Monday, July 21, 2008
More on drilling, oil leases, and the real agenda of the Democrats
Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog explains the "logic" of the various arguments that the Democrats have made against opening up more areas for the drilling of oil. Teaser:
Here is the problem that smart Democrats like Drum face, and the reason behind this confusing logic: They have adopted environmental goals, particularly the drastic reduction of CO2 in relatively short time frames, that they KNOW, like they know the sun rises in the east, will require fuel and energy prices substantially higher than they are today. They know these goals require substantially increased pain and lifestyle dislocation from consumers who are already fed up with fuel-cost-related pain. This is not because the Democrats are necessarily cruel, but because they are making the [faulty] assumption that the pain and dislocation some day from CO2-driven global warming outweighs the pain from higher priced, scarcer energy.
So, knowing that their policy goal is to have less oil at higher prices, and knowing that the average consumer would castrate them for espousing such a goal, smart Democrats like Drum find themselves twisted into pretzels when they oppose oil development. They end up opposing oil development projects because in their hearts they want less oil around at higher prices, but (at least until their guy gets elected in November) they justify it with this bizarre logic that they oppose the plan because it would not get us oil fast enough. The same folks who have criticized capitalism for years for being too short-term focused are now opposing plans that don't have a payoff for a decade or so.
It is almost lunchtime, so you really have no excuse not to read the whole thing.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jul 21, 12:32:00 PM:
I liked the one comment on the Coyote Blog by the man from Alberta, regarding the arguments against developing the oil sands in Alberta many years ago.
The same sort of arguments are mustered against shale oil development. We also have oil sands in parts of Colorado and New Mexico.
And I also think that the majority of Americans will reject the price of gas as it approaches the European level, will reject the AGW argument and those who oppose domestic development will pay a heavy political price.
But not yet.
Not until the Bush Administration has cleared the stage and rational voices will be listened to that will illuminate the argument FOR drilling and developing domestic supplies, will progress begin.
The next ten years are going to be a rocky economic ride in this old United States of America.
-David
By , at
Mon Jul 21, 01:37:00 PM:
On land, there is much less delay time for drilling. Three months after a 14,000 foot well commenced drilling on a relative's land, it was was producing gas.
By , at
Mon Jul 21, 02:32:00 PM:
Weren't four Western oil firms recently invited to submit no-bid contracts to improve Iraqi oil capacity? Didn't the usual suspects cry in outrage over this development, prefering these companies be crippled with windfall profits taxes? How many of these same people want us out of Iraq yesterday? The same ones arguing that any oil fix has to be immediate to be effective?
No oil for blood, I guess.
By , at
Mon Jul 21, 03:44:00 PM:
We can tell that any support the left gives to the "ecology" movement is motivated by politics because of their support for illegal aliens. Illegal immigration takes people with small carbon footprints in Mexico and turns them into illegal aliens in California with SUVs. Haven't seen a leftist who wants to cut back on illegal immigration to save water, gas, gasoline, oil, arable land, overcrowding, and the massive trashing of the fragile desert ecosystem by millions of people moving north.
Generally their favored method of saving the environment seems to reducing the number of US citizens, but allowing unlimited illegal immigration, in the naive notion that Mexicans who move north wil continue to use burros for transportation, or something like that.
The essay by Warren Mayer just points out additional ways in which the progressive speak out of both sides of their mouths.
By , at
Mon Jul 21, 04:03:00 PM:
Great post. I think that this is EXACTLY what the lefties are thinking. They WANT high prices for fuel, because they want to force a movement to alternative energy sources. They just know they can't come out and say it because it's unpopular. They're reduced to blaming oil companies for high prices, and the argument voiced in here of "it will take too long".
I wonder when one of them is going to try and dress up price controls as something else and try that approach again? Gas lines, here we come!
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 21, 04:11:00 PM:
I'm going to setup a buggy whip and mud hut factory. This is clearly the direction the democrats want to take this country.
By JPMcT, at
Mon Jul 21, 07:39:00 PM:
What's bad for America is good for the Democrats. The motivation for the asinine energy policy could not be simpler....the maintenance of economic discontent until after the election.
After that, they are banking on "Joe Sixpack" having the memory of a housefly...and they will "discover" numerous clever and taxable ways to provide relief, while maintaining control.
Yup...it will be a "Democratic" year for Congress, and God help any of us who has a job.
