It’s Well Watching Season Again…
By Loren on Sep 24, 2008 in Uncategorized
The Zogby polling done this past summer shows that 3 out of 4 Americans support offshore oil drilling, so I guess congressional Democrats had no choice but to cave and allow a 25-year-old moratorium on Atlantic and Pacific coast offshore drilling to expire next week. NOW they finally follow the will of the people?
My question is why do so many Americans support what the facts suggest is a silly continuation of our addiction to oil? Sure the sharp increase in gas prices at the pump is a factor, but so is the hugely expensive campaign of misinformation paid for by big oil, the same big oil with new record profits each quarter. You’ve seen the ads on your TV I’m sure. They are fronted by a pleasant, slightly recognizable actress seducing us with big oil’s oh-so-logical-sounding reasons for allowing them to drill for oil in California’s tourism gold mine: our ocean.
In recent months you’ve surely heard that there is no reason to fear offshore drilling because today’s technology is environmentally friendly. Here’s what Rep. Lois Capps has to say about oil drilling off Santa Barbara and the district she represents in Congress: “In the years since, oil accidents and drilling-based pollution here have been plentiful. Exxon-Mobil recently agreed to pay almost $3 million for releasing dangerous PCBs into the Santa Barbara Channel from Platform Hondo. Greka Oil has been polluting our local creeks with toxic runoff and countless oil spills, looking like it got its environmental policies straight from the movie ‘There Will Be Blood.’ There was also the Torch pipeline explosion in 1997 and the decades-long pollution that required rebuilding the entire town of Avila Beach. And that’s not even including the impacts on our air and water quality we deal with every day.”
Is this what we want for San Diego? Not me! We cannot drill our way to oil security. We use 25% of the world’s oil; we have 3% of the world’s supply. The math works against this being a smart policy. When the latest Bush administration took office we imported 53% of the oil we use. President Bush promised oil independence and for 6 of his 7 1/2 years in office had a Republican congress to help him achieve it, and yet today we import 59% of what we use.
If we hope to have energy independence we need to get started on the next technology. Climate change, global warming whatever you wish to call it is real, and our burning carbon-based fuels is a major contributor. Yes, I know, volcanoes and brush fires contribute as well. We cannot drill our way to energy independence. Every spare penny should be used to develop the next energy source. It has to be clean and treat natural resources as if they are finite. Republicans in Congress called their 2005 energy bill “landmark”. When they needed to reduce its size they cut support which was intended for energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy, but continued billions of dollars in subsidies for big oil companies.
This seems like an appropriate time to quote Tommy Smothers on Sunday’s Emmy broadcast, “the truth is what they get us to believe.”
Here’s what I believe: so long as we allow big oil to dictate our national policies and direction we will stay addicted to oil until every drop is pulled from the ground no matter what it does to our environment, security, and economy.
What do you think? Will drilling off the coast make gas cheaper? Will we import less oil anytime soon? Did Congress do the right thing by letting the drilling moratorium lapse?
Thanks for tuning in, logging on and speaking up.
Loren, I agree with most of what you say. However, all the oil we have available offshore as well as elsewhere, (Dakotas) will help to cut back on the imported oil as we learn to be energy independant. Nuclear energy is vital if we are to survive. Wind and Solar are nice and cute answers but the reality is they will not support our lust for energy.
You rail about the huge profits the oil companies reap. Not so. Look at the real picture. Taxes paid, equipment and repair cost, the revolt against building new refineries etc. I own not a penney in oil stock but understand the cost of business as the real expense. If the unions didn’t demand such a high price from the business sector, we could have retained mfg. here in the homeland. Most of the blame lies with the greed of the unions who ended up putting their own members out of work. It’s time for some common sense in this country. I’m not the most educated person to answer your blog but do love my country and wish to see it survive.
Thank you for reading this if you do.
Best regards,
Ed Rudd.
[Reply to this comment]
Ed Rudd | Sep 24, 2008
Loren we must drill our own oil everywhere it exists along with bringing on-line all of the other energy technologies as well (i.e. CNG, wind, nuclear, solar etc.) Congress move to let the ban on drilling expire is symbolic. 50 miles offshore is not where we need to drill so don’t lose any sleep over their decision. We literally need to do all of the things I mentioned and do them now. I sincerely appreciate how painful it is for you to embrace this. I truly think you’ll be surprised at how well the environment will fare.
[Reply to this comment]
Karen | Sep 24, 2008
I like the term “addiction to oil”, because just like with drugs or alcohol, it is nothing more than an extremely unhealthy craving for something that will destroy us in the end. Instead of waking up and facing the reality, the oil addict keeps screaming “I need it now, give it to me” even if it means the worst for our environment. This disease will not end until people realize the simple fact that clean water and air are the most precious commodities. Maybe the 700 billion should be better spent on 12 step group therapy for 3/4 of addicted to oil Americans.
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on September 29, 2008, Greg said:
Interesting speech I read by Michael Crichton thought should be shared.
Loren you may want to read the entire speech.
Environmentalism is a fundamentalists religion.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com.....igion.html
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe”.
“And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them”.
“I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won’t impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.
Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas”.
Dorota | Sep 26, 2008
Offshore Drilling
The whole debate has been about the immediate economic versus the environmental issues concerning offshore drilling, but there is another issue that hasn’t been discussed: If
1. Offshore drilling won’t be profitable for 5 years, and the bi-coastal reserves could be used up in 8 years after that, and
2. Increasing world demand, especially Asia, will continue to increase, while world supplies peak and become more costly to process,
Wouldn’t holding on to this appreciating asset be the wisest course, even if it means some belt-tightening for the short run? For instance: if your financial advisor recommends selling some bonds way before maturity so that you can invest in a “really good deal” shouldn’t you do some checking around before you do what he or she says?
[Reply to this comment]
Don Burnett | Sep 28, 2008
Gee, I have a rescue plan also!
I don’t have a degree in anything, and know nothing about a lot of things.
Therefore I feel qualified to submit the following alternate plan to congress and the people.
I’m against the $700 BILLION bailout of Wall Street.
Instead, I’m in favor of giving the $700,000,000,000.00 to America.
To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. citizens, aged 18 and over.
Our population is about 300 million counting every man,woman and child. So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.
Now, divide 200 million (18+ adults) into $700 billion - that equals $3,500,000.00 each!
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So, let’s assume a tax rate of 30%. Everyone would pay $1,050,000.00 in taxes. That sends $210 billion right back to Uncle Sam! It also means that every adult 18+ has $2,450,000.00 in their pocket! A husband and wife would have $4,900,000.00!
What would you do with $2,450,000.00 to $4,900,000.00?
Pay off your mortgage … housing crisis solved.
Open 5 different savings accounts….banking crisis solved.
Buy a couple of new cars to create jobs…unemployment problem solved.
Tell banks to keep their money…liquidity problem solved.
Purchase the best health insurance policy available….healthcare problem solved.
Send your children to the best private schools….education problem solved.
Golly-Gee I’m sure I missed something here!
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on September 30, 2008, T Davis said:
Not to mention all of the commercial buildings that are not taken into account…. This problem is larger than just personal residences.
Bill Lange | Sep 30, 2008
Hi Bill,
yes you did miss something…a year or two of math in high school. Your math is off a bit and your idea is all over the internet. Please see your exact idea hmmm at this link http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/dividend.asp
[Reply to this comment]
In response, on October 1, 2008, Bill Lange said:
OOOPS! But it got your attention,didn’t it!
Now tell me why there isn’t more talk about nuclear powered generating stations..
loren nancarrow | Sep 30, 2008
Hey Loren. The following from the website for “Stop Oil Seeps California” (SOSCalifornia.org)says it best. Annual *natural* oil seepage off the Santa Barbara Coast is far worse than the 1969 spill which led to the moratorium. In fact, new drilling techniques would help to greatly reduce the natural seepage without adding manmade spills. Here are SOSCalifornia’s bullet points:
1.”Peer reviewed published reports document the connection between existing Santa Barbara offshore oil production and natural seepage pollution reductions over the last 20 years and the larger natural seepage pollution reduction potential through expanded offshore oil and gas production.
2. “There is a 38 year safety record of oil and gas production offshore Santa Barbara with less then 1000 barrels spilled versus 2 million barrels of natural seepage over the 38 years.
3. “New technology now allows slant drilling from land out into the ocean, or from existing offshore platforms or temporary offshore platforms out to a range of over 5 miles horizontally.
4. “New California offshore oil and gas revenues can pay for California’s conversion to solar and renewable electricity and electric/plug-in vehicles and reductions in taxes for all Californians.”
The last point is, to me, the most provocative. We cannot wean our society from gas overnight. We can’t even do it in ten years. So additional oil resources are a must -especially if we want to relieve our dependence on and wealth transfer to other oil producing nations. And why not use the new domestic wealth from “home oil” to finance research into alternative energy sources? And there’s precedent: Atlantic Richfield (now BP)has been doing just that for decades - with much of its “obscene profits”. Arco Solar (and BP Solar) provided huge advances in solar energy.
I’d be interested in your response - but please cite someone other than a politician.
Thanks,
Wm. Griffiths
[Reply to this comment]
Wm Griffiths | Sep 30, 2008
Loren:
I am with you. I do not know where to begin with the reasons it is not a good idea. Off-shore drilling is not going to put a dent in the cost we pay for fuel. If you believe that, you probably also bought into the story that Iraq has nothing to do with oil… GW has taken every opportunity to benefit the oil companies, and this is just the latest.
TD
[Reply to this comment]
T Davis | Sep 30, 2008