See the previous entry, where you may think I got bogged down in my personal crusade against polls (among other things), but I continue to think that is important. There is an even more obvious example of Senator Chuck Schumer's willingness to say absolutely antything, even if obviiously ridiculous, to advance what he regards as the Democratic Party political agenda on ANY subject.
I am talking ANWAR here. Bill Clinton vetoed a bill allowing drilling in Anwar (drilling in a small part of Anwar, which is a small part of Alaska) in 1994. If Democrats had not stopped that drilling, we would now be producing one MILLION barrels of oil a day from Anwar. It is DEMOCRATS who scream most louldly (although hardly exclusively--look at my brother, who is co-owner of a trucking company) about fuel prices and "energy independence". Yet, it is DEMOCRATS who have stopped numberous things that could have given us LOW fuel prices, AND energy independence. They have done this as they have pandered to the radical, leftist environmentalists, which has also raised the price of FOOD. Nuclear power (which does not even emit substantial greenhouse gases, and has been PROVEN to KILL less people than coal)? Democrats have stopped it. Drilling offshore? Democrats have stopped it. Democrats have placed 2/3 of the possilbe drilling areas off limits to drilling. Refineriers? Democrats (radical environmentalists) have stopped new ones.
Hee comes Chuck Schumer, to try to defend this record. He said a few days ago that oil from Anwar would have lowered the price of gasoline ONE PENNY, and that oil cannot be produced from there for ten years (without Democrats, of course, those ten years would have come and gone)--almost surely an unconscionable exaggeration of the time UNLESS envrionmentalists succeed in delaying the drilling. Schumer's statement, about the price of gasoline being lowered only a single penny, is a lie so outrageous is has to be regarded as another Orwellian Big Lie (an outragesous statement that you hope will be accepted because it is stated over and over; in other words, you hope to BRAINWASH people).
Segue to John McCain (no better on drilling in Anwar). McCain has proposed that we STOP purchasing oil for the strategic oiil reserve at present astronomical prices--for which rare good idea I called McCain a "patriot". I heard financial/oil market experts analyze how much this would affect gasoline prices. Their best estimate would that it would lower gasoline prices this summer (from what they will otherwise be) "only" 4 or 5 cents a gallon. The amount we have been purchasing for the strategic oil reserve (insanely, at these prices) has been 70,000 barrels of oil a day. That compares with ONE MILLIION barrels of oil per day we could have been producing already from Anwar alone.
Say we were able to produce "only" 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Anwar. That is TEN TIMES the amount of oil we are taking out of the oil market to fill the strategic oil reserve--an amount which is supposedly affecting the price of gasoline about 4 cents. Mutiply 10 times 4 (after taking an opinion poll to see what the public's opinion is of the result--see previous entry). That gives you a lowered gasoline price of 40 cents.
But it is better (worse?, from Schumer's point of view) than that. There is really no shortage of oil in the world. Demand may be high, but supply is adequate. A good part of the present high price of oil, and gasoline, is the PSYCHOLOGY of the oil markets, and the weakness of the U.S. dollar (partly because we are IMPORTING too much oil). If that psychology is changed, and the present oil price BUBBLE burst, then the price of oil might go straight down. We might see $2 gasoline again.
I heard Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson discuss this. We know the oil market in Texas (where she and I both live). She made a number of points that simply blow Schumer out of the water. Frist, drilling is now much different, and more efficient, that it used to be. Fewer wells are drilled, and they are MUCH cleaner and envrionmentally safe. The actual area DRILLED in Anwar would probably be less than the area of El Paso (where I live). The effect on the envrionment would be minimal. Offshore drilling technology has also been VASTLY improved. Yet, we are letting countries like BRAZIL develop major oil fields off their coasts, while we let envrionmentalists SCARE us with outdated fears. As Senator Hutchinson noted, merely CHANGING our policy toward the development of energy resources, including nuclear power and refineries, would change the PSYCHOLOGY of the oil markets, and even OPEC. KNOWING that more oil production is on the way, speculators would get nervous, and countries would realize that they HAVE to sell their oil while they have the chance. That alone might BURST the oil/gasoline price BUBBLE (not that dissimilar from the housing price bubble that has burst).
Schumer's answer to the rationality of Senator Hutchinson: the Big Lie of a partisan hack. Hhillary Clinton's "answer" to the rationality of Senator Hutchinson: anti-trust LAWSUITS against OPEC (instead of taking on OPEC the only way we really can, by more DOMESTIC energy PRODUCTION). Hillary Clinton's "answer" came from her interview with Bil O'Reilly last night.
HOW can leftists and politicians (including Republicans like McxCain) talk about "energy independence" out of one side of their mouths, and then FIGHT almost every effective measure to help give us energy independence?
I don't know But what is more puzzling to me is WHY the public lets them get away with it. The public seems to PREFER the Big Lie, and simply demandng that the federal government DO SOMETHING, over demanding that we stop pandering to the irrational fears of environmentalists. Remember the Alaskan oil pipeline, and the North Slope of Alaska? Despite the dire predictions of envrionmentalists, there were NO environmental disasters (other thatn the Exxon Valdez, which was a SHIPPING accident rather than a drilling accident, and a very temporary problem).
Democrats are acting like we should never have had the Alaskan oil pipeline (think how bad off we would have been then). The risks in Anwar are LESS. In fact, the FAILURE to drill in Anwar, and elsewhere, has probably cost us more that the failure to build the Alaskan pipeline (opposed by environmentalists).
I ask again: Is there not reason to despair for our country when ALL of our Presidential candidates irrationally pander to the radical environmentalists, regardless of facts. Chuck Schumer is a partisan joke in comparison. The problem is that the irrational POLICIES Schumer favors, in his ridiculously partisan way, are now the accepted "wisdom" of this country--even as the pubic screams about the REsULTS of those policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment