Gee, I notice no conservatives have made any points in response to Sofa King’s excellent point about the wisdom about preservingthe ANWR reserves against a day of need.
Must be all that NOTHING you guys have to respond to it with.
Go back and look. Not only did I comment on it, but I said it was absolutely the best argument for not drilling in ANWR, and one that I’m inclined to agree with.
This just in, and so appropriate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33090-2003Dec3?language=printer
"…But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.
Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up…"
Uh huh. Sure. Why not? We’ve swallowed so much horseshit this year already, whats another spoonful?
Say, is horseshit low-carb? And is it kosher?
Punch line #1: There was already one real turkey in the picture, why confuse the issue with a second one?
Punch line #2: Fake leadership, fake turkey.
His turkey is done and his goose is cooked.
It’s funny that you mention this.
As a conservative, I’ve always felt it extremely silly that liberals get all upset about drilling in ANWR. There is oil in the ground there. Oil is valuable. It’s only a matter of time before we go and dig it up. It’s just foolish to think anything else is going to happen.
But at the same time, I’ve always thought that there is a hidden benefit from all the foaming at the mouth the environmentalists have done over ANWR drilling. That is exacly what you speak of. Better to use up oil from other places now while we have access to it and the middle east is relatively stable. That way if in the future oil supply is interupted we have a safety cache of oil here in our own territory.
Kind of reminds me of my uncle, the alcoholic. Kept bottles of booze stashed all around the house, always afraid the liquor store would be closed when he ran dry. His liver gave out, and he died. Still had plenty of booze though. Always thinking ahead, my uncle.
Wasn’t it Bush who made a big point about alternative energy at the last state of the Union? Hydrogen fuel cells and all that.
Wasn’t that just a continuation of a plan started under the Clinton Administration?
In any event, talking about alternative energy sources isn’t going to help the matter much – what’s really needed is morefunding for research and legislative changes to nudge society into alternate sources and/or greater fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, the energy companies don’t see a need to change if they can still make money under the current business model, so they have lots of incentives to resist the phase-out for as long as possible.
And in a related vein, don’t forget Cecil’s column from 11/28/2003.
Society will get plenty of nudging as soon as oil supply starts to diminish. Once there is less oil, there will be an increase in prices. When the prices raise enough, there will be enough demand on the private sector to start researching alternative fuel technologies.
And thirty years after that happens we’ll have cheap, clean, reliable fusion power, right? Unless we plan ahead a little, the period between the price rise and the the market driven solution could be a real bitch.
If there is enough time …
Kind of reminds me of my uncle, who kept liquor bottles stashed all over the house, but for an entirely different reason. You see, he liked to stay evenly soused without other people seeing his consumption levels. Run to the toilet, have a swig. Out to the greenhouse, get a snootful.
In much the same way, our government likes to have steady levels of petroleum products moving into and around our country. It’s a good way to keep the market active, for many splendid reasons.
I hope one day we’ll all get away from the idea that our incursion into foreign countries and wildlife preserves is about hoarding oil.
The real issue is production costs approaching or eclipsing the oily goodness provided – in other words, for some oil reserves, production will consume more fossil fuels than can be obtained by that production.
Roughly, some reserves require a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of oil. That’s called Peak Oil.
If mainstream news outlets like CNN are trumpeting the looming devastation of Peak Oil, we’ve got a lot more to worry about than environmental issues. A part of me suspects that since we’re not already into ANWR, it’s because the costs far outweigh anything we can cook up in the MER.
This might sound radical, but if America turned its attention to pressuring the government about developing alternatives to fossil fuels, there’d be a revolutionary impact. Forget pickets and petitions: take 30 minutes out of your daily Dope-time to write and call and email your representatives. Become an oil-troll. Spread the word.