Submitted by: Josh Greenberger(1,018) Log in to become a member of Josh Greenberger's Fan Club!
(June 4, 2008) It's easy to blame our current predicament of high
gasoline prices on insufficient oil production or export by OPEC. It's
more difficult to blame ourselves for passivity and lack of resolve.
There's no question that OPEC could help alleviate the situation. But
we could do the same on our own, and, at the same time, stop the
majority of our dependence on foreign oil.
If we can get our lawmakers to put aside politics and special
interests, we could roll back the price of gas considerably. An example
of the kind of nonsense that's keeping us from increasing our own oil
production is the haggling over whether or not to allow oil exploration
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Objections to oil exploration in ANWR have come mostly from
environmental groups who worry about endangering the caribou
(reindeer). However, only 1.5 million acre, or 8%, on the northern
coast of ANWR is being considered for development, while the remaining
17.5 million acres, 92%, of ANWR will remain closed to development. If
oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres
of the Coastal Plain would be affected -- that's less than one half of
one percent.
With the hardships Americans are beginning to experience over high gas
prices, should exploration in ANWR even be an issue? ANWR should have
been opened for exploration as soon as gas hit $2 per gallon.
U.S. companies are barred from drilling off the coast of Florida
because of environmental concerns. Yet, China signed an agreement with
Cuba to drill for oil in Cuban waters. Since Cuba is only 90 miles from
Florida, and Jimmy Carter, in his legendary witless "wisdom," gave Cuba
half those waters for economic purposes, we could see oil rigs as close
as 45 miles off Florida's shores.
Which means, we'll likely be the recipient of whatever environmental
damage that might come out of drilling for oil near Florida, but China
will be the recipient of the oil.
To add insult to injury, there are reports that China is planning to
slant drill. That is, while in Cuban waters, they can slant drill to
tap into our oil reserves.
So, we get the pollution, China gets the oil, and, on top of that,
China gets our oil. What brilliant environmentalist sees this as a
solution to anything?
The Florida shores should have been opened for drilling by U.S. companies the moment China signed an agreement with Cuba.
We have an oil crisis in the U.S. because of twisted priorities. It's
one thing to worry about the environment when there's little or no
downside. But when the downside is extreme hardship to the vast
majority of Americans, environmental concerns, unless they're an
obvious imminent threat to life or health, should be put aside.
The notion that there are moronic, dimwitted individuals and groups who
are more concerned about the reindeer in Alaska than Americans on Main
Street, is just mind-boggling.
Almost as bad is the passivity of the average American. TV interview
after interview of people on the street who are asked what they think
of the high gas prices, respond to the effect of, "Well, we'll just
have to change our vacation plans," or "We'll have to cut down on" this
or that. There seems to be no outrage over our lawmakers buckling under
pressure from a small minority of special interest groups.
When a horse is killed accidentally in Central Park, there is immediate
outrage by animal crackpot groups about changing laws to protect
animals. (I'm an animal lover myself. I've had cats, birds, a dog, and
other animals.) I certainly do not suggest condoning cruelty to
animals. But when animals elicit more consideration and respect than
humans, that's not a love of animals -- that's a distorted sense of
reality and an irrational contempt for one's fellow human beings.
If average Americans gathered in front of their lawmakers' offices in
support of "human rights," protesting environmental-related
restrictions on oil exploration with the same outrage as some nuts
scream for animal rights, we could have cheap gas in the near future.
(When gas prices go down considerably and our economy gets back on
track, we can start worrying again about the environment.)
Average Americans far outnumber the individuals who comprise
environmental groups. If we let our voices be heard in support of
"human rights," it will undoubtedly drown out the opposition.
To do with less when you don't have to, makes no sense. I'm all for
conservation of energy, loose leaf paper and whatever, even when
they're in abundant supply. But teaching conservation is one thing,
imposing deprivation as another. We have plenty of oil, let's use it.
» left by Hannah Quinn(21,630) Hannah Quinn (75 days 11 hours ago.)
Josh,
Let's eat cake today and who cares if there are only moldy crumbs tomorrow and just their memory the day after? That's how your article sounds. The focus should not be on acquiring more oil now. Instead, it should be on finding sustainable means of energy and accepting the fact, that if we are going to maintain anything like the lifestyle we (in the developed world) have enjoyed over the last 50 years or so, we will - at least initially - have to actually change that lifestyle. I'd rather live with rising oil prices than the rising waters that are causing the entire population of Kiribati to have to seek out support and consent to move to other countries. I admit, I am somewhat flummoxed by the fear and concern over oil prices in your country - which is still cheaper than most other countries, especially ours (the mean price of petrol (gas) here today is $1.55 a litre which equates to $6.97 a gallon. Can you tell me what are the actual problems and deprivations you speak of? Perhaps I'm way off the mark in my perceptions. This is a genuine question. I'm truly interested.
Thanks, Hannah Respond to this comment
» left by Anonymous (75 days 7 hours ago.)
You sound like the doom and gloom you predict is an absolute certainty, so the entire planet should change their ways. All this doom and gloom has turned into a fanatical cult of late, and it's you people who have to wake up. To not take care of a problem we definitely have today (economic hardships) because of some possible problem (with the environment) in the future, is about the dumbest most absurd approach I've heard.
I'm sorry if I don't fit into your understanding of how things should be. But I'd rather take care of a problem we have today, and tomorrow -- if this problem you predict does occur, which I don't believe it will -- we can take care of that tomorrow. No, the world won't come to an end if we do it this way.
The fact that you're paying much more for gas than we are, is just not a good enough reason for why I would want to pay more for gas. What kind of crazy logic is that?
What I find absurd is that you don't seem to be thorough enough in your research (which should've taken you no more than a few minutes on the internet or watching the news) to have any idea about the economic hardships being experienced in America today, yet somehow you claim to know with certainty what will happen with the environment in the future. If you're not well-informed enough to know what's going on in your own time, right under your nose, I'm certainly not going to take your predictions about the future seriously.
You environmentalists are just crackpots.
» left by Hannah Quinn from Australia (75 days 4 hours ago.)
I was hoping for some elucidation. Oh well. Just another crackpot. Cheers, Hannah Respond to this comment
Was
this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
This Article has been viewed 203 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 View other articles written by Josh Greenberger(1,018)
If you found this article
interesting, you may want to check out:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is
provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice
provided to you by any health care or other professional or
organization.
