I’m opposed to this. The only justifiable reason for it is if it’s included in the cap and trade bill to get Republican support. But since we know Republicans will never support anything Obama does–even if he’s proposing their own plans from 15 years ago–there’s no point to this.
As for this:
No, it’s not a good idea. Even if we convert to green energy entirely and ditch fossil fuels, we still need petroleum for other purposes where there really is no substitute. Like carbon to make pharmaceuticals.
I don’t know of any liberal who didn’t approve of Bush’s move to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary near Hawaii. (For an example of a comparable move.)
It didn’t make them start to support Bush, but he was roundly praised for the move, and rightly so.
Agreed. Personally, I wish he’d have used some of his political capital with the left to push through a new nuclear energy initiative and to push through Yucca Mountain as well. THAT would have been worth while, and in the glow of the HCR I think he could have pulled it off at this moment.
"America needs to take bold new steps in developing clean, abundant energy. As my next step towards change, I want to make it my administrations priority to develop new nuclear power plant designs and set a goal of doubling America’s nuclear energy within a decade. At the same time, we need…NEED…to calmly and reasonably look at the risks and dangers of nuclear disposal, and to dispassionately assess our options, not through the veil of fear, but through the veil of reality. We can no longer accept the status quo of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring those realities, or simply saying ‘no’ without offering up alternatives. The US has invested decades and billions of dollars in the development of a storage facility, we have made promises and received funds from states and private industry for the creation of this facility, and we will no longer stand in the way of opening this facility simply due to fear.’
We’re already drilling there. ANWAR is just an arbitrary line on a map. It’s not a magical tree surrounded by blue people. There is a huge pipeline already set up to move the oil from the Alaskan North Field and now it’s being underutilized. There is no rational reason not to use this resource.
Oil leases are awarded, and test drilling was done off Massachusetts (Georges Bank) years ago.
The fact is, there are other places (Angola, Gabon, etc.) where offshore oil is cheaper to extract.
The environmental regulations in the US make profitable oil drilling next to impossible.
What, the Pubs? I hardly think sacrificing years or even months in a time of increasing global warming and an economic crisis with no end in sight is worth it, to say the least. BTW, it’s not like the teabaggers haven’t been pushing “moderate” Republicans out anyway.
Obama told them they could drill, I don’t see as how he promised to make it profitable.
Come, gentlemen, wheres that spirit of risk-taking entrepreneurship? Surely you wont tell us that only the cozy relationship that energy corporations have enjoyed, loathe, these many years…sure that wasn’t the only reason you made such oinking money? Surely you are not going to go whining for government tax credits, some sort of write-off guaranty that if you lose your bet you won’t lose any actual money, but if you win, you win.
I think we already have an example of how they will blame Obama. When they aren’t allowed ignore every last environmental and safety law, when it turns out that the oil isn’t profitable to extract it’ll be Obama’s fault.
There’s also the question of how the states in question will feel about such drilling, especially if they depend at all upon tourism.
I honestly don’t have any idea what you two are on about.
Have any of the Republican responses to Obama’s decision involved a request for some kind of “write-off guaranty”? Was there a blink-and-you-miss-it cite? Is anyone raising this argument other than the folks who are against the folks who aren’t asking for that stuff?
Elvis copy-and-pasted stuff about how Boehner objected to opening Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters while leaving Pacific and many Alaskan waters largely closed to exploration; he wants to expand the number of places where people can drill, but where does he argue for also mitigating the risk of losing money at any given drill site?
Ah…well, in that same spirit of adventure, and since we are making deals and all, howzabout the government waves the taxes on all profits. Oh, to be sure, they can charge a modest fee for leasing that government land, and I think strict regulations are in order, since they will be drilling on government land, but if they have to pony up all the money for exploration (an extremely costly and risky enterprise), then I think it would be fair for any company willing to do so and who hits it rich to reap the rewards of their risk, ehe? Especially since by your lights the government shouldn’t be giving any kinds of incentives or help with the risks…
Perhaps so, perhaps a bit more generosity is in order after the stingy years of Bush, when scruffy orphan energy corporations foraged in the alleys for scraps of food…
All of which is kinda beside my point, which is to suggest that this may be more ploy than policy. If he “opens” them, and the energy companies decide that the profit level isn’t there, he can shrug and say, “Hey, you asked for open, you got open. Not my fault if it isn’t profitable, and not the taxpayers responsibility to make it so.”
And if they bring in a winner, they can take out a reasonable profit, which we can tax the bejesus out of, because rounding up all the guns is going to be expensive…
You missed ralph’s claim that the whole thing was a red herring because drilling in those areas wouldn’t be profitable enough for oil companies to actually do it. The rest of the argument followed from there.
It occurred to me that this move by Obama may indeed aid the GOP in future elections. I feel that an offshore drilling policy and the potential income will feed the bankrolls of future lobbyists that tend to support the right. I fall into the moderate right camp so this may be a good thing for future republican campaigns.
Just a thought.
If oil can maintain a cheaper presence in the economy then cars like the Chevy Volt will hopefully anchor the next wave of autos that are cheap to buy and cheap to operate with the added benefit of green operation.
The job factor and injection of oil money into the future of this economy can’t hurt either.
Even if the money and supply will be negligible it may decrease, even slightly, the reliance we have on foreign oil and whatever that money indirectly supports overseas. However, as this country becomes less relliant on oil, the small amount we can get out of offshore drilling will become a higher percentage of our overall useage in the future.
Yay!
That’s a key point too. If big oil doesn’t project a profit then the whole point is moot, except for the political ramifications of the policy. Hard to say at this point how it will affect the next election.
