“The right’s extreme is oil drilling offshore and in Alaska, lots more nuclear, ignore wind and solar, lower energy taxes, let the market work. “
Tom - I also like T. Boone Pickens (who’s oft-quoted out of context by the Left) - watched his entire speech before congress and he concluded by saying that yes, he’s always been an oil man, but he’s an American first. He said we must do everything possible, do it all - beginning with more drilling and extracting all our immediate resources, while working on all the rest long-term as infrastructure and technology is developed.
Regarding your above quote, I don’t know what “right extreme” you’re referring to, but if you look at both the repub Senators’ proposed amendments to Harry Reid’s ludicrous, one-dimensional bill (none of which were allowed to be officially introduced) AND the House repub’s proposed American Energy Bill, which they also call “all the above” (which Pelosi refused to be introduced, much less an up or down vote), they include EVERY possible source and alternative, ruling out nothing. We must be multi-phased, with wind and solar being longer-term due to the required infrastructure, technology, etc. But the Repubs have included it all - oil drilling, oil shale, clean coal technology, more nuclear (like France, who now recycles over 80% of their waste into new energy!), hydrogen, electric cars, solar, wind, and anything else.
But the fact is, we MUST have an immediate bridge between today and tomorrow - and that bridge is to extract the many, many billions of barrels of fuel beneath our feet - here, and now. And it burns me that the Dems totally ignore that this is also a MAJOR national security issue - we simply must stop funding those whose stated mission is to kill all of us, as quickly as possible. Yes, we should have done this YEARS ago - btw, Bill Clinton nixed ANWR drilling in ‘95 because he said it would be at least 10 years before we’d see any benefits and he didn’t think it was worthwhile.
Well, you know what? here it is 13 years later, and how glad would we be IF he hadn’t turned down extracting that 10-20 Billion barrels of oil??
We HAVE to start somewhere. And the Lefties who say that drilling, & other resource extracting, will do nothing to reduce the gas prices at the pump are just plain
Lying to the public. Shame on them, for either their lack of research, or worse yet, their subterfuge with the American people.
If Congress and Senate would ever get a chance to just vote (Pelosi now says probably yes, but only as part of a “more comprehensive package” - read BS, numerous restrictions, so pork barrel-loaded that the repubs will have to vote NO on) and pass the kind of “All the Above” bill that the People want, we’d see the prices at the pump drop even more dramatically than they have over the last 3 weeks - and we’d see it overnight.
Increase future supply, reduce prices now - simple economics.
And the “environmentalists” have never cared about what’s good for this country - if they examined the facts, they should be far more concerned about all the fuel we presently have to import - produced by dirtier, less regulated, more inferior technologies from countries that do FAR worse harm to the environment than anything we would do here with our cleaner, less invasive, safer and more efficient methods (all the tar sand oil from Canada, for example).
AND one last thing - taxing the oil companies even more is NOT a good answer at all, in fact, it’s a really stupid idea for so many reasons (but I’ve already written too much and too long, to go into that :-)))
Oh, we’re both in agreement here. I’m so far right my wife routinely says in polite company that I’m further right than Attila the Hun.
But I’m also a pragmatist and I realize that a sane energy policy will have to be a compromise. That’s why I like the Pickens plan.
As for indicting the extreme right, I didn’t really mean to. All I meant was that there are many on the right who instinctively decry wind and solar just because the left considers them cleaner. Well, that’s plain stupid. Let the market and other forces decide whether they sink or swim. Provide them a few regulatory advantages so investors are willing to take the plunge.
Another poster to my original post said that the newer sources require too much Government support. Well, all energy requires Government involvement to some extent. Even if environmental regulations are relaxed enough for offshore drilling, shale oil extraction, etc., there is still a need for review and appeal to Government. A transition to natural gas or methanol-fueled cars requires some Government involvement (subsidy, tax breaks) because the costs for infrastructure changes will not be borne by private industry. Ditto for the vehicles which will need new internal combustion engines. Far more changes would be needed if we moved to a nuclear-powered hydrogen economy, not to mention matters involving safety because of hydrogen’s great inherent instability (remember the Hindenberg disaster).
Your argument about Pelosi and Clinton regarding ANWR drilling is critical and I hope you make it known to the Republican National Committee for their next round of ads when the Congress reconvenes. Or send it to Fox News and Townhall.com.
It’s clear you have a good handle on these matters. Perhaps you have spent a lifetime in the energy industry? If so, be advised that I am a degreed Chemical Engineer with a lifetime spent in the defense industry.