“If you don’t realize that the oil companies own every Republican in national politics, you're kidding yourself. Come on! For most Republicans, the need for energy independence struck them some time in the last five minutes, as they’ve read the polls of how most Americans feel about the issue.” (A Liberal neighbor)
.
.
.
Actually, it’s Conservatives and most Republicans (there are BOTH Conservative Dems & Republicans) have loooong supported energy impendence in the form of INCREASING the global supply of oil – we have at MINIMUM over 55 BILLION barrels of oil on hand now in the continental U.S. – probably a LOT more.
Republicans and many Conservative Democrats supported “saw grass ethanol,” as opposed to the Pelosi-Reid “corn-based ethanol fiasco that’s raised grain prices and fed the global food prices inflation!
Democrats have opposed drilling off our coastlines and in ANWR. Those are the folks OPPOSED to true “energy independence.”
So, it’s actually Liberal Democrats who’ve opposed ENERGY independence at EVERY turn!
Actually, it’s Conservatives and most Republicans (there are BOTH Conservative Dems & Republicans) have loooong supported energy impendence in the form of INCREASING the global supply of oil – we have at MINIMUM over 55 BILLION barrels of oil on hand now in the continental U.S. – probably a LOT more.
Republicans and many Conservative Democrats supported “saw grass ethanol,” as opposed to the Pelosi-Reid “corn-based ethanol fiasco that’s raised grain prices and fed the global food prices inflation!
Democrats have opposed drilling off our coastlines and in ANWR. Those are the folks OPPOSED to true “energy independence.”
So, it’s actually Liberal Democrats who’ve opposed ENERGY independence at EVERY turn!
I can tell you straight up that "our side" is full of beans. If only their methane could power cars, it would be given away.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 90's every time gas went up, it seemed that the Dems were insistent in putting corn-based ethanol in our tanks, in the name of energy independence. Well, when W finally agreed, look what happened. To me, I'd rather try than not try. You'll never know until then. But it has not helped matters much since it has added to the global food supply problems (weather + tight market = trouble). Add ethanol and it's even worse, though I argue that the main culprits is Mother Nature and Capitalism (mind you I;m not a socialist, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em)
It's absolutely pointless to argue with a liberal. It's like a religion. They won't take the facts, they will take the facts and somehow construe them to still fit in with their ideology. This is why liberals resort to conspiracy theories (like your neighbor did) to explain reality. It's more important THEIR reality exists than the real one.
ReplyDelete"To me, I'd rather try than not try. You'll never know until then. But it has not helped matters much since it has added to the global food supply problems (weather + tight market = trouble)." (Rachel)
ReplyDeleteA sensible outlook, Rachel, but our ethanol program has always been poorly planned.
Why use corn, when saw grass (a weed) can do just as well?
I'll agree that BOTH Parties have made some major blunders in that. The "political class" has NOT been very good to Americans.
I agree with you on nature, Rachel....in fact, weather is one of the primary factors in the supply/demand of ANY commodity, but I disagree with you about Capitalism being at fault, or even having some "bad points."
Here's why;
Commodities (oil) investors/speculators DON'T SET the price of oil or any other commodity, they merely use information to assess where they think the price/cost will go and invest/speculate/bet accordingly.
I've invested in gasoline futures for almost a decade now. I buy in mid to late February (March 1st is the changeover date to the Summer blends) and I sell in May.
That strategy has worked very well for me.
My investment/speculation/bet that the price of unleaded gasoline will rise every spring is based on information and experience - EVERY March the feds requiring gasoline sellers to cahngeover to the more expensive "summer blends" has reliably raised gasoline prices during that period.
I and folks like me DON'T set the price of gasoline, nor even impact it any appreciable way. If our bet/speculation is right that gasoline prices shall rise in response to the various upward pressure applied from outside, we profit, if not, we lose.
Besides, higher oil and gasoline prices serve a very useful set of purposes, (1) they make expensive new projects that enables bringing more oil and oil that may have been impractical to bring to market more doabole by Big Enegry companies and (2) it stimulates a SUPPLY increase from OPEC nations rightly fearing that higher prices will ultimately lead to alternative fuels that will greatly reduce the demand (and the price) of oil.
Hi Captain!
ReplyDeleteI do love your blog, especially your recent post on energy demand by nation.
Great stuff!
Funny, you never hear any enviros lamenting that Russia uses more than double the amount of energy that we do, or that China will shortly become the world's primary CO2 emitter.
I'll add that I believe there are two kinds of Liberals, the Far Left loons (the Mike Moore's the Alec Baldwin's, the Al Franken's, etc) and more Moderate and rational Liberals like Rachel (above) who are willing to hear out both sides and are not reflexively Leftist.
I agree that no discussion is possible with the former (the far-Left loons) because their views are so cultish in nature.
When France and Germany opposed the U.S. those folks lauded France and Germany. When the people of those two nations replaced Chirac and Schroeder respectively, and the Keynesian economies they reigned over, that was either ignored or excoriated.
My fear right now is that we seem (and that's merely my perspective) to be approaching a "tipping point," where inane Leftist and Keynesian ideas may come to be implemented without much support for them by the people.
There's just so much anti-Bush sentiment around that Carter-styled Keynesianism may well resurface despite its predictably disastrous results.
For that reason, I am leaning to the view that we may well be facing some extremely dire financial times directly ahead.
That leads me to wonder whether it's better that a McCain be there to try and block as much of the fiscal folly as possible, while SHARING the blame for the coming calamity, OR have a Democrat (Obama) in the WH when the calamity occurs, so that he can become this generation's Jimmy Carter, dooming Liberalism to another quarter century in the wilderness.
It seems that in either case, hard times are inevitable. Sometimes such hard times can be cleansing.
I know that's a pretty dark forecast.
I picture this exchange as having taken place over the fence dividing your backyards.
ReplyDeleteI picture your neighbor still standing there,with his mouth open, trying to think (ha!) of a response that won't make him sound like anymore of an idiot.
I'm not so keen on drilling in ANWR and so forth either, but for reasons entirely different from the enviro-left.
ReplyDeleteWe'll tap them eventually, of course, but I'd just as soon hang on to our reserves until we *really* need them. Meanwhile, let's pump all the Arab oil fields bone dry. Then when oil gets *really* scarce, we'll be the only ones with any left.
Meanwhile, I'd like to see these higher oil prices (set by the market, thank you, not taxes) foster some longer-term thinking about energy. Like John McCain's idea of a massive nuclear energy program, for starters.
Dan O, as you probably know, far-Left loons are the most incredibly unreflective people around.
ReplyDeleteThat's the irony that shows extreme Leftism to be an emotional disorder. Liberal hypocrisy, such as Al Gore using more energy in his own "Green" home than over 200 average American homes, John Edwards railing against the "two Americas" from the balcony of his 30,000 sq ft mansion, etc., are mere "smears" to other piggishly extravagant Leftists.
They themselves rail against "the Religious Right" for "trying to control other people's lives," while they happily support secular, Left-wing loons who seek to....(gulp)...control everyone else's lives.
It doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't suffer that same odd brand of emotional disturbance.
"Meanwhile, I'd like to see these higher oil prices (set by the market, thank you, not taxes) foster some longer-term thinking about energy. Like John McCain's idea of a massive nuclear energy program, for starters." (Barry)
ReplyDelete<
<
Sure, our own oil is harder to get to and harder still to refine, but it's more than practical above $60/barrel...and reports are now that off our coastlines and within our borders lie some 800 BILLION barrels of oil!
That would be a larger reserve than the Saudis are projected to have.
I too would like to see most of our electricity come from nuclear sources, but its mostly the same people who've opposed nuclear power plants as have opposed new refineries and drilling off our coastlines and in ANWR.
You know what I'd settle for?
ONE, just one true-blue far-Leftist with a rational reason for supporting the anti-energy policies they champion.
Yes, even if they stole yours (the one offered here)...that, at least, would be SOMETHING.