, it gives us a year or two worth of oil, 5 or 6 years down the road. It’s a short term remedy and not even a particularly good one.
That’s a simplistic and not entirely accurate way to look at it. If we were facing the complete shut-down of overseas supplies, sure. But that same amount of oil over say ten years that allows us to import 10% less from the middle east seems worth it to me. Anything that reduces our strategic need to get involved over there is a plus in my book.
And the environmental issue is overblown. Again, why do we have this attitude that we have to protect our national environment but we still drive SUV’s and expect other countries to risk their environmental health so we can drive cheaply?
Anything? Really? If it’s only 10% over 10 years, just don’t open it up, and encourage the market/government to come up with alternate solutions. Ten percent over ten years doesn’t mean we will suddenly be telling OPEC to fuck off.
And the environmental issue is overblown. Again, why do we have this attitude that we have to protect our national environment but we still drive SUV’s and expect other countries to risk their environmental health so we can drive cheaply?
I don’t drive an SUV. I don’t even have a car, so don’t include me in that. I’m not about to support off shore drilling for some other douche bag’s hypocrisy.
Well, 10% over ten years does mean that prices won’t be as tied to demand for overseas oil as it is right now. It might only mean a few cents at the pump, but then again we already have people going out of their way to save a few cents per gallon for a single fill-up.
And this isn’t about OPEC. Here’s where the oil we use comes from, in order: US internal production, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia (these last two might be flipped), and then others. So, if we reduce our dependence on Saudi oil, we don’t have to worry as much about what those idiots in that region of the world are up to. The problem right now is that our foreign policy is being dictated by our dependence on oil.
I don’t drive an SUV. I don’t even have a car, so don’t include me in that. I’m not about to support off shore drilling for some other douche bag’s hypocrisy.
Neither do I, but that doesn’t mean that a reasonable political solution should ignore them. Politics in a republic isn’t just about what’s best for your personal situation, it’s about what’s best for the whole.
The reality is that oil alternatives aren’t much more appealing right now. Electric cars? That requires electricity that will come from coal which is hardly a cleaner and more environmentally safe option. Or hydro, which wipes out river ecosystems and fish. Or nuclear, with it’s obvious issues. Or wind, which is already facing environmental challenges because of what it does to birds and views. Or solar, the panels of which require ass loads of energy and plastic (oil) to even make. Or ethanol, which requires pesticides to grow the grain and which is already causing food prices to rise as land is converted from food production. And don’t even talk about hydrogen.
So, again, we are talking about a long transition. Where every thing we can do to keep oil prices as low as we can while we wait for the alternatives to arrive helps people. And that means maximizing domestic production of oil.
The problem right now is that our foreign policy is being dictated by our dependence on oil.
That’s a stretch, at best. The current administration is very concerned with oil but it’s not clear that this is because it’s a necessity. Our small coastal and Alaskan reserves might make a very small difference and I think they’re worth considering. That said, it’s depressing that they’re at the center of the discussion right now when what we really need is a sound transition plan for moving our consumption away from oil.
We’re having these conversations about coastal drilling and ANWR because:
#1 – it’s the conversation that the Republican party and the oil lobby would prefer that we have.
#2 – people would rather believe in an easy short-term solution than start thinking about a more difficult long-term solution.
So you know, sure, let’s consider offshore drilling (of course many/most coastal states don’t even want it, but that’s another issue). But let’s make it an addendum to the conversation and not the thesis. To make it the center of the conversation is a complete red herring akin to using gay marriage as a smoke screen issue.
So it’s a few cents a gallon. A few cents a gallon more will further encourage people to support things like public transportation initiatives.
And this isn’t about OPEC. Here’s where the oil we use comes from, in order: US internal production, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia (these last two might be flipped), and then others. So, if we reduce our dependence on Saudi oil, we don’t have to worry as much about what those idiots in that region of the world are up to. The problem right now is that our foreign policy is being dictated by our dependence on oil.
I don’t really see how that’s a problem. It’s not like we are going to start invading every oil dictator or fascist state if or when we become energy independent. Sure that means less money being funneled to terrorists, but given China’s thirst for oil, us reducing our foreign oil dependency isn’t going to suddenly make Al-Qaeda go broke.
Name one serious threat that exists to our national security that isn’t shared by almost every other nation on the globe and isn’t Al-Qaeda, but is based on foreign dependence on oil.
Neither do I, but that doesn’t mean that a reasonable political solution should ignore them. Politics in a republic isn’t just about what’s best for your personal situation, it’s about what’s best for the whole.
I don’t think me supporting something so other people can drive SUVs is best for the whole. What does someone else’s SUV have to do with what’s best for the whole? What’s best for the whole is them not owning an SUV. And I’m not arguing to take away their SUVs, rather that sparing them a few cents a gallon isn’t worth it.
The reality is that oil alternatives aren’t much more appealing right now. Electric cars? That requires electricity that will come from coal which is hardly a cleaner and more environmentally safe option. Or hydro, which wipes out river ecosystems and fish. Or nuclear, with it’s obvious issues. Or wind, which is already facing environmental challenges because of what it does to birds and views. Or solar, the panels of which require ass loads of energy and plastic (oil) to even make. Or ethanol, which requires pesticides to grow the grain and which is already causing food prices to rise as land is converted from food production. And don’t even talk about hydrogen.
Then a short-term, limited impact proposal, isn’t going to help. Plain and simple.
So, again, we are talking about a long transition. Where every thing we can do to keep oil prices as low as we can while we wait for the alternatives to arrive helps people. And that means maximizing domestic production of oil.
What? Keeping the cost of oil as low as possible is not the goal, especially when the results will be so minimal if they exist at all.
Talking about offshore oil now is just like talking about the surge. Both issues are in fact largely irrelevant to the larger issues which they are part of. But they keep coming up because they make for a nice little wedge issue to push Obama on when phrased with an accusatory tone.
I don’t really see how that’s a problem. It’s not like we are going to start invading every oil dictator or fascist state if or when we become energy independent. Sure that means less money being funneled to terrorists, but given China’s thirst for oil, us reducing our foreign oil dependency isn’t going to suddenly make Al-Qaeda go broke.
Name one serious threat that exists to our national security that isn’t shared by almost every other nation on the globe and isn’t Al-Qaeda, but based on foreign dependence on oil.
Who said this has anything to do with terrorism? My point is that when your economy is import oil dependent your political leaders make sure their foreign policy tries to keep oil prices down. In our case it colors our view of the middle east. The less dependent we are on oil from that volatile part of the world, the less we are required to get involved in their problems.
What? Keeping the cost of oil as low as possible is not the goal, especially when the results will be so minimal if they exist at all.
I knew that was what you would say because I didn’t phrase it very well. Look, oil isn’t going to get significantly cheaper ever. But a few cents a gallon cheaper over a year means something to the average person.
I’m not saying offshore drilling is going to solve the problem. However, it will reduce the pain of the transition to other energy sources. Even if the the pain reduction is minor, it’s still better than nothing.
And I agree entirely with St. Gabe that it isn’t a solution as much as it is a minor part of much larger change that is needed. Oil is already expensive enough that it is going to force change. Making it go higher so that more people suffer during that change is not good policy IMHO.
Then all that means is it doesn’t matter if we do it or not, so we might as well save it. At least if we wait to drill it until oil is more scarce, perhaps the price and taxes (hah) off the profits will be greater. This is pointless because any realistic hypothetical results in opening up offshore drilling doing jack shit about our energy problem in the short term or in the long run. So why hand over the resource?
Edit: And really, you think oil prices won’t make people use public transportation? We just had an article here about the ridership of our rail system being up 25% (iirc) because of gas prices. People will change their behavior when it hits their wallet enough.
Who said this has anything to do with terrorism? My point is that when your economy is import oil dependent your political leaders make sure their foreign policy tries to keep oil prices down. In our case it colors our view of the middle east. The less dependent we are on oil from that volatile part of the world, the less we are required to get involved in their problems.
Terrorism happens to more people than just us. I’m sure Israel considers Hamas terrorists. How is our dependence coloring our view of the Middle East? Are we supporting Israel just because of our dependence on foreign oil? No, we support Israel for complex cultural and historical reasons. What coloring of the middle east is happening due to our dependence that is putting us at a disadvantage? In other words, what active advantage do we have? What would the US up and suddenly be able to do that it needs to but can’t because we must bow to foreign oil interests?
I knew that was what you would say because I didn’t phrase it very well. Look, oil isn’t going to get significantly cheaper ever. But a few cents a gallon cheaper over a year means something to the average person.
No it doesn’t. People think it means something but it doesn’t if you consider the entire problem.
I’m not saying offshore drilling is going to solve the problem. However, it will reduce the pain of the transition to other energy sources. Even if the the pain reduction is minor, it’s still better than nothing.
Not significantly enough to warrant it.
And I agree entirely with St. Gabe that it isn’t a solution as much as it is a minor part of much larger change that is needed. Oil is already expensive enough that it is going to force change. Making it go higher so that more people suffer during that change is not good policy IMHO.
Ugh, not opening up offshore drilling isn’t forcing it to go higher.
To put this into perspective, let’s assume 5c per gallon and we’ll assume that the average person uses 500 gallons of gas per year (which is our yearly, per capita consumption – i.e. not just what the average person buys at the pump each year but including airplanes, trucks, etc.).
That’s $25 per person, per year.
…
And that puts into perspective what a “fast one” this is from the Republicans. Sure, $25 is “something”. But compared to any number of other important economic issues we’re currently fishing it’s pretty near the bottom of the barrel. And I’ve been pretty generous with my figures.
I’m not saying it’s the only factor. But let me ask you this: would we care about Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia if we didn’t need their oil? Not as much as we do now. Just like we really don’t care about a lot of other countries that have problems but which we have no resource dependence on.
Ugh, not opening up offshore drilling isn’t forcing it to go higher.
It has the same effect. It’s constricting supply compared to what it would be if it was opened up. Simply put, oil will be more expensive if we don’t drill offshore than it will be if we do. Now, we disagree on how significant that difference may be, but it does exist.
I do wonder if your opposition to offshore drilling is limited to that specific issue or if you oppose the development of all domestic oil opportunities. For example, is it ok to go after the shale oil in the upper plains states? Is it still ok to drill offshore on the gulf coast (where the environmental impact has been very minor)? Is this really about people not wanting to risk their clean beaches but who don’t care if “lesser” areas of the country are torn up (like happens daily with strip coal mining)?
Then explain why so many people search for the gas stations where it’s a few cents cheaper?
.
And that puts into perspective what a “fast one” this is from the Republicans. Sure, $25 is “something”. But compared to any number of other important economic issues we’re currently fishing it’s pretty near the bottom of the barrel. And I’ve been pretty generous with my figures.
Why does this have to be a Republican issue? Sure, McCain has adopted the idea, but there are plenty of Democrats who have as well. Hillary was quiet on the issue, but behind the scenes she was privately telling the oil companies that she favored all kinds of things, including more drilling. The majority of the public favors the expansion of domestic oil production even though there have been plenty of reports about how long it will take to mean anything and small impact it will have.
No one is saying that expanded domestic production is a solution. But a lot of people think it’s part (maybe only a small part) of a solution. Some people are way too eager to start pulling things off the table. Individually they may be small things, but together they add up.
The only reason we care about them beyond oil, is because of Israel. Iran and Saudi Arabia are not threats to us. Iran is a threat to Israel, that’s why we care.
It has the same effect. It’s constricting supply compared to what it would be if it was opened up. Simply put, oil will be more expensive if we don’t drill offshore than it will be if we do. Now, we disagree on how significant that difference may be, but it does exist.
Sigh. Go vote for, McCain. At this point, you’re just looking for a reason, so you might as well go 100% with that self deception.
I do wonder if your opposition to offshore drilling is limited to that specific issue or if you oppose the development of all domestic oil opportunities. For example, is it ok to go after the shale oil in the upper plains states? Is it still ok to drill offshore on the gulf coast (where the environmental impact has been very minor)? Is this really about people not wanting to risk their clean beaches but who don’t care if “lesser” areas of the country are torn up (like happens daily with strip coal mining)?
Actually, my opposition has less to do with environmental issues involved in the drilling and more with the fact that I don’t think oil companies need our freebies. You know the rights will be sold at a fraction of their real value, on the trumped up justification that charging more would just negate the effect at the pump, hah. Then, the same companies will turn around and negate the effect anyway because of “instability” in the Middle East or declining reserves elsewhere or because OPEC decides oil should cost more.
