OPEC Lobby Congress, Keep Using Our Oil!
I admit the title is a bit melodramatic. Congress, though, has shown it still has nothing in common with reality. It has, does, and will always bow to special interests. OPEC doesn't need to lobby Congress, actually. Congress seems to be able to divine their will and follow it sans cue cards.
Most recently, this has come in the form of keeping the US dependent on foreign oil by any means necessary. The boys at OPEC, socialists, thugs, and dictators included, are likely doing a little happy dance knowing that for the time being they have nothing to fear from the US Congress in regards to their own well-being at the expense of Americans.
Congress is far too busy looking elsewhere for that. On practically the same day, the Senate blasted oil executives for profits made during this year's gas crunch, the House showed it has no interest in expanding American drilling or refining capacity, the current key cause of our immediate price hikes and massive dependence on foreign oil.
Explain to me how it's any business of Congress to determine which industries in the US are not subject to supply and demand. The BS about how "Oil is infrastructure" doesn't hold because so are computers and no one seems to care that Microsoft had a bumper year also. It's politically motivated, as always, in an attempt by both sides to be seen as doing something immediate, and picking on wealthy executives is a favorite past time of the Senate regardless of who is in charge.
Also, given that they're upset because of high prices, why does the House veto every attempt to expand refining capacity or drill not only in Alaska but also in the Plains states and their huge oil shale reserve, a reserve I remember them talking about in the '70's as one of the greatest on the planet.
I also don't buy that all this is the oil companies' fault. They've invested billions in alternate energy and cleaner, more efficient oil exploration. Why, because it's in their best business interests! They know oil isn't inexhaustable, and like any good business they want to be in on the next big new thing in energy, because everyone on the planet needs it! These are not morons, but Congress seems to be. Congress knows all this too, but it's easier for them to play to the loudmouth left than it is to try to find real solutions to the U.S.' s energy problems.
Given time, we'll have fusion power and hydrogen fuel cells in abundance. It's theortically possible and in the long-run could be much cheaper than what we have now. And when that time comes, you'll see names like Exxon, BP, Cinergy and the like plastered all over those sites, along with Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. The big companies know they can either try to save energy or eventually cease to exist. Other than the furthest left enviro freaks out there, what do the rest of you think they'll pick?
Time to let Congress in on that little secret also.
I admit the title is a bit melodramatic. Congress, though, has shown it still has nothing in common with reality. It has, does, and will always bow to special interests. OPEC doesn't need to lobby Congress, actually. Congress seems to be able to divine their will and follow it sans cue cards.
Most recently, this has come in the form of keeping the US dependent on foreign oil by any means necessary. The boys at OPEC, socialists, thugs, and dictators included, are likely doing a little happy dance knowing that for the time being they have nothing to fear from the US Congress in regards to their own well-being at the expense of Americans.
Congress is far too busy looking elsewhere for that. On practically the same day, the Senate blasted oil executives for profits made during this year's gas crunch, the House showed it has no interest in expanding American drilling or refining capacity, the current key cause of our immediate price hikes and massive dependence on foreign oil.
Explain to me how it's any business of Congress to determine which industries in the US are not subject to supply and demand. The BS about how "Oil is infrastructure" doesn't hold because so are computers and no one seems to care that Microsoft had a bumper year also. It's politically motivated, as always, in an attempt by both sides to be seen as doing something immediate, and picking on wealthy executives is a favorite past time of the Senate regardless of who is in charge.
Also, given that they're upset because of high prices, why does the House veto every attempt to expand refining capacity or drill not only in Alaska but also in the Plains states and their huge oil shale reserve, a reserve I remember them talking about in the '70's as one of the greatest on the planet.
I also don't buy that all this is the oil companies' fault. They've invested billions in alternate energy and cleaner, more efficient oil exploration. Why, because it's in their best business interests! They know oil isn't inexhaustable, and like any good business they want to be in on the next big new thing in energy, because everyone on the planet needs it! These are not morons, but Congress seems to be. Congress knows all this too, but it's easier for them to play to the loudmouth left than it is to try to find real solutions to the U.S.' s energy problems.
Given time, we'll have fusion power and hydrogen fuel cells in abundance. It's theortically possible and in the long-run could be much cheaper than what we have now. And when that time comes, you'll see names like Exxon, BP, Cinergy and the like plastered all over those sites, along with Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc. The big companies know they can either try to save energy or eventually cease to exist. Other than the furthest left enviro freaks out there, what do the rest of you think they'll pick?
Time to let Congress in on that little secret also.
posted by Rob Beck | 4:49 PM
3 Comments:
The oil hearings were a publicity stunt, as evidenced by the fact that the CEOs weren't even sworn in. I'm all with you as far as oil prices go. We really don't realize how cheap gas still is here.
But I'm curious what you think about ANWR. There are a few different questions at play in the ANWR debate . . .
1) Does the gov't have any business at all maintaining national parks and wildlife preserves? Putting aside the specifics of ANWR, the real battle is being waged over the precedent -- whether protected federal lands should be opened up for mineral extraction.
2) Assuming that you find a legitimate purpose in keeping protected federal lands for recreational or environmental purposes -- and I know better than to take that for granted, but bear with me -- is it appropriate for the government to change its policy to temporarily depress oil prices?
3) Since I agree with you that energy companies will bring alternatives to market once they become more profitable than mineral extraction, would you rather see the government facilitate new oil discovery (effectively prolonging our fossil fuel dependency) or get the transition over with?
That precedent was set ages ago. National parks, forests, and preserves have been logged, mined, and otherwise accessed by commercial interests.
One of my personal favorite places on the planet in Adirondack Park is accessable only via the logging roads on the Park property. Granted, that's a NY State Park, but the US Parks are no different. I merely offer an example I can relate to.
My personal thought is if less than 1% of ANWR could be exploited for oil while preserving the other 99% as pristine wilderness, that would be an excellent achievement.
I know I'm always told that I should compromise my views on 100% tax cuts, so I think the environmental lobby could relent a touch and take that 99%. :-) Certainly, they would have been delighted with that level of success in other parts of our country.
Parks and forests, yes -- but wildlife refuges haven't traditionally been opened. That's why so much time is being spent on the assertion that the oil companies can go in without much impact on the locals (which assertion, by the way, ignores the disproportionate amounts of damage that just one oil accident can cause to an area).
That's why it's not just about the 1% -- it's about the precedent. Once it's being done in ANWR, the argument becomes "if it's all right there, why not . . ." wherever else extraction has traditionally not been allowed.
And again: If we accept the principle that the only thing preventing the emergence of alternative energy is the presence of cheap oil, why should the environmental lobby agree to sacrifice even 1% of a protected area if it means prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels?
"One of my personal favorite places on the planet in Adirondack Park is accessable only via the logging roads on the Park property."
I presume you mean accessible by car? ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home