US Democrats Poised to Embrace Offshore Oil Drilling
Posted by jennifer, September 13th, 2008 - under News.
Tags: Energy
Since Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, became a part of the US Presidential election campaign there has been a change in US Politics with the Democrats now joining what some are describing as a new oil rush.
Writing for the New York Times in an article entitle ‘Demoncrats embrace offshore drilling’ Carl Hulse explains:
“For decades, opposition to new offshore oil drilling has been a core principle of Congressional Democrats, ranking in the party pantheon somewhere just below protecting Social Security and increasing the minimum wage. But a concerted Republican assault over domestic oil production and the threat of political backlash from financially pressed motorists have Democrats poised to embrace a fundamental shift in energy policy.”
————
Carl Hulse, The New York Times, 11 September 2008
DEMOCRATS EMBRACE OFFSHORE DRILLING
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12cong.html?hp
Link from Benny Peiser
Advertisement
58 Responses to “US Democrats Poised to Embrace Offshore Oil Drilling”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All
Funny how non-leftists get tagged with being anti-science. These political trogs and economics illiterates would have gladly seen Americans starve of petrol if it didn’t mean they would be punished at the polls. The only reason they’re supporting it is they know what would happen at the next election if they didn’t.
My bet is they’re pretending to support it and then tie it up all in knots through repressive legislation which is why I hope the GOP makes them vote on specifics before the election keeping their private parts very close to the fire.
This Palin appears to be a really outstanding candidate. As Governor she was suing the Feds to try and stop them from using the endangered species act to stop drilling. Hows this for a long bow? The act was being used to claim that Polar Bears were endangered. Which they weren’t, and if they did get in trouble it would only be from overfishing.
But in any case the Polar bears had to be made endangered in order to stop the drilling. And yet drilling wouldn’t hurt the polar bear in the slightest. The whole thing only takes a few thousand acres in a truly massive state much bigger than most countries. Got nothing to do with the polar bear and not all of it near the coast in the first place. I don’t know whether they are expecting the polar bears to keep getting run over loitering around railway lines or something. The whole thing is entirely implausible. So she was suing the Feds over it.
They have a lot of oil up there. But they seem to have just mountains of natural gas. Palin is wanting to build this huge gas pipeline from Alaska. This ties up well with the Pickens plan to stop (for the love of humanity) using gas for electricity turbines and instead start using it for transport.
You need some gas-electricity turbines because they can be cranked up very quickly if you need more power in a hurry. As can hydro-electric. But its a fearful waste to be using gas beyond that crank-up level needed. Unless of course the gas is coming straight out of the ground and to a nearby turbine and the electricity straight onto the mains. But generally speaking its a criminal waste to be using gas for electricity when its so damn useful for on-site manufacturing (indoor forklifts and so forth) onsite heating (the only source that will give you instantaneous heat and then you can make that heat go away) and transport.
The other thing is that now that Palin is on board there will likely be a bigger push for nuclear power. The environmentalist movement is anti-sustainability. Since their opposition to nuclear taxes our hydro-carbon resources horribly and leads them to be used in wasteful fashion.
On the dark side there is this horrible McCain-Lieberman bill which will hopefully get killed somewhere along the line.
In Australia already we see the malinvestment of people getting ready to use our precious gas in turbines. Don’t let anyone stooge you that environmentalists are for sustainability. When they say “sustainability” it really means the destruction of property rights.
No Graeme, she’s an idiot. As are you.
CK
“No Graeme, she’s an idiot”
Based on what exactly?
If it’s only your political bias, you should just say, “I don’t agree with her politics”
But to call anyone an idiot without any evidence to support it, is childish.
Come on CK. Come out from under the table now. You can tell us who you are.
You are Steve Munn right? The mind of the psychologically sick leftist. The only thing thats keeping this whole fraud afloat.
Either that or I’ll bet you are some famous taxeater.
“Based on what exactly?”
Too easy, Jonothan. She’s a creationist.
CK,
Anyone who believes in the Big Bang is a creationist by definition.
You’re an idiot based on your number of votes at the last election. Which was a mini-referundum on Bird - onya bike you nutter.
Oh Luke. It was only because the ignorant voting public, as part of a giant conspiracy run by marxist otherworldians, and in an act of collective suicide, chose to deprive itself of Birdy’s shimmering genius.
New Scientist has an interesting perspective:
At least the George W Bush administration was consistent within itself. But with the new Republican ticket, we are faced with the prospect of a US president who is against drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge paired to a VP who staunchly supports it, and says the two will just have to “agree to disagree”.
“When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick,” said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group.
I disagree. Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009. It may have caused him to shun UN discussions on climate change, but his world’s biggest emitters committee did create a forum for China and the US to meet and discuss their positions on climate at the highest possible level.
The difference between Bush and Palin is not lipstick. It’s much more than that. Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger. To elect her would be to take four steps back after it took Bush eight years to take two steps forward.
Betcha Birdy has got the hots for Sarah.