Dems supporting Enviro wackos driving up price of oil?

[Libslayer]

Why is it that Democrats have consistantly supported shooting down efforts for Oil companies to drill on Federal lands in order to increase oil supplies and reduce the price of gas over the last thirty or so years?

Do you feel this is a wise idea considering oil is now at 135 dollars a barrel?

Why are the Dems wasting time grilling oil execs instead of grilling environmentalists about why they are filing lawsuits to stop drilling and standing in the way of progress on this issue?

And...finally.... what do YOU suggest we should do to drive down the cost of oil?:crying:;)

[Mitch]

Don't.
I really don't think that the price of oil should go down. It encourages less car driving and more bike riding.
Europe has had these prices for a LONG time, and they haven't complained as much as North Americans have.

[Cattraknoff]

Don't.
I really don't think that the price of oil should go down. It encourages less car driving and more bike riding.
Europe has had these prices for a LONG time, and they haven't complained as much as North Americans have.

Think of the bigger picture; who else is hurt by it far more than we in the North America and Europe?

Petroleum is absolutely vital for growth (as are nickel, copper, and many other resources which are become scarce because of hesitance to increase supply). While western nations can afford to pay higher prices for such things (granted, it will hurt us a bit, but not cripple us), developing nations cannot. As the supply continues to lag behind demand, prices will be driven higher and higher, and developing nations will quite shortly be unable to buy oil, metals, etc. The effect is quite simply that the developing world will be unable to continue any meaningful form of economic expansion.

I would, given all this, go as far to argue that it is entirely intentional, especially given other western policies in regard to poorer nations.

[Locke]

Think of the bigger picture; who else is hurt by it far more than we in the North America and Europe?

Petroleum is absolutely vital for growth (as are nickel, copper, and many other resources which are become scarce because of hesitance to increase supply). While western nations can afford to pay higher prices for such things (granted, it will hurt us a bit, but not cripple us), developing nations cannot. As the supply continues to lag behind demand, prices will be driven higher and higher, and developing nations will quite shortly be unable to buy oil, metals, etc. The effect is quite simply that the developing world will be unable to continue any meaningful form of economic expansion.

I would, given all this, go as far to argue that it is entirely intentional, especially given other western policies in regard to poorer nations.

Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve wouldn't alleviate scarcity in the least. It's pointless to be a detriment to the environment when it doesn't even have a tangible effect.

[Gwendl]

Drilling for oil is not only about the environment. It's about other industries, such as tourism, commercial fishing, etc. These are billion dollar industries as well that would be hurt by such actions. And for what? A few cents on the dollar ten years from now. There is not enough oil or cost effective shale production to curb the price of gas on the international markets. There is also no guarantee that oil drilled in America would stay in America in a global market. It's just as likely that the oil would be exported and we'd still get our oil from Canada, etc.

[LRW]

The question of whether to drill or not for more oil from reserves within our national control operates on so many different levels it is nearly impossible to distill it all down to one yes or no question. Not only are there potentially negative environmental impacts associated with drilling as well as potential negative impacts on industries such as fishing and tourism as noted by Gwendl in an earlier post, there are also negative impacts associated with failing to increase domestic oil production ranging from placing the survival of our economy and industries in the hands of the state owned oil companies foreign countries who are not always friendly to the impact on the prices of food and virtually every other commodity resulting from the higher gas prices paid by shippers and the negative effect on air travel and tourism due to soaring (no pun intended) prices for aviation fuel. A healthy tourism industry depends on the tourists being able to get to their destinations whether by air or automobile.

Many people correctly point out that for many years gas prices in Europe and Japan have been at levels similar to those we are seeing now. However, the US is not the same as the nations of Europe or Japan. The same distance one would travel to cross our nation would take one across several countries in Europe. And, for better or worse, we do not have the public transportation systems that those countries have built up over the last 60-100 years. We have to deal with the systems we have in place now and map out a strategy for the future that makes the most of what we have available.

In the short term we need to look at things such as bio-fuels, hybrid automobiles of all sizes and eliminating unnecessary driving by combining trips as much as possible and car pooling or taking a bus to our jobs. How about converting to synthetic oil for lubrication of our cars? Sounds ok but what are the energy costs of producing those synthetic lubricants? I don't know if it takes more energy, usually electricity produced by oil burning electric generation stations, to make the synthetic "oil" than is saved by using it instead of regular oil for our cars but we need to find out the answers to these types of questions in order to be able to plan a reasonable energy strategy for the long term.

We need to look seriously at our rail systems for both short distance commuter travel and long distance travel now typically done by air. This country lends itself well to rail travel but only if we are willing to make the investment in a total overhaul of the system so that high speed service can be safely operated. It takes special tracks for trains travelling at 100 to 200 mph and the tracks in this country are mostly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they cannot handle high speed traffic.

The list of considerations goes on and on. It will take time for all of these matters to receive their due consideration. It is not going to be easy nor is it going to be cheap but if we are willing to elect politicians who will be honest with us and we the electorate are willing to hear the truth, painful as it might be we can survive this crisis.

[Cattraknoff]

The question of whether to drill or not for more oil from reserves within our national control operates on so many different levels it is nearly impossible to distill it all down to one yes or no question. Not only are there potentially negative environmental impacts associated with drilling as well as potential negative impacts on industries such as fishing and tourism as noted by Gwendl in an earlier post, there are also negative impacts associated with failing to increase domestic oil production ranging from placing the survival of our economy and industries in the hands of the state owned oil companies foreign countries who are not always friendly to the impact on the prices of food and virtually every other commodity resulting from the higher gas prices paid by shippers and the negative effect on air travel and tourism due to soaring (no pun intended) prices for aviation fuel. A healthy tourism industry depends on the tourists being able to get to their destinations whether by air or automobile.

Many people correctly point out that for many years gas prices in Europe and Japan have been at levels similar to those we are seeing now. However, the US is not the same as the nations of Europe or Japan. The same distance one would travel to cross our nation would take one across several countries in Europe. And, for better or worse, we do not have the public transportation systems that those countries have built up over the last 60-100 years. We have to deal with the systems we have in place now and map out a strategy for the future that makes the most of what we have available.

In the short term we need to look at things such as bio-fuels, hybrid automobiles of all sizes and eliminating unnecessary driving by combining trips as much as possible and car pooling or taking a bus to our jobs. How about converting to synthetic oil for lubrication of our cars? Sounds ok but what are the energy costs of producing those synthetic lubricants? I don't know if it takes more energy, usually electricity produced by oil burning electric generation stations, to make the synthetic "oil" than is saved by using it instead of regular oil for our cars but we need to find out the answers to these types of questions in order to be able to plan a reasonable energy strategy for the long term.

We need to look seriously at our rail systems for both short distance commuter travel and long distance travel now typically done by air. This country lends itself well to rail travel but only if we are willing to make the investment in a total overhaul of the system so that high speed service can be safely operated. It takes special tracks for trains travelling at 100 to 200 mph and the tracks in this country are mostly from the late 19th and early 20th centuries and they cannot handle high speed traffic.

The list of considerations goes on and on. It will take time for all of these matters to receive their due consideration. It is not going to be easy nor is it going to be cheap but if we are willing to elect politicians who will be honest with us and we the electorate are willing to hear the truth, painful as it might be we can survive this crisis.

Please.... Use punctuation. That's very annoying to read; it detracts from your post.