Now thats change!..T
One can advance arguments for drilling for oil in ANWR, off the continental shelf of several states, and for drilling for natural gas, mining oil shale, and developing cleaner coal technology. The basis for the arguments is simply that we already have the technology to take all those steps rather quickly and that taking those steps would allow the economy to grow, going a long way toward improving the lives of Americans, especially those lower on the economic ladder. It apparently it is only a a cliche headline to the naysayers that "the economy is bad; the poor hit hardest." Sometimes it's "women and children hit hardest." Or "African-Americans hit hardest." In any case, the truth is that policies which stifle the economy do hit hardest on the lower economic strata. Which makes one wonder why Democrats propose policies that hinder the economy, but that's another topic.
The anti-drilling arguments seem to be settling into several rather bizarre statements:
1) Even if we started exploring offshore now, it might take (7 or 10 or 25 or whatever number the naysayer wants to throw out) years to start producing the oil. To which the proper answer is THEN WE BETTER GET STARTED! YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE LESS TIME IF WE WAIT?
2) We should develop alternative energy sources. To which the proper answer is IF YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE A FEW YEARS TO GET OIL FROM THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE TO DEVELOP SOURCES WE HAVEN'T EVEN INVENTED YET? BUT HEY, LET'S GET STARTED! Just don't stop drilling while we look for alternatives.
3) We should consider nuclear power. INDEED, BUT HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT? HASN'T IT BEEN CONSIDERED ALREADY AND TRIED WITH GREAT SUCCESS? So let's stop "considering" and GET STARTED BUILDING THE PLANTS! If we find something better later, we can always stop building new nuke plants.
4) The base argument appears to be that, unless something will work immediately, we shouldn't do it. Does this strike you as logical? If that were a criterion, nothing humanity has ever done would have gotten started.
5) And then there's the TAX THE OIL COMPANIES PROFITS angle. Does it not strike people that there is already a tax on oil company profits? Does it not strike people that this is just an added oil company expense which drives up the price of gasoline and takes research and development money out of the oil companies, takes dividends out of the pockets of oil companies' investors, and is a brake on the economy and is part of the problem, not part of the solution? Does it not strike people that this has been tried before and was a disaster? Does it not strike people that government bureaucrats don't know anything wortwhile and effective to do with the money they have now? If government bureaucrats can solve a problem, they've kept it a secret for a long time.
6) And there's the Church of Global Warming fanatics, but that's a computer-model driven theory that has become less and less tenable. The whole solar system's been cranking up the thermometer a degree or two, it appears, and that's all due to the sun's output. The Earth is a part of a warming system, and we aren't the driver here. The sun's in the driver's seat. The global warming theory, along with the global cooling theory, the nuclear winter theory, and all the other catastrophic theories concocted over the past 50 years or so have been nothing but the handy theory du jour for those wishing to hinder America.
It's time to DRILL, BUILD NUCLEAR REACTORS, LEAVE THE OIL COMPANY PROFITS ALONE AS THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES THAN POLITICIANS, AND TELL THE ANTI-AMERICAN ECONOMY-STOMPERS TO GET TO THE BACK OF THE AUDITORIUM AND SIT DOWN!
That's change I could believe in.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Now thats change!..T