Perhaps inspired by Dick Cheney's false claim that China is drilling off the coast of Florida, John McCain is advocating an end to a federal ban on offshore drilling. We'd like to call "Flip-flopper" on McCain, since he ran in 2000 on a platform against such drilling, not to mention his recent courting of environmentalists with his promise not to drill in ANWR.
McCain is probably trying to appeal to voters who aren't happy about paying over $4/gallon for gas, but drilling in federally protected waters makes about as much sense as repealing the gas tax. Hare-brained schemes like this are probably why voters trust Obama more than McCain on dealing with energy issues.
The Maverick is set to explain his energy plan over three upcoming speeches. The first will be later today, where McCain is expected to not only praise offshore drilling as a way to increase national security and decrease the price of oil, but also give a good verbal lashing to inconsiderate speculators, whom he blames for the high cost of the fuel.
Congress first passed the drilling ban in 1981, and it has been renewed by every president since. Yes, that includes George Bush. We suppose that this would be another way that McCain would prove to the voters that he is no W. And where will McCain be delivering his oil-soaked energy plan? Why, Houston, of course!
Can anyone point to a detailed analysis showing that drilling offshore and in ANWR will not significantly affect oil/gas prices? I'm sure this is the case, and the argument surely involves the small supply (relative to global production) and time scales for actually bringing these reserves to market. Anyway, I'd just like to be able to point the skeptics toward some concrete analysis.
This afternoon on All Things Considered on NPR they were discussing McCains proposal and mentioned that the American Petroleum Institute has admitted that it will take 7-10 years for offshore wells to start reducing the cost of gas at the pump. I did a brief search on the API website and didn't see anything, but you can check out NPR.org if you want to hear for yourself.
So we see the pictures and hear the environmentalists, but, who has ever actually been to Alaska to see the pipeline and the anwr area? I recently made a trip up yonder from Michigan and was quite surprised when I found myself saying, hey this might not be too bad of an idea.(drilling anwr) granted this is no solution for our oil dependency but at least while we are in the midst of conversion to green technology we could help out our pocket books and economy just the same. I myself am a conservationist, working on a carbon footprint for my university this summer so i never thought i may agree on this but from what ive seen the animals up there could care less about the pipeline and machinery. except a few places were it go underground to deal w permafrost, these pipelines do not effect migration routes, or animal behavior etc. and there is so much damn land up there! I'm pretty sure we could all share it and as long as the oil companies didn't trash the place we could all benifit!
Actually, an overlooked study from a month or so back shows that drilling in ANWR would only save about $.75 on the barrel of oil. In 2020. And that was a study requested by Sen. Stevens, so it probably overestimates the Wildlife Refuge's impact. Given how long it takes to bring oil into production, and how incredibly much of it the world uses, I'd imagine offshore drilling has a comparable impact.
If McCain really cares about the gas costs, he should be touting more efficient vehicles, more non-driving options, and talking about how he'll stabilize our falling dollar. Oh, and maybe not trying to start a war with Iran.
My personal problem with drilling for otherwise inaccessible oil is that I think that money would be better spent on investments in renewable energy- both by the government and the private sector. We KNOW we're going to run out of oil, we've already essentially run out of easy oil if people are so eager to utilize tar sands and shale and offshore deposits. Wouldn't it be more prudent to do our best to bring down the cost of non-fossil fuels, especially as the higher cost of oil and gas makes them more competitive?
I completely agree with Samantha "that money would be better spent on investments in renewable energy- both by the government and the private sector" and "it be more prudent to do our best to bring down the cost of non-fossil fuels, especially as the higher cost of oil and gas makes them more competitive."
Are there figures as to how much is being invested into renewable energies and how long it will take to manufacture these energies at an affordable cost? Then compare this cost & timetable to drilling in new places. Which one comes out faster and more affordable?
i totally agree that money would be well spent elsewhere however reading through this website and others similar such as envirogeek, it seems to me that the private industries are already working and spending money on research twords better efficiency in green energy etc. so since its so damn hard to get these government people to do anything environmental lets maybe let them get us some more oil while the private sector works out the kinks so when the gov. does finally buy in they arnt still in the research phases.yea? no?
Yeah, OK, we can be the change that we want to see in the world. But unless powerful people in powerful positions want to be that change as well, nothing's going to change.
So now, finally, there's a place where you can go for news and analysis of politics from an environmental perspective.
