|
|
Check out this map:
All of the 'NO' zones are places where the U.S. , thanks to the Democratic Party, is prohibited from drilling for oil.
But wait … it gets better.
*** China , Cuba , Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Democratic policies!
Yes, that's right … China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West, Florida while U.S. companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China , who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry.
Unbelievable.
Investor's Business Daily recently explained how irresponsible the Democrats have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever for …..
~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.
~ Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
~ Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nucl ear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas.
~ Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission -- all while India , China , Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 4 0% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
If you agree with the need to let the American people know who's REALLY responsible for the sky-high gasoline prices we're seeing today, please forward this e-mail to everyone you know.
If we elect a liberal Democrat as president in the Fall and keep the same Democrat-controlled Congress, nothing will change …. except gasoline prices, which will keep going up.
Here are my thoughts about the above post that I found online: ...Republican propaganda. The states have a lot to do with drilling inside of state waters. California is the worst of the bunch where their republicans and Dems feel the same way. Something else, for years it was cheaper for us to buy foreign oil than to produce it hear in the states. So, that is what we did. Canada has oil in the ground that has always been too expensive to take out so they left it. Now with the price of oil it is feasible to go and get it so that is what they are doing. The other thing at this point starting to drill for oil and build infrastructure for any of these undeveloped areas will take years. There is no quick fix for the present world and US demand for oil. It will take almost as long to put new production in place in the areas that we are not presently drilling as it will take to begin exploiting alternative energy sources. So basically we better face it. We will be paying 5 to 6 dollars a gallon before it is all over with.We have another infrastructure problem, Refining. We do not have enough refineries where we are developing oil assets now. The areas where we are not producing have none. That is what I am talking about infrastructure. You have to have pipelines and you have to have downstream infrastructure. We do not have that in any of these undeveloped areas. I am sure this is something that neither the republicans or Dems will tell the American people. They would rather sit on their butts and throw around words and play the blame game rather than telling us the truth about what needs to be done.
As far as I am concerned they are all worthless, get rid of them all. They do not even care about this country, if they did they would stop the shit and start doing today what will help us 10 to 20 years down the road. But they would rather concentrate on what will get them elected in 2, 4, or 6 years. That does not help America or her people.

1) Impose a hefty tax on people who drive automobiles that get less than 35 mpg unless those automobiles are essential for their job.
2) Stop the Iraq war and use half the money that was being spent there (approx. $1.8 billion every week) to develop alternative fuels. I'm confident that US scientists, given adequate funding, would be able to come up with something extremely effective in 5 years or less.
3) Use the other half to install effective, clean and reliable public transport systems in every major city in the US. Give a tax incentive for people to use said services instead of driving their automobiles (i.e., make the fares tax deductible).
Canada may have oil, but in Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland) the price per gallon two days ago was $5.43. (Canadian gas is sold in litres, and there are 3.78 litres in a gallon, that's why the price looks a little funny.) So, um...yeah, there you go with that.
Marcus, your taxes would hurt those who are the poorest. Not everyone can afford a new car. Hell, my 1998 Camry LE doesn't do 35mpg in the city, and it's one of the more efficient cars I know of! I can't afford a new car, I'm a student...you're going to tax the flip out of me because you sit pretty in your Prius that you had the upper middle class money to buy? Sense, this scenario makes none. I do agree with your other two solutions, though.
I don't say "I" to things, even at executive board meetings. I was raised better than that. I say *Aye*, as my forefathers did.
1) Impose a hefty tax on people who drive automobiles that get less than 35 mpg unless those automobiles are essential for their job.
2) Stop the Iraq war and use half the money that was being spent there (approx. $1.8 billion every week) to develop alternative fuels. I'm confident that US scientists, given adequate funding, would be able to come up with something extremely effective in 5 years or less.
3) Use the other half to install effective, clean and reliable public transport systems in every major city in the US. Give a tax incentive for people to use said services instead of driving their automobiles (i.e., make the fares tax deductible).