Why The Republicans' and Democrats' Inaction Is To Blame For The Price of Oil.
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Thanks to the enivironmentalist lobby and its influence on Democratic legislators in Congress, the U.S. has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrells of proven reserves.



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.

Reader Comments
  
3 Simple Solutions
By JWDelano Jun 15th 2008 at 5:56 am EDT
There are three simple solutions to the problem -

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).
  
A larger view of things....
By JWDelano Jun 15th 2008 at 5:57 am EDT
Thank bleeding goodness the first thing you said was that this was propaganda. I was all prepared to scream "BETRAYAL!!!" and hit you with something. :)

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.
Actually
By Marcus Maroney Jun 15th 2008 at 6:04 am EDT
Um, no, if Houston had an efficient public transportation system I wouldn't own a car at all, and I'd encourage others to get rid of theirs as well. Or enact something like the ZipCar system. Sorry, but I don't think it's an inalienable right for people to own automobiles. I *do* think it is a right for them to have access to affordable and reliable public transportation to get them where they need to go. In Houston, the Metro system costs 50 cents a ride for students or those who are below the poverty line. Add a tax deduction into that and I think it's win-win.
  
3 Simple Steps
By Marcus Maroney Jun 15th 2008 at 6:00 am EDT
There are three simple solutions to the problem -

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).
Infrastructure Hurdle
By Tyler Jay Patin Jun 15th 2008 at 6:05 am EDT
By financial standards, Louisiana and Texas should be the richest states in the union, on par with the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait as our waters have been scoured for oil for decades. A huge oil reserve was found within the past few years but, thanks to democratic policies, we can not tap into these resources nor into the countless others within the US. I am all for mass transit and means of transportation that relies on sources other than oil but cost effectiveness counts most of us out. Plus, a mass transit system in a sprawled city like Houston would cost a fortune and years to become feasible. UH to Downtown was a major hurdle and that's nothing when comparing to cities worldwide.
Re: Infrastructure Hurdle
By Marcus Maroney Jun 15th 2008 at 6:06 am EDT
Yes, any major urban redevelopment is going to be a "major hurdle", but I can't think of any major metropolitan area in the world that has an effective public transport system that is considered a liability to that area's wellbeing at all. I'm sure building the NYC Subway, Chicago's elevated rail, the BART, Berlin's S- and U-Bahns, etc. were all "major hurdles", but I think in each case they had a major *beneficial* impact on the city. Berlin's U-/S-Bahns easily cover as much area as would be needed to successfully reach all the major parts of Houston.
Re: Infrastructure Hurdle
By Tyler Jay Patin Jun 15th 2008 at 6:06 am EDT
NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, and London- just to name a few- are cities that are well planned with strong urban cores with mass transit being the heart of the city, not an afterthought as most sprawled cities in the U.S. These cities were developed before the automobile and the idea of suburbia, therefore it was essential. LA, Houston, Atlanta - you name it- are all an immediate reaction to the automobile, not to people and mass transit. Yes, mass transit is beneficial in any city, but massive amounts of planning, tax dollars, are private capital (to some small extent) are needed to make these realities functional in these non functional, car centered cities. This discusssion could go on forever as the subject is a double edged sword in most cases.
Re: Infrastructure Hurdle
By Marcus Maroney Jun 15th 2008 at 6:07 am EDT
Thanks for restating what I said - it would be a "major hurdle" to install mass transit in these cities. Yes, "planning, tax dollars, are [and?] private capital" are needed - the same resources that are currently being wasted in Iraq. Seriously, if the US invested the $1.8 billion a week that its spending making its own cities more energy efficient, the task could be accomplished in no time. If it ever does happen, perhaps Houston,Atlanta, etc. will reach a higher echelon than Gamma World City (two criteria: metro systems by annual passenger ridership and rail systems by length). Houston needs to stop making these excuses, deal with the inconvenience of few years of construction, and get on board . Yes, Houston was not "designed" around mass transit, but that's no excuse for it not to be able to design and install an effective system. There are several cities that weren't planned around mass transit either (Mexico City, Moscow), but they have developed large and effective systems.
  
bicycle
By levinson.eric Jun 15th 2008 at 9:10 am EDT
it is a well known fact that in most cities, you can get places just as fast, if not faster, by bicycle. plus, you'll work off those extra pounds without having to sacrifice time at a gym or failing at a crazy restrictive diet.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress