Japan Today

Bush says Democrats keep blocking his energy plans


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Note: bush says the Democrats are partly responsible. Does he take any responsibility? Nope.

Typical bush-league stuff.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, the Democrats are to blame for the high gas prices. On the other hand, your brilliant oil plan could help the American people out as soon as it's passed, right? Fat chance...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Bush thinks here is irrelevant. He will not be around after a few more months.

Whether or not the country needs to change laws to allow offshore drilling, or open more federal lands to drilling is beside the point.(This will be for the next occupant of the White House to decide.)

The things Bush proposes would take many years, probably decades, to have any real impact on the problems Americans face with high energy costs.

To my mind, it always comes back to wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Americans have needed to change their ways for decades, and have not. A little dose of reality is good for the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pathat, Your last paragraph reminded me of a fake Op-ed I read in The Onion.


Jimmy's got your reality right-%$*@#-here! http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right

Enjoy the laugh.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congress and national energy policy -

"Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration - House Republicans:91% Supported. House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid - House Republicans: 97% Supported. House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration - House Republicans: 90% Supported. House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration - House Republicans: 81% Supported. House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity - House Republicans: 97% Supported. House Democrats: 96% Opposed" http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/020696.php

Notice that the list above covers a number of alternatives and measures.

As with any crisis facing America the New Left Democrats who now control this once-great party don't want our energy problem solved. Not unless the solution provides an opportunity for them to engage in more social engineering. Republicans, with the ideal of freedom in mind, want energy independence. The Democrats, who dress up their irrational and adolescent hatred of inequality as policy which will bring about greater "equality" are determined that in this case it means we are all equal in our misery and that we all face, unnecessarily, the indignity and peril of being beholden to non-productive, anti-capitalist and hostile nations like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what Bush is saying that even though he sat on his hands for 7+ years (4 of which with a friendly congress) and did nothing, the Democrats are to blame.

What, did no one in the Bush Administration consider that fighting to wars in the M.E. would not affect oil prices? Or the rapidly expanding economies of China, India, and Brazil would not drive up prices as demand rose?

The best response they have is a political one that drives their agenda which has little connection to reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RedMeatKoolAid... Which country are you talking about? I suggest you keep on topic by referring to reality rather than what you dreamed about last night.

The Republicans may indeed have "freedom in mind", but that is where it often stays - just an idea or worse a concept to exploit for propaganda purposes. Where is the freedom for those bankrupt because of illness, or because of the sub-prime mess, or because of a lack of quality education?

As for being beholden to the Saudis, I should remind you that it was a Republican president who went hat in hand asking for a more favorable oil policy from the Saudis (oh yeah, then there was the hand holding...)

If you really do not want the Democrats to win office, then learn to function in the real world and perhaps real solutions may offer a way out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I guess 5 or 10% is a part, so he has a case if he is saying Democrats are "partially" to blame. You know, there was a Republican majority the first SIX years he was in office and he didn't even try to do anything then, and there is a little matter of a war in Iraq he started that has driven the futures market crazy (and uses not a small amount of fuel considering one fighter sortie uses as much gas as a small town uses in a year), the players driving the futures market crazy are his close personal friends in the oil industry (ExxonMobil made more money than any company in the history of man last year, that's a fact), he consistently denied there were any fuel shortages -- as recently as Jan of this year he rejected predictions that gas would go over $3 a gallon -- and now it's the Democrats' fault because they won't approve a plan that everyone agrees will have no effect for 10 years and little effect after that except to pad profits for oil companies. Keep in mind, for the first 7 years of his presidency he denied gas prices would continue to rise and that people like Al Gore were just paranoid, now it's other people's fault for procrastinating. What a joke. I don't care if you are Red or Blue, Christian or Atheist, but at least take responsibility for the actions you take. The principled Republicans out there who believe they are right on the policy but that it does America no service to declare half the population traitors and criminals are the biggest victims of Bush's poisoning of his party politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Informed Americans on this site know that Brazilians drive flex cars (can run on gas, alcohol or ethanol) which are built in America but that our Democrats continue to block US import of Brazil's cheaply-produced sugar cane ethanol.


Because your freedom of choice, at the gas pump or in where you will send your kids to school, is something they are opposed to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KoolAid, you are a caricature. These Democrats you speak of are against freedom of choice?! Wow, how did they manipulate W into shredding the Bill of Rights when the GOP had a majority in both houses?

Ditto, chardk1: it does America no service to declare half the population traitors and criminals. But criminals in high places do need to be called out.

In a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce last week, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “We should hear no more complaining” from opponents of domestic drilling, whom he called “part of the problem.”

After President Bush’s remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Reid said: “The facts are clear. Oil companies have already had ample opportunity to increase supply, but they have sat on their hands. They aren’t even using more than half of the public lands they already have leased for drilling. And despite the huge tax breaks President Bush and Republican Congresses have given oil and gas companies to invest in refineries, domestic production has actually dropped.” And the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said, “The president’s proposal sounds like another page from the administration’s energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they’ve already leased.” http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1013961.shtml

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrat-controlled Congress is now polling at a historic low. Ordinary Americans are on to the Dems' ploy to keep gas prices as high as possible and hope it pays off for them at the polls in November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush knew that the war in Iraq would raise gas prices. What war doesn't? Those tanks have to run on something. He just denied it because he didn't want to hurt his buddies in the oil industry. He also borrowed the most of any President: a little over a trillion dollars from China, Saudi Arabia and others. Any economist will tell you that would depreciate the dollar's value raising prices of everything. And for what? When he went into office he had a surplus! He wasted that and plunged us into a deficit inducing war.Independence from Saudi Arabia? Maybe after we pay the bill he left us with interest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Need to ask Lefties how cool the ' No Blood for Oil ' t-shirt looks at the gas station these days where you fork out 4 bucks for a gallon. Not as hip and in-the-know as we all thought we were, eh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush had 6 years to push through his energy package but he was too involved at killing Iraqis and screwing old folks out of the their social security dollars on his prescription drug program.

he's such a loser. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The things Bush proposes would take many years, probably decades, to have any real impact on the problems Americans face with high energy costs."

Remember when Clinton veto'd the bill to allow drilling in ANWR? The reason that he gave, as well as the congress, was that it would take almost 10 years to realize any benefit from the drilling and we need something "now".

Yea.. that was 11 years ago. If 10 years was the time until benefit, that would have been a year, or so, ago.

The thought of NOW is great, but there are suitable things that can be done for FUTURE benefit. They need to be done.

And now, we hear the same thing, but it is 5 to 7 years from now until benefit.

They, as a group, need to quit using the length of time until benefit as an excuse to do nothing. Focus on NOW is great, but a bit of focus on now AND future would be even better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

firstly, he's (thankfully) gone in a few months, so nothing he proposes will get thru...secondly, all he wants to do is open up the Alaskan Reserve and coastal drilling to his and DICK Cheney's buddies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start."

Doh! So he says, "It's not my fault! b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but if you allow us to destroy the environment we might be okay in 10 years! The democrats are therefore responsible for high gas prices! Oh, and in 10 years when major storms increase, floods in the Mississippi are a problem, and New Orleans ceases to be... that's because of.... uhhhh... DEMOCRATS! Yeah! It's because of them! not because of my lack of searching for alternative energies!"

This guy is seriously the biggest loser in history. Anyone who doesn't see it is a loser.

Let's look at some 'bush logic' in regards to the current situation in the US:

You don't support the war on terror, you have pushed your neighbour to pay more at the pumps! You don't want us to destroy Arctic wildlife? you are costing your enemy -- err... neighbour an extra dollar today, which could be less in....... 20 years! You don't vote for my party, you are increasing gasoline costs! I started TWO WARS to reduce costs, but they both failed miserably and I had to look for many excuses... therefore, if you don't like me, you are INCREASING THE COSTS OF GASOLINE! Your search for alternative fuel sources is ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL! We need to put all of our taxes into the oil companies to search for realistic ways of making our Earth a great place....... in other words, we need to drill EVERYWHERE!
0 ( +0 / -0 )

He ain't lyin'. The Democrats have been gumming up the works as far as oil drilling and nuclear energy for years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How come Americans don't hear Bush talking inside their heads like foreign critics of our country do? Maybe he is as diabolical as they say...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This has been a pretty entertaining thread.

For years, it's been, there is no problem and you are a traitor if you say there is one.

When even neo-con denial is thick enough to get the trick done anymore, then it's the Democrats fault.

The cult of non-accountability strikes again. Gosh, anyone think there is a reason that 25 republicans aren't even going to run for re-election?

It's pretty bad when the kings of denial think they have no chance anymore.



0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who's playing partisan politics now?

Republican legislators are supposed to represent their constituencies when they give tax breaks to corporations and to high income earners. They are supposed to represent their constituencies when trim budgets for welfare, education and so on.

On the other hand, Democrats are simply being obstinate and self-serving when they prevent Bush from forwarding his energy plans? Perhaps Bush's energy plans aren't America's energy plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrat-controlled Congress is now polling at a historic low.

How typical neo-con. Polls don't count unless they work in our favor.

However, The latest Pew poll states that regarding the nation's energy problems 57% of those polled think the Democratic party will deal with the problem in a better way, vice 23% for the republicans.


So...I'm guessing we're back to polls don't count any more.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

"President George W Bush is accusing Democrats in Congress of blocking his energy proposals, saying they are partly to blame for high gasoline costs pinching Americans’ budgets."

This debate - yet again - highlights what a complete loser Bush is.

The president has been touting investment in green tech for the last few years now.

Q: Where is it and why isn't this mystical investment being used to wean America off gasoline that bush wants so dearly to develop more of so that his oil mates can get rich?

He basically doesn't give a toss about the environment that his girls are going to have to grow up in, the quality of the air they and all other Americans breath, or whether there will be enough water for people, industry and crops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush's own government knows for a fact that any oil that planned development is focused on finding isn't going to be brought online for a good decade.

It would actually be faster and more efficient to use the $12-20 billion his government is waste-pumping into Iraq each month to quickly plant thousands of new hydrogen gas pumps around the country, grant money to GM and Ford to quickly develop hybrid engines (this could actually save said auto makers from going under and shedding thousands of jobs), put up a whole lot of wind turbines around the country and get mass producing solar panels to grab some of the market share of these products off the Germans.

But is bush going to put Americans first and actually do some thing like this?

Or is he going to keep putting the terrorists first by keeping U.S. forces in Iraq?


(Naturally, the McCain supporters favor the Terrorists First track.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This latest outburst by a an increasingly desperate president just shows he knows he won't have a legacy worth writing on used toilet paper.

Bush & Cheney are now getting desperate to ink oil development deals for their buddies in the oil industry.

Might this proposed hunt for oil damage, let alone wreck the environment and create even more environmental pollution that the kids of Sarge, RomeoRamen, super delegate, RedMeatKoolAid, etc. will have to deal with in the future?

Like, Bush & Cheney care for Sarge, RomeoRamen, super delegate, RedMeatKoolAid and other Americans???


Taka - "The cult of non-accountability strikes again."

You're dead right. Where is the notion of accountability, not just among the president and bunch of Yes Men, but among his few remaining supporters?

In just 8 years, Bush has divided America and turned large tranches of Americans into scared, war-mongering, paranoid individuals who will never take accountability for their actions if they can heap the blame on 'the enemy', even if it is one of their own.

Thank God November is going to herald the End of An Error in U.S. politics.

I just hope Sarge, RomeoRamen, super delegate, RedMeatKoolAid, etc. are making the finishing touches to their short list of new handle names to use on JT after the most dangerous and divisive president in American history get jacked out of office.

Bring. It. On.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mind if I cut through the political games and ask everyone here if they support drilling in the US? (non-Americans are welcome to answer as well). Personally, I support it. I think daydream does too, based on his comments.

As for everyone else, I don't think I've heard whether they support it or not. I know what the criticisms of the Republicans and Democrats are. And in today's world people get so wrapped in only opening their mouths when they have something political to say that they don't even bother saying what they personally believe anymore.

So....is anyone will to get on record and say whether they support it or not? You don't have to mention the words "Democrats" or "Republicans" anywhere in your response...I'm asking you person for your opinion, not what you think about the opinions of others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, I support drilling in the US. However, before we designate new drilling locations I support the extraction of oil from the undeveloped locations that we already have.

Additionally, we are never going to drill our way out of higher oil prices. So, before we designate new drilling locations I prefer that we not rely on market mechanisms alone to encourage conservation.

Furthermore, I see no essential problem in relying on Saudi Arabia, Russia or Venezuela for oil--to say nothing of Iraq and Iran. If anything, that these countries have oil is a very good reason for making sure that the world works for everyone. The attitude that it cannot and that there will be "survivors" almost guarantees that we will not be among them.

Oil is a problem, but it is not the problem. A far bigger problem is the human tendency to treat resources as being limitless even beyond the point where we can see a limit--fish, forests, fresh water, oil. Another bigger problem is our insistence on "our way of life". As the song says, "Everything must change. Nothing stays the same."

I don't think anyone is going to be able to construct a social engineering solution which manages us back into something more clearly resembling a balance with nature. (So my contention would be that we are out of balance.) But to exacerbate the imbalance (so another contention is that drilling would do so) without paying attention to bigger problems seems to me to be irresponsible and ultimately nonconservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"(non-Americans are welcome to answer as well)"

Oh, thanks!

No, I think the money would be better spent helping to find a cheap, reliable and eco-friendly alternative to gas. And you know how much I like the internal combustion engine, Superlib. Bush's proposals are nothing different to all "his" other doomed policies that boil down to capitalism and corporate greed gone absolutely wild.

The fact of the matter is the cheap oil is needed now, not years down the line. Why spend the money and further risk the environment when if this drilling was allowed - the need may not actually be there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )


Don't worry about those darned polls. You can simply make poll figures up like you used to about Iraq. That usually keeps the tree-hugging lefties at bay!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mind if I cut through the political games and ask everyone here if they support drilling in the US?

Unlimited drilling anywhere? No.

From the article: "Oil companies already have under lease 68 million acres on federal lands and waters — outside the ban area — that are not being developed."

Gee. Why not start with the lands they are authorized to drill on?

We also see from the article that Daddy Bush and Brother Jub-jub have been instrumental in blocking development in certain areas. W is an "oil man" and a failed one at that. What do you think would happen to the price of chicken if you elected Colonel Sanders as president? Likewise, anyone who wasn't preparing for upwards of $5-a-gallon gas when voting for little George was just downright foolish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - "So....is anyone will to get on record and say whether they support it or not? You don't have to mention the words "Democrats" or "Republicans" anywhere in your response...I'm asking you person for your opinion, not what you think about the opinions of others."

SuperLib, for the record, I do not support more oil exploration anywhere.

Why? A large amount of that oil is turned into gasoline which becomes CO2 when put through vehicles, which, as everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows is contributing to the warming of the planet with all its deadly consequences as anyone in California, Iowa, China, India, Bangladesh, south east England, Tevalu, Greenland, Florida, Georgia, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Fiji, Canada, Spain, probably YOUR home state and a whole host of other places will tell you is very bad for not just the environment but for us, the economy and for economic growth.

I also personally believe that drilling for more oil is a short-term fix, and that the future of energy resources will lie with renewables.

The challenge is making renewables mainstream.

There, did I mention any political parties or stripes in that?

Not that I can see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I largely agree with SezWho here.

If I had to choose however with a gun to my head, I would rather see drilling in ANWR than off shore drilling.

However, I am still not thrilled to pieces about drilling in Alaska. A lot of the numbers that are thrown around regarding the ANWR drilling are incredibly misleading. Here's a good article on the matter: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/waller/article/0,9565,170983,00.html

Also, here's an absolutely mind-blowing article on the good that could come from devoting that money to research instead. Seriously, my wife yelled at me because I dropped a religious F-bomb while reading it:


But...if our government could promise us, and I mean put their jobs and their personal fortunes on the line promise us, that additional drilling will significantly lower the cost of gas in less than 2 years time, I would accept the idea with very little heart ache.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mind if I cut through the political games and ask everyone here if they support drilling in the US? (non-Americans are welcome to answer as well).

I support it. The technology has improved so much over the past twenty years that drilling though it will still have an impact on the environment it is nowhere near what the impact was in the past. Prudhoe bay has proven that drilling in a fragile eco system can co-exist with just a small footprint. EPA oversight and the threat of major fines and just the bad publicity has kept the oil industry in-line with the environmental protection requirements. Trust me on this as far as environmental compliance I know of what I speak. The problem is simple, most of the 68 million acres of land or ocean that they can drill on per the leases have not been proven to contain any oil at all. It is extremely expensive to drill for oil and no company is going to invest hard earned capital on just the possibilty that their might be oil under their lease. They can't make money if they can't deliver the product. If there was oil underneath the leases they would have been drilling along time ago. They will drill where they have the highest probality of success and that is in the areas where they don't have leases, ANWAR is the prime example. Another problem is local politics such as Florida and California that do have a pretty powerful green block in their local politics haven't come around to allowing the State Government to authorize any drilling as it would be political suicide to any Governor or State legislator running for election or re-election. Though as their pocketbook gets hit with 5 dollar a gallon gas I would suspect that is going to change in the near future. Bottom line they should be allowed to drill where the oil really is, and it can done in a compliant way that can co-exist with our environmental concerns. I'm more worried about the environmental impact of burning all that hydrocarbon after it drilled then the extraction process, but that is for future generations to decide when they have had enough of the addiction to the black gunk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So much talk about Bush's supposed 'buddies' in Big Oil. But never any actual names. Who are they? The 14 largest oil producers are nationalized concerns, operating in countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, China, etc. None of them strike me as friendly to America. Are these the oil men described here as "Bush's buddies" ??? Do tell...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, a good and well-reasoned post, however, I disagree with your lat sentence

"I'm more worried about the environmental impact of burning all that hydrocarbon after it drilled then the extraction process, but that is for future generations to decide when they have had enough of the addiction to the black gunk."

I just hope your children don't get to read what their Dad wrote.... :-(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, you know I've advocated a one dollar tax on a gallon of gas to go exclusively to fund a NASA like project to develop technology to get us of our herion addiction to oil as long as I have posted here. Huckabee by the way advocated the same thing and made that one of his major promises to get America energy independent within ten years, pretty much along the same lines I've advocated, but unfortunately he didn't get the nomination so this could be a real and I consider it to be the most important issue that America will have to face in the future. Oue dependence on foreign oil has warped our foreign policy and warped our values because we are addicted and the sooner that we can get off of our dependency to the black gunk the sooner we stop giving money to groups through our transfer of wealth to the middle east to those that would kill us in a heartbeat. This is insane, we fund the very people that we are fighting now because we rather not go through the pain of paying higher prices at the pump. Drilling in America is just a band-aid and will not solve what should be the most important issue, our national security is directly related to our energy policy and should now and forever never be seperated from each other. Huckabee said it best: For too long, we have been constrained because our dependence on imported oil has forced us to support repressive regimes and conduct our foreign policy with one hand tied behind our back. I will free that hand from its oil-soaked rope and reach out to moderates in the Arab and Muslim worlds with both. I want to treat Saudi Arabia the way we treat Sweden, and that will require the United States to be energy independent. The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for achieving energy independence within ten years of my inauguration. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all types of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, hydrogen, clean coal, biomass, and biodiesel.

So Sushi I do hope my children will read what their Dad wrote, he was supporting and worried about their future long before others thought it cool to have the biggest SUV. And also Sushi before you go all America bashing on me, all of the west and Asia has a pretty sorry record in their foreign policy in regards to their relationships with the M.E horrid governments that only stay in power because the U.S and Europe and Asia need their black gunk.

On a lighter note, There is also some very interesting commentary about this topic in the link. They are not to impressed that Congress is now going to tackle this problem.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

As someone living in a state where gas prices are approaching $5.00 a gallon, I do wonder how all those driving gas guzzlers can afford to fill up their tanks. They now have to face the hard-budget constraint consequences of their choices. Some far-sighted leadership from the WH might have lessened the pain.

Specifically, GWB never pushed Detroit to improve mileage standards. Now the no end in sight to escalating prices at the pump has resulted in auto assembly plant closings in the USA. Who in their right mind is gonna buy an SUV these days? By contrast, to buy a Japanese hybrid, requires buyers to get on a wait list. As Tom Friedman observes, a real leader would have said the following:

“Oil is poisoning our climate and our geopolitics, and here is how we’re going to break our addiction: We’re going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil. And that floor price is going to trigger massive investments in renewable energy — particularly wind, solar panels and solar thermal. And we’re also going to go on a crash program to dramatically increase energy efficiency, to drive conservation to a whole new level and to build more nuclear power. And I want every Democrat and every Republican to join me in this endeavor.”

That’s what a real president would do. He’d give us a big strategic plan to end our addiction to oil and build a bipartisan coalition to deliver it. He certainly wouldn’t be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don’t approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas.


0 ( +0 / -0 )

As Tom Friedman continues:

But, most of all, this deadline is from a president who hasn’t lifted a finger to broker passage of legislation that has been stuck in Congress for a year, which could actually impact America’s energy profile right now — unlike offshore oil that would take years to flow — and create good tech jobs to boot.

That bill is H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables.

These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is simple, most of the 68 million acres of land or ocean that they can drill on per the leases have not been proven to contain any oil at all.

The facts are -- according the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration -- that the US has an estimated 86 billion barrels in reserves, only 14 billion of which lie in the moratorium areas. That's 85% of the reserves held in areas where the oil companies are authorized to explore and drill. What the oil companies are doing is using the fallout of higher prices to get access to 100% of the reserves while they've got an administration that's friendly to their interests.

Leave ANWR alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As Tom Friedman observes, a real leader would have said the following...

Go back to early 1977 and you'll find that then-President Carter developed the first-ever energy policy for the nation, telling us that ending our dependence on imported energy is the moral equivalent of war. He helped pushed through deregulation policies and conservation initiatives which eventually helped break OPEC's back and buy the US a good 25 years of breathing room.

What happened? Successive Republican administrations (helped by Democratic representatives from the auto-producing states) eased up on CAFE standards for vehicles and Americans went back to buying gas guzzlers and homes farther and farther out, which increased communte times. Few took mass transit or car-pooled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess I have no problem with more oil leases, but they aren't using what they got already.

I understand they aren't testing or drilling in about 78% of their current leases.

They reduce the size of their pipeline to help push up prices. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand they aren't testing or drilling in about 78% of their current leases.

Your numbers are accurate. Republican politicians from Florida and South Carolina -- where many of these reserves sit -- would find it politically much more expedient to dig up a wilderness area in Alaska which contains a only small percentage of what is needed.

South Carolina Senator Linsey Graham -- McCain's campaign manager -- was on Meet the Press this morning, and he had to explain his comments in 2005 where he said that drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Gulf (where most reserves are located) was sending the wrong signal at the wrong time to try to wean our dependence on foreign oil. Now he's talking out of the other side of his mouth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits at 12:16 AM JST - 23rd June writes...

The facts are -- according the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration -- that the US has an estimated 86 billion barrels in reserves, only 14 billion of which lie in the moratorium areas. That's 85% of the reserves held in areas where the oil companies are authorized to explore and drill. What the oil companies are doing is using the fallout of higher prices to get access to 100% of the reserves while they've got an administration that's friendly to their interests.

Leave ANWR alone.

It's amazing so many people from the US, not living in Japan, writing comments On JT. Wouldn't be surprised if Democrats Abroad Japan are sending mail outs asking mainlanders to flood JT with their comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not for offshore drilling. The California coast, in my opinion, is one of the country's most accessible national treatures. It also supports a thriving tourist industry that draws people from all over the world (particularly when the US dollar is weak). I stand behind Arnold Schwarzenegger in his opposition and feel it's sad he has not been able to dispel the myth real men can't be environmentalists. Keep tryin', Arnie!

By the administration's own reckoning, off-shore drilling won't have an impact on US production before 2030. (But, hey, you're welcome to hang on to the SUV just in case.) It's understandable GWB would offer false hope of a quick fix but John McCain's flip-flop is not reassuring. Does he understand we can't drill ourselves out of this mess? Opening up coastal deposits would unlikely have any effect on the price since the amounts are too small to make a difference.

We do, however, have an unrivaled ability to innovate. Just throw the people who can do that some tax credits. I mean it's not like oil industry doesn't get them, after all. Silicon Valley is already the world leader in clean technology. But unless there's a strong signal from the government it's serious about kicking our addiction to oil period, venture capitalists will worry the transition costs will be unattractive in the event increased outflow reduces the price of oil.

Given the start-up costs, they are a highly risk averse bunch who are all too aware government funding for energy research and development today in about one-fifth of what is was in 1979. That means the private sector is going to have to carry a much larger load.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about other drilling, Betzee?

From what I've been reading the drilling won't impact prices, and higher oil prices will start to shift investment to alternate sources of fuel, so drilling won't take away that benefit.

The drilling will cause the US to import less of the oil we need from other nations, and again that's good in my book.

States will still have the final say, so if The Terminator doesn't want it in his state and if people in California and Florida agree then they can get their way. And if Alaska wants the jobs and revenues then they also get what they want.

The biggest concern I have right now is how the process will play out. I don't trust the US government to make the right decisions when the oil companies come knocking, but the issue is in the spotlight and that should provide some better oversight from environmental groups and other groups that will work to make sure special interests aren't the only ones who benefit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ban on offshore drilling was originally implemented back in 1981 after a spill off scenic Santa Barbara. The platforms were never removed; they are visible to the naked eye of anyone who drives on the 101. Obviously, it was quite close to shore.

How much oil is where and when it's peaking is subject to pure speculation (by people with varying degrees of knowledge often working with limited information). I would like to see us move away from dependence on oil. R and D, of course, costs so much and those in a position to undertake it with respect to developing alternative sources of energy are waiting for some type of deal from Washington to reduce their risks. Corporate subsidies in America don't come in the form of Uncle Sam handing you money, rather it's some type of tax reduction. So people are waiting for the next administration to unveil its plan (before formulating their own business plans).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whine..whine...whine. george bush screwed up this economy almost all by himself. It also took the republican congress. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KoolAid, you asked about Bush's oil buddies. There's Cheney, for one.

The son of Prescott Bush, who was forced by the Trading With the Enemy Act to cut all ties with Hitler and the Nazis in 1942, was so involved with Saudi Arabia that no matter how hostile, no matter how many human rights violations, he still glad-handed the nation because of the money and favors it bestowed upon him and, of course, his buddies. The grandson, Junior, has been in the pocket of Big Oil since he was barely a shrub... http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080621/OPINION/806210327

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat...The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India...

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15929.html

...executives Stephen Simon of Exxon Mobil, John Hofmeister of Shell Oil, Peter Robertson of Chevron, John Lowe of ConocoPhillips, and Robert Malone of BP America.

Sam Nunn joined Chevron’s board in 1997 (Condi Rice 1991-2001). Richard Armitage and fmr. Asst Secretary of State J. Stapleton Roy are Conoco directors http://news.muckety.com/2008/04/02/sam-nunn-should-share-chevrons-hot-seat/1722?rLink

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jahdog - "The grandson, Junior, has been in the pocket of Big Oil since he was barely a shrub"

You really hate our president and our oil companies, don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The platforms were never removed; they are visible to the naked eye of anyone who drives on the 101.

They may not be the actual platforms but something similar used to secure the hole cap. Nonetheless, the evidence of the drilling which occurred almost three decades ago is a permanent fixture on the coastline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ha ha ha

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites