Home › Opinion › Opinion
Gallegly: Time to drill in ANWR
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
Here's what the leaders of the congressional Democrats told the American people two years ago to persuade voters to bring them to power:
— "Democrats have a common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices." (Nancy Pelosi, now speaker of the House).
— "Democrats believe that we can do more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices." (Steny Hoyer, now House majority leader).
— "House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising gas prices." (Jim Clyburn, now House majority whip).
When Pelosi was sworn in as speaker, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas was $2.29. As of Monday, the national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.60 — a record high. In California — where you, I and Speaker Pelosi live — a gallon of regular gas hit an average of $4 a gallon in San Francisco on Sunday, with the rest of the state not far behind.
So much for the Democrats' plan.
Gasoline prices are not, and shouldn't be, a partisan issue. They affect all Americans equally. That's because 98 percent of American transportation is fueled by oil. As transportation costs rise, so do costs for food, furniture, medicines, household supplies, clothing — anything that has to be shipped from one point to another.
Together, Democrats and Republicans need to cut our reliance on foreign oil, through conservation, alternative fuels and tapping domestic sources. The U.S. currently imports more than 56 percent of its oil from foreign countries, such as the volatile Middle East and Venezuela. At the current rate of importation and consumption, the U.S. will rely on the rest of the world for 64 percent of its oil needs in 12 years.
Conservation has an immediate impact, but is only part of the solution. Alternative fuels will take time and even then may not fully replace oil for all our energy needs. Therefore, if we are to reduce our reliance on foreign supplies, we must produce more domestic oil.
Flash back 28 years, when President Carter — a proud Democrat — set aside a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for "exploration and development" of oil and natural gas resources. An estimated 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil lies beneath its frozen tundra.
It's important to note that ANWR is not the California coast. There is no tourism industry in ANWR, which lies entirely north of the Arctic Circle. Except for the 220 natives living at Kaktovik, who support oil production, ANWR is desolate. That's important to note from a states' rights perspective. If we are to continue the moratorium on oil extraction off the California coast because it's opposed by most Californians, then we should equally take into consideration the views of Alaskans, who overwhelmingly support oil extraction in their state.
We should also note that the 19 million-acre refuge is more than three times the size of Massachusetts, yet fewer than 2,000 acres of the Coastal Plain would be impacted by oil production.
Note, too, that moving oil from Alaska is less risky than shipping it halfway around the world in a rusty Panamanian tanker.
A small impact on a barren piece of Alaska where the people support oil production would have a large impact on our nation's energy supply. Yet, nearly 30 years after a Democratic president opened the area, congressional Democrats are blocking it.
Opening ANWR needs to become part of the energy plan if America is to realize any relief.
In the meantime, another short-term solution would be for California to lower the sales tax on gasoline.
The 6 percent California sales tax on a gallon of gas when Pelosi became House speaker yielded the state about 13 cents per gallon. Today, the state receives more than 21 cents in sales taxes per gallon, a 62 percent windfall in 15 months. I should note that the sales tax is based on the cost of gasoline, plus the added federal and state excise taxes. Basically, the sales tax includes taxes on taxes. Furthermore, Elizabeth Hill, California's legislative analyst, wants to increase California's excise tax by 10 cents and make it a percentage of the cost of gasoline, thereby exponentially increasing the taxation on taxes.
Raising gas taxes is not the way to ease the state's deficit. More likely — because transportation costs affect every aspect of the economy — higher gas taxes will further weaken the economy and worsen the state's deficit.
Instead, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should cut the sales tax on gasoline while long-term solutions, such as opening ANWR and fully implementing workable alternative energies, are achieved.
Californians shouldn't be gouged by a government that is reaping a windfall on its sales tax or a Congress that won't increase supplies.
— Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, represents the 24th Congressional District.
Posted by mikeb6804 on April 29, 2008 at 2:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The U.S. population has increased from approximately 223 million in 1978 to over 300 million today. To expect to accommodate this sort of population growth without increasing our fuel infrastructure is insanity. Environmentalists don't want to drill for the oil we have and they don't want to use nuclear power. We have not increased our refining capacity. We have seen what the alternative is --- let the OPEC countries keep us over a barrel. Anybody who thinks that our demand for energy can be met by the alternative energy sources promoted by environmentalists and lefties is not being realistic.
Posted by jw1000 on April 29, 2008 at 3:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FACT: Under the incompetence of Bush and Gallegly gas prices have increased 300% over Bill Clinton. And Clinton never drilled in ANWR. Bush and Gallegly continue to drive up demand by buying oil for the Strategic reserve even though it is not needed. Gallegly and Bush are both supported by big oil.
Posted by rjlebeck on April 29, 2008 at 4:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is Gallegly's vision for an energy independent America?
His proposals are nothing but another giveaway to the oil companies who coincidentally help finance his re-election. Does anybody honestly think that any drop in the price of gas due to taxes would result in lower prices? Any resulting drop would soon be quickly absorbed by "market forces" and wind up as even greater profit for the oil companies.
We can't drill our way out of this mess, we need to innovate.
We need a real investment in America's energy future. We need a Kennedyesque, Apollo-like mission to rid ourselves of our slavish and war-like desire to dominate dwindling reserves and to save the planet for future generations. Our dependence on oil is getting our soldiers killed in Iraq and is choking and despoiling the planet. Drilling in the ANWAR will not change this equation.
Another two-bit solution from our two-bit, twenty-two year congressman.
Posted by jw1000 on April 29, 2008 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gallegly seven years ago VOTED AGAINST higher mileage requirements for cars and truck. That is something that would have resulted in lower prices today because of the reduced demand it would have caused. Even our local Republican Party has been taken over by big oil. Mike Osborn its chairman is an oil industry person.
Posted by hemlock1262 on April 29, 2008 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Representative Gunga Din, meet the water you're going to carry today. Love, Dick.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who pays for government taxes? We do. We pay it right at the pump (about 50 cents now go directly to the state and the feds, I think.) That is a percentage amount based on the price of said gasoline or deisel.
Who wants higher taxes? They do. Those that want to expand the growth of the state and federal government on some kind of idealistic fantasy that they can manage money better than we can. Last time I bought a postage stamp I sure didn't think so and the USPS is already semi-privatized. So that isn't a fair analogy and it is made worse by the fact that the US postal service also has to bear the cost of fuel to deliver the mail. So who foots the cost of postage stamps? We do. I never even saw Nancy Pelosi offer to lick one of my stamps.
Who pays more for gas when the government imposes higher "wind-fall profits taxes?" We do. The oil companies just pass that tax along to us in the form of higher energy costs. Who has the most incentive to invest in sensible solutions for ending our (American) dependence on foreign oil imports? Entrepeneurs and the big oil/big energy companies. It sure ain't the Congress. There "green incentives" are all very well intended but I haven't seen them have much of an affect on gasoline prices.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How long does it take to build or expand an oil refinery? Roughly 20 years. About 10 to pass the environment impact studies and reports approvals process required by the government. Then tack on another 10 years or so to actually do the construction. So even if Exxon-Mobile applies to build an oil refinery in the Mojave Desert tomorrow it would probably be 2028 before any refinery was producing any gasoline or other processes petroleum product. Who waits 20 years? We do. Often in gas lines.
How long does it take to build a nuclear plant in America? About the same 20 years. If it is approved which it probably won't be.
How long will it take to see actual benefit from alternate, renewable energy like ethanol to acheive energy independence? Well, other countries have already done it like Brazil for one. How about wind, tidal, solar, geothermal and other potential ways to make power? Well, Teddy Kennedy doen't like wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod because they ruin he view from his estate there and get in the way of his deisel fueled boats when he and his pals go out in the ocean. Tidal power probably wouldn't go over too well either by politicians who live in Massataxes. A lot of folks are working on solar and geothermal projects to show viability of those resources. When is Senator Kennedy gonna have solar panels on the roof of his mansion to make it energy independent? Don't hold your breath.
So I think Mr. Gallegly is on the right track- start the process of exploring in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve known as ANWR. Then start allowing more off-shore drilling off California and the Gulf of Mexico which we know can produce a lot of oil. Invest in alternative sources as much as you can but don't expect it so save you any money until about two decades go by.
Who's going to wait that long? We will.
Posted by jw1000 on April 29, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot: Oil companies don't want to build refineries and for the most part are not even trying. Maximum profit occurs when production is limited so that existing refineries just barely keep up with demand. Any excess gasoline would result in less total profit because prices would drop. The oil companies won't allow that to happen.
Any oil generated offshore or ANWR would cause oil companies to curb production elsewhere in the country so as to not allow total production of oil to increase which would result in lower prices and lower profit.
As usual you are out in far right field supporting failed policies. Nothing ever changes. Please grow a brain.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
American-based oil companies ARE building or financing the building of new oil refineries. In places like China and Venezula. Are you saying, jw1000, that I should support off-shoring the refining and distribution of the gas I put in my car?
Batter up!
Posted by jw1000 on April 29, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mm: Of course they are building in other countries because they are trying to do business there and because refining capacity is WAAAAY below demand. That gas is kept in China and not exported.
Posted by luv2sail on April 29, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw, like most on here, you attack anyones ideas, but haven't seen any attempt at a solution by yourself.
It is always easy to criticize someones ideas rather than coming up with one yourself.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luv2sail, here's one I can think of: sanction American-based oil companies that invest in oil exploration and refininig in iffy places like China and outright hostile places like Venezula. Then use the tarrifs to finance research into alternative energy sources.
Posted by cslaurie on April 29, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The truth of the matter is that refineries are regulated right out of business in the US. You would have to be insane to try to build a new one on the left coast.
As to drilling for oil, if you went back say fifty or sixty years and read articles in this paper about the oil industry in Ventura county - there would be nothing but praise for an industry that paid good wages, invested in their towns and provided significant royalty taxes to the State.
How times change. Now hamburger flippers and paper pushers are making fiscal decisions about our economy. We are reaping the ill winds of left wing regulation right now.
Posted by shaver_one on April 29, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Elton wants us to believe that the Demopublicrats are responsible for the high cost of gasoline. He fails to mention that the Redemocans have blocked every effort by the Demopublicrats to find alternatives to OPEC, have sustained every veto-threat made by the Bush/Cheney Regime on measures to ease our dependence on OPEC, have backed Big Oil in their quest for obscene profits.
BTW: Corn-based ethanol uses more oil to produce ethanol, than the ethanol it produces. The only source abundant enough to produce enough Hydrogen to make any difference, is hydrocarbons...oil. And, hydrogen fuel is far too expensive for most Americans to afford.
Big Oil is responsible for building more American refineries. Yet, THEY are not building any, domestically. The fact that THEY might be building in foreign countries is more about higher profits, from lower-wage foreign refinery workers, than their desire to ease America's pump-pain.
Whereas environmentally-sound alternative energy sources will not rid us of OPEC, solar power on every house and commercial building in America will cut your personal electricity bill by, at least, half...thus freeing up more petroleum for other uses.
Higher CAFE standards will reduce the amount of gasoline used. Who really needs a 4x4 Hummer to drive your kids to school, or go grocery shopping?
Clean-burning coal, an oxymoron, is one alternative. Nuclear power is another...provided we find a way to get rid of the toxic byproduct.
Can we do without oil? Of course not. Must we still deal with OPEC? You betcha...at least for the forseeable future.
But, there are ways to reduce our dependency on OPEC...if only the Bush/Cheney Regime, the Redemocans, and Big Oil are willing. Of course, the Bush/Cheney Regime will become irrelevant in eight months. Let us hope the new president, and the new Congress will get their heads out of their backsides, finally, and approve realistic solutions to our over-dependence on OPEC.
Posted by Poppa on April 29, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason we are paying $4 a gallon is because of Gallegly/Bush/Cheney! Tell the truth for once Elton! When Bush took office the cost of gas was a $1.46! Gallegly has voted against every attempt by democrats to lower the price! Cheney met with the heads of the oil companies and let them write the policy to get us to this point and Elton supported Cheney in preventing the notes from that meeting from getting out. Rumor has it those notes include going to war in the mideast, having Bush put 100% capacity into the Strategic Reserve to drive up oil prices and to not release any the way Clinton did to lower prices(Which Bush has done) and finally to push to desecrate ANWR! If you are looking for the bad guy Elton look in the mirror!
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't we reduce the national speed limit to 55 again? Consumption will be reduced as we saw in the 70s.
What we need is to get individuals out of their personal autos and onto mass transit. Yes, we have a way to go on this, but again we have waited to long to start. Short-sighted us. Having lived and worked in Europe, I can tell you how freeing taking transport is.
We cannot grow our way out way out of this. We are already seeing the results of growing nothing but corn and soybeans for fuel. Food shortages and price increases for crops like wheat.
I am not against drilling in ANWR per se; it is just a short sighted, stop gap measure. I was working in Prudhoe Bay the day the first official barrel of oil was shipped down the pipeline and worked on the rigs drilling at the edge of ANWR in the late 70s. If the quantity of oil at Prudhoe Bay and surrounds did not lessen foreign dependence on oil at a time of less demand, ANWR will also do neither. All it will do is cement in self-centered minds of Americans they will not have to change their driving habits.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, cslaurie, don't be disin' the left coast burger flippers and paper pushers. Most of them are young and that's the only way they can figure out how to make a living!
The rest about what you said concerning the oil industry in Ventura is factually correct, cslaurie. At least to my knowledge. So I agree with you.
Posted by Nosmo_King on April 29, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gallegly for President!
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nosmo_King, you really think Elton is stupid enough to jump into the Presidential race this year?
Posted by AS on April 29, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please review the Energy Bill HR6 that was passed at the end of 2007 and signed into law in January 2008. It proposes a pathetic 35 mpg fuel economy standard by the year 2020. Both the EU and China already exceed this standard today. See link below.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007_energyp...
Now, here is the kicker - Elton Gallegly voted against even this modest proposal to increase our fuel economy standards! Even Bush supported this standard. Gallegly wants us addicted to oil. He has no intention to solve this problem. I have tried many times to ask Elton Gallegly's office to explain this position. I have received no response from any of my calls or letter.
Posted by GuideDog on April 29, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The current high price of oil now has more to do with the destruction of the dollar's value by the Bush era deficits via huge trade deficits, loans to fight a war that we refuse (as in past wars) to pay for now with taxes and trade deficits caused by tax codes that favor the very multinationals moving the operations overseas.
The answer for energy is simple: existing technology that make for more efficiencies in the current systems and alternative energy (particularly solar, wind and geothermal) which are quite cost efficient when you factor in subsidies, tax credits and other gifts to the very multinational oil companies that are holding this nation hostage while scoring record profits.
Germany - with a climate like that of Juneau, Alaska - leads the world in solar energy today. Their simple model uses existing technology and worthwhile incentives and credits for businesses and individuals (which was formulated and put into place in the early 1990s) would be a good one if this nation ever really developed a long term energy program. Furthermore, it means that their nation will never have the massive grid failures that we have experienced here in the past.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GuideDog, the only things you forgot to point out is the fact that most people in the EU pay a heck of a lot more for gasoline than we do and China has fewer cars, per capita, than almost any nation on Earth.
We whine about $4.00 a gallon gas while the European's have been paying more than that in Euros or whatever currency for years.
If I were a rice farmer in China, I would still want my gas guzzling (22 freeway miles per gallon) SUV to start up when I wanted it to.
Sure it would be nice if gas were a buck a gallon, but I don't think that would change my driving habits much.
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to do more than drill in ANWAR. We need to drill off our coast. We need to Nationalize Oil like Pat Buchanan stated almost 20 years ago. We need to take back every refinery and drilling station that has been stolen from us by foreign antagonizers. If the E.U., China, and Arabs do not cooperate, we should reroute a percentage of foreign bound oil tankers to our shores by threat of force prior to declaring war on hostile entities.
Posted by GuideDog on April 29, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure:
Many of our costs are hidden in subsidies, tax credits, deductions and corporate give backs that the Europeans provide. If you factor all of this into it, we are about the same cost. Also, the other reason that costs are what they are there is because of very high taxes on oil itself which is a great incentive to economy and allows those governments to use tax dollars to keep your economy on a cash basis, infrastructure modern and keep the value of your currency stable.
This does not factor in the outrageous costs of our two recent oil wars in Middle East and the need to constantly station troops and equipment there to guard access to our supply!
Posted by GuideDog on April 29, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My correction: first sentence should read " . . . that the Europeans do NOT provide."
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And an unrealistic supply it is GuideDog.
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is funny when you hear people talk about 'hostile entities', when these 'entities' are protecting their own resources from those who would take them and just throw down a few shekels for these resources.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
del, unless you are talking about China, I think the Hugo Chavez regime in Venezula IS hostile to in it's intent toward Communizing the nation against their own countrymen and the USA. The reason I gave Exxon-Mobile a nod earlier is because they are the only America-centric huge oil company that has refused to do business with Chavez.
If you WERE talking about China, I think Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, Shell, Arco, etc. are already there. I have seen no hostility expressed by US China policy.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My correction to all references above: it is spelled "Venezuela".
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The oil refinery at Amway resides on an easily defensible small peninsula in Venezuela, one of the largest in the world and used to be Shell's before it was nationalized by the Venezuelans. It would only take a 1000 or so marines to secure it. I have lived there, I am happy to support my government with detailed information if they should need it.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another spelling correction: I should have said "Exxon Mobil".
Face, how much does a beach house go for in Amway?
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, Amway or Amuay, is the location of the refinery. I lived in an expatriate compound near Punto Fijo which was on the Peninsula in the state of Falcon. If you look on a map, you will see a little peninsula that comes out from Venezuela to just a few miles from Aruba. As far as real estate, I do not know, but I am certain that Americans are not allowed to own property there.. especially now.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Face, I wouldn't wanna move to Venezuela or Aruba either right now. And I am not a blond haired college girl on spring break.
Posted by jmcgaw3046 on April 29, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NOT IN MY BACK YARD that is one of the reason we are having high gas and energy prices. We dont' want refineries,LPG terminals, or nuclear power plants close to us. So they don't get built, the refineries we have now are not as efficent as they should be because new processes have been developed. In France they get most of their energy from Nuclear power, it is clean, no smog. The pumping of oil can't help if there is no refinery to change it into gas or other products. You can't use the oil as it comes from the ground. You can't take just any old oil and refine it in just any refinery, because of the way they were built. So a lot of the Alaska oil does not come down to the lower states, it will not work here.
There is only one way to fix this bit the bullet and let the refineris be built, build some nuclear power plants, they are now safe and clean. Until we wake up and get over the NIMBY we will continue on down this path. You can build a refinery in my back yard, however it will not fit.
Posted by jmcgaw3046 on April 29, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NOT IN MY BACK YARD that is one of the reason we are having high gas and energy prices. We dont' want refineries,LPG terminals, or nuclear power plants close to us. So they don't get built, the refineries we have now are not as efficent as they should be because new processes have been developed. In France they get most of their energy from Nuclear power, it is clean, no smog. The pumping of oil can't help if there is no refinery to change it into gas or other products. You can't use the oil as it comes from the ground. You can't take just any old oil and refine it in just any refinery, because of the way they were built. So a lot of the Alaska oil does not come down to the lower states, it will not work here.
There is only one way to fix this bit the bullet and let the refineris be built, build some nuclear power plants, they are now safe and clean. Until we wake up and get over the NIMBY we will continue on down this path. You can build a refinery in my back yard, however it will not fit.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And they can put a tiny Nuc Facility or oil refinery in my back yard if it wouldn't disturb the neighbors too much. I'd rather they drill for oil. Then I could have a pump to look at and know I was going to get a check next month.
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That is a good point jmcgaw3046, but since 2000 all Alaskan oil ends up in West Coast refineries. We do need more refineries, but we should also take back those we have built at our expense and are now being used to black mail our currency (weaponized oil). We must use our only resource that we can fight back with, Food. When asked to give our food away, or to increase production, we should state exactly as Opec has stated, "Currently there is enough oil in the market and there is no need to change OPEC's crude output. Nobody can put pressure on OPEC because we decide based on our own interest." Just replace oil/crude with food and OPEC with The U.S. in the above statement. We need to form a FOODPEC with Australia, Brazil and Argentina and some others so that we can protect our interests and economies. The U.N. and OPEC along with the EU are in cahoots to bring our economy to its knees.. but they still want cheap and plentiful agricultural products for the world. We need to say NO to this, in fact, we should be stating openly that we are considering limiting production of food at this time... allowing the markets to go crazy. The U.S. can subsidize the American food consumer with its export prices... just like they do with oil in OPEC countries. I paid 11 cents a gallon for the best gasoline in Venezuela when I lived there... the were not paying market prices quite evidently. We need to do the same here, and now.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Face, you must have a degree in Econimics. Right?
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure about the brain dead and STUPID comments you made but shaver_one certainly does not know how to communicate effectively, CAUCASIOD.
Posted by AS on April 29, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a lot of misinformation in this post. While we are not building greenfield refineries (ie, at new sites), there has been huge increases in our refining capacities. Refineries have been upgraded significantly since the mid 1990s. Here in California, we have done several rounds of refinery upgrades including changes needed to meet California Reformulated Gasoline standards. Like any asset, refineries are run close to capacity to maximize profits and operational flexiblity (for example, switch to making more diesel or jet fuel than gasoline, etc.).
The problem in our high prices lies squarely in two things - Oil quoted in dollars so as the dollar drops the price goes up correspondingly). Hence, now that it takes 1.6 dollars to buy a Euro, crude oil is not so expensive in Europe as it is in the US.
The second problem we face is that while Europe collects taxes on gasoline to fund other programs, gasoline is here is too cheap. Ask anyone who drives a huge truck if they worried about gasoline prices when they made that investment. Chances are, they assume cheap gasoline was a god-given right of every American. Countless decisions have been made in our society based on the wrong premise of cheap oil - drive through everything, free parking, no mass transit, suburban sprawl, etc. Reality is a harsh... Gallegly has been a major stumbling block in this matter. When will he get out of office? If we re-elect him, we deserve whatever we have coming.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, governor. E G?
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The world will not be able to afford our agricultural goods if oil keeps going up. That is a fact. Keep in mind, Huge Trucks take our corn from Nebraska to the coast. We tax our gasoline quite a bit, not as high as Europe I am sure. We can all say, "Just let it go through the roof". Cheap oil is not a right, but there are consequences for expensive oil. Ask the President of Haiti... oh, sorry, you cannot.. he was overthrown due to Food Riots. Oh well, guess we should just all go back to our t.v. and watch the market do its will. What we need to do is tie our dollar to a bushel of corn. The world has come to expect cheap food as a right, countless world decisions have been made based on the wrong premise of cheap food. An example is Zimbabwe where they destroyed a good portion of Africa's food producing capacity when they ran off Europeans of their farms and let people squat on them. Oh, and the cost of Oil is high in Europe, they are finding that out right now as they go to the grocery. Fact is, "This week the WTI index broke its all time records against most of the World's currencies. The Brent benchmark is yet to do that, but it's hanging by a thread." This means we are not the only ones paying more for oil, but a devalued dollar does not help.
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The government, bought and paid for, is not going to do anything until us as citizens decide we are no longer going to be patsies of the world's oil industry. This will take a fair bit of changes and sacrifices by the American public. Neither of which we are good at.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me get this straight, Face-
$120/barrel of crude oil + $4/gallon price to Americans = Higher cost of food prices all over the world.
Given the facts that humanoid animals require primarily (in level of subsistance) these items:
1. Oxygen to breath
2. Water to drink
3. Food to subsist
Then it is logical to conclude as Face has.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me get this straight, Face-
$120/barrel of crude oil + $4/gallon price to Americans = Higher cost of food prices all over the world.
Given the facts that humanoid animals require primarily (in level of subsistance) these items:
1. Oxygen to breath
2. Water to drink
3. Food to subsist
Then it is logical to conclude as Face has.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on April 29, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blah, blah blah... blame it on Bush, blame it on bush..
I don't care whose fault it is FIX IT DAMN IT
If drilling in ANWR lowers the cost of oil, reduces our dependency on the insane fanatics on the middle east then just do it!
I could care less if the 'big oil companies' make more money by drilling up there as long as the price comes down!
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANWR is not a fix. It is a red herring.
Posted by del on April 29, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ANWR is not a fix. It is a red herring.
Posted by mmshoot on April 29, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
del, you are correct. ANWR production is a deception.
Truths lies within a comprehensive energy policy.
Posted by Poppa on April 29, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Elton and the GOP are owned by big oil, they probably wrote this op-ed piece for him. Next time you fill up at 4$ a gallon you can thank Elton!
Posted by GuideDog on April 29, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would Elton advocate drilling for more oil in the Santa Barbara Channel and along California's coast? There is oil there too, but for some mysterious reason he has been very quiet on the subject.
Posted by Poppa on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Elton will say whatever his puppet masters at Chevron tell him to say, or else they will get a new puppet.
Posted by Face on April 29, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on Poppa, use your head. It is that thing located on top of your shoulders. Tell us more, don't leave us hanging with a single sentence. What is your solution?
Posted by mikeb6804 on April 30, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw---once an idiot, always an idiot. You'll never change.
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 12:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Face, I think I am done beating around the bush. That pun was almost intentional.
It is a sad reality that the world will continue to have periods of crisis when the shortage of supply of certain things will overcome our ability to make them available. This is sad to me because it is practically the antithesis of what I wish for humanity: the growth of the human spirit. Here it goes anyway.
Demand will frequently outpace supply until such demand will cause outrage and revolution in specific places that will result in warring with our fellow man. This will happen for the rest of my mortal life.
The only real solution is the self-discipline of humanity itself as a whole. That is to say only with reduction of world population growth can parity and equal sharing of resources occur.
Therefore, the annual increase in the growth of human population must decline to the point of zero. There is only speculation about technological progress to outpace world-wide demand with increasing numbers of people.
This conclusively means that global population growth will have to achieve absolute zero.
I am afraid that will not happen in my lifetime.
Posted by live_for_purpose on April 30, 2008 at 1 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Crude oil prices have risen some 80% as retail gas prices have only gone up about 35%, due to a surprisingly large inventory of gas. We are lucky to not be paying $5.00 a gallon. But soon we may be.
Exponentially increasing demand from two countries who each have roughly 4 times the number of people we do (India and China) and instability in the Middle East as well as a weak U.S. dollar all put the supply-demand reality of economics on the side of rising prices.
Drilling in ANWR is a common sense way to help us out. In the meantime we do need to "step on the gas" when it comes to conservation, more practical public transportation, research and development of hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell technology. Perhaps we can even put some photovoltaic cells on cars and help that hot sun power our cars. Some people push electric cars, but-------where does that electricity come from? In California, primarily from burning natural gas and in other places from burning coal. So much for getting away from fossil fuels.
World population, as well as ours, continues to increase. Unlike wood protected by the tree-huggers (although trees are 100% renewable), oil, natural gas, and coal are not renewable and they are running out more and more (or getting more expensive to get at) and demand is increasing dramatically. This has always been a recipe for major conflict, i.e. war and terrible bloodshed. This will make Iraq look like an afternoon at the beach.
The Amish with their horses and farms back in Lancaster County, PA, are looking very, very smart indeed!
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 1:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
live_for_purpose, correct me if I am wrong or being too much of a stickler for accuracy but you said: "roughly 4 times the number of people we do (India and China)."
I believe China has exceded the three (3) billion population mark. We have exceded three (3) hundred million. That would make China roughly ten (10) times as large as the USA.
I believe India is about two (2) billion in population. That makes India roughly six and one half (6 1/2) times more populous than the USA.
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 2:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry. The CIA estimates for 2008 (using approximations):
India: 1,147,000,000
China: 1,330,000,000
USA: 300,000,000
Your figure of 4 times is more accurate.
Posted by Pogmothoin on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love lamp.
Posted by Pogmothoin on April 30, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love lamp.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on April 30, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Del,
Why do you say "ANWR is not a fix. It is a red herring."
Some estimates speculate that ANWR has as much oil as Saudi Arabia!
I am not saying that ANWR is a complete fix, I do agree that we need a 'comprehensive energy policy', but drilling in ANWR needs to be part of it.
Lets stop sending money to these radical mid-east countries ASAP!
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like a stop-gap measure to me too, del.
Posted by AS on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ANWR does not have much oil based on industry estimates, its about 18 months of US consumption. Hence, it won't solve anything. (See Charlie Rose's interview with Shell Oil Chairman. www.charlierose.com).
In the long run, we have to get on board more fuel efficient vehicles. The inherent idiocy of driving a 1 or 2 ton truck to move a 200 lb person has to be addressed. (see rmi.org presentation on ultralight cars).
In the longer run, my money is on plug in-hybrids and eventually electric cars powered by the grid using renewables. (see Scientific American article online abot the feasibility of utility scale solar PV. www.sciam.com).
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That was what I wanted to imply, A S, when I said that it was a stop-gap measure.
A year and a half is no sustainable enery policy. We have to take care of things NOW to have any long-lasting effect for the next generation to be able to enjoy vehicles. That means a 20 year plan or none at all. I prefer to think of the next 20 years not the next year.
We just have to start planning for it right now.
Posted by GuideDog on April 30, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More proof that Elton has it wrong (as he often does):
In this morning's news: for very personal financial reasons, but nonetheless accurately and insistently, 53 members of the Rockefeller family are urging all stockholders of Exxon/Mobil (in which they are major investors) to demand their corporate leadership to move to where the global energy market is really going, namely alternative energy.
Oil, they believe, is yesterday's fuel solution and they give a number of reasons for that conclusion including global climate change.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on April 30, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot
"The only real solution is the self-discipline of humanity itself as a whole. That is to say only with reduction of world population growth can parity and equal sharing of resources occur."
I concur, there will be a plague of some sort that will knock out 1/3rd of the worlds population....
I am sure GWB and crew have this in the works to happen before the next election so they can stay in power for ever....
Where is your tin-foil hat, it will protect you from the plague, I have mine....
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, GuideDog. I think Gallegly is just being a politician because that is what he is.
I am not certain about the specific causes of the global climate change threat but there must be some kind of impact on the environment by the action of humans. Unless I missed something while being alive.
To expect me to consider a billions of years plan to expect dinosaurs and other living things to die off and create new sources of energy like oil is quite a stretch for my imagination.
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes, I will go see if I have any tin-foil. Usually I just buy the aluminum type. I am happy that you are so sure about the President. I don't think anything lasts forever with the exception of limited minds like yours.
Posted by Face on April 30, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot, I understand the desire for "Imagine all the people...". Zero population growth is a fantastic concept, but so far the only populations in decline are civilized populations. The uncivilized, the 11th centurians, they breed like rabbits. Historically, earth populations have been controlled by pandemic, catastrophe, and of course war. Almost all of which we are long overdue. You may see a world population decline in your lifetime, but only by one of the aforementioned causes. I would bet that you may see a limited nuclear exchange or a pandemic in your lifetime. We may even witness the power of nature in a way only our remote ancestors have experienced. So cheer up, we may not have to go the way of Easter Island after all, which is the way we will go if there are no checks to population growth.
Posted by mmshoot on April 30, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am cheery, Face, as much as I can be. I'm not living on Easter Island expecting evolution to happen. I'm realistic about it. Besides, what I take as evolution may be some kind of weird mutation that just happened.
My point was that it saddens me that natural population control is nearly always controlled by war, some sort of human interaction, or a cataclysm such as a meteor hitting, world war, or some kind of plague.
Other than that, I'm a happy guy, Face.
Posted by Face on April 30, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Indeed mmshoot, there is no happiness to be found in the deaths of the innocents.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on April 30, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was actually mocking some people out there when I said GWB was going to stay in power....
I agree that zero population growth is the only true answer.
The catholic church would never go for that, they need more zombies to help pay for the abuse lawsuits.
Posted by CamarilloMan on May 1, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a solution that will surely generate some comments, by the way I am willing to do this myself: Raise taxes on gasoline products, lets say, $2.00 a gallon for consumers, subsidize the cost of fuel for food transportation, farming and manufacturing. This will have a two prong effect, consumption will lower to the point that oil companies will have to lower their prices, we will save money on food, the tax money can be used to fund alternative fuel development, auto manufacturers to stay competitive will develop efficient vehicles. Voila!
Posted by bbbdugout on May 2, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's the reason I didn't vote for you then or ever - you're a moran - the solution to the energy problem stands in front of us - it's not about the oil companies and their increasing profit or the auto manufacturers trying to shove poor gas efficient vehicles down our throats - it's in the wind and the sun - make the committment to develope these clean resources and leave the land alone.....
Posted by shaver_one on May 2, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, CAUCASIOD. I am neither STUPID nor brain dead. But, with your comments, you have proven, to everyone, that YOU ARE!
If "ignorance is bliss", you must be the happiest person on Earth.
Posted by surfmedic91 on May 2, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Survival of the fittest!
BBB, it's "moron", not "moran" like that chick from Joanie Loves Chachie.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.