With consumers on the receiving end of an 87-octane enema for the last few months, it's understandable that various politicians would be spewing forth bile-filled diatribes laying blame for the current situation squarely at the feet of the opposition. Democrats are accused of being so "unmoved by the plight of hard-working Americans, they are unwilling to do anything to alleviate the pain." Republicans, of course, are "in the pockets of oil companies" and just trying to help their cronies reap a windfall at the expense of honest, god-fearing, patriotic, SUV-driving Americans who want nothing more than to be left alone to mourn for the loss of American primacy in the penis wars.
Yesterday our Fearless Leader called for Congress to allow drilling in coastal waters that oil companies are currently barred from exploring. To oil companies, America is like the girlfriend who considers the back door off-limits. To the callous and crass frat boys of our petroleum producers, any hole that may offer a payoff is one worth exploring – thus setting the stage for the battle between reduced gas prices and social benefits like stable ecosystems and unpolluted water.
Of course, that's a false dichotomy.
Given that there are 68 million acres of land that are, as of yet, unexplored and undeveloped by oil companies despite those lands being opened for drilling in within the last seven years, it's unlikely any oil would be pumped in from offshore rigs within the next decade. Not to mention the simple fact that the 2 million barrels of oil a day potentially drawn from those reserves would be the proverbial drop in the bucket by the time the crude starts a'flowin'. Bottom line – you'd be more likely to improve your economic position by filming your girlfriend playing Wii Fit in her underoos and parlaying that into a TRL appearance than by encouraging oil companies to go spelunking in coastal waters.
So ignoring the fact that Americans would be offering up their most pristine and unspoiled areas of wilderness in return for Jack and shit, in the end it's not a choice between reducing gas prices and preserving the environment. It's a question of wasting resources while we desperately grasp at a dying way of life. Even though we would prefer the approach taken by Luke Skywalker, fervently denying the truth as told by Lord Vader, when James Earl Jones speaks the cold hard facts, we must listen. And the truth is, there is more economic benefit to be found in dedicating the money oil companies might spend to alternative power research, whether in cellulose biofuels, allowing food to be produced for eating, not fuel, renewable sources like solar or wind power, or cold fusion – thus providing us with the damn flying cars we were promised oh so many years ago.
And since Minnesota leads in cellulose ethanol research and has a thriving wind-power industry, this approach would allow us to offer a big "fuck you" to the gulf states, several of which suck down tax dollars like a crack-starved Tyrone Biggums. And if there's anything a Republican respects, it's self-sufficiency.
Seriously?! WTF!
I can't believe you state with a straight face that wind farms and cellulose ethanol have the slightest semblance of self-sufficiency? And to suggest further that some how, oil companies, who will be more than happy to drill in these areas at zero cost to you and I will instead take the money and piss it away on alterntive energy is ludicrous.
This article suggests that the author has enjoyed the gasoline enema far more than he lets on, and looks forward to it for years to come.
Will drilling solve our problems? No. But christ sakes, there is a big pile of virgin oil sitting untouched while my inflationary cherry is being railroaded like a catholic school girl at her first frat party. Given a choice, I'll take a slight price reduction in 10 years with the faint hope that I can run my combustion engine "for the hell of it" once more.
Had you actually read the article in a state unlike that of the drunken Catholic schoolgirl you referenced, you would've realized I was suggesting that the money be used for research on alternative energies. Cellulose ethanol, once the process is perfected, stands an extremely good chance of providing very cheap fuel, as does algae ethanol. Like it or not, alternative energy of some sort is going to end up replacing to some large extent.
As for your assertion that the oil companies will be providing this "service" at no cost to me, I call bullshit. Not only are they taking massive tax breaks on exploration costs that come out of the federal budget, but one spill or accident on an offshore rig, or pipeline leak in a previously pristine area and a resource that my tax dollars pay to maintain becomes a monumental clusterfuck -- with virtually no benefit to the American consumer. Especially since OPEC would be extremely likely to simply reduce production to maintain price stability,
Perhaps if taxpayers received checks for allowing oil companies to use these resources, as they do in Alaska, I could start to see my way clear to supporting this. But since that's not happening any time soon, and since the benefits of pushing the U.S. toward reduced reliance on ANY oil, not just foreign, far outweigh the drop in the proverbial bucket we'd see from increased drilling, mayhaps you should look into a fuel efficient vehicle. I hear scooters are all the rage with the cool kids these days.
Ok, drilling is something of a red herring. There isn't that much oil, and by the time it hits our tank, we'll likely have bigger fish to fry anyway (i.e. nuclear Iran). Be that as it may, this latest flap is part of a larger issue: the dems and enviros contribute to this gas crisis through failed policies and protectionism.
Please, for the love of commuters, butt out. Let energy and oil companies do what they do- attempt to put as much oil on the market as possible, thereby lowering the price.
As for the righties, they can piss off too. Tax breaks for the most profitable business around right now border on sheer lunacy. I say we drill, tax the oil and put the increased tax revenues into alternatives. That way, we can all come together and cheer on BP doing the DP into our virgin tundras.
But this situation had to happen at some point. It just would've been nice to be closer to viable alternatives than we are right now. And unless, as you say, we can tax the living hell out of the oil companies to fund research to that end, I see little to no point in popping the cherry on previously untouched land.
And on a completely different note, how many more sex metaphors can we squeeze into this thread?