Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative. The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy. And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?

As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative.

No, no, no Debutch, you are not reading between the lines on what he posts. "Capitalism is BAD! Socialism is GOOD"
If you make too much profit they label you as evil (like the CEOs who's companies agree to pay that much). If the people of Alaska make a financial gain, they are "evil"... Unless perhaps all the money went into the government hands and Obama was allowed to use it on various social programs for minorities, then it would be ok.

You have to think like a communist now, oops, I mean like a Socialist, oops, I mean like a Progressive,,, ah hell just think like Spence....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative.

The Alaska State Constitution provides that the full time residents share in the oil revenues gained by the state, at times this has meant a $5,000 check to a typical family.

There is no other state in the Union that shares such an entitlement, and to think this wouldn't bias the citizens isn't being negative, it's just common sense.

The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy.

You're also talking about underwriting corporate earnings.

Hell, if I didn't know better you seem to be advocating government stimulation of the private sector.

And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?

The point really was just that there are tradeoffs.

As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.

There are various environmental reasons, but ANWR is a bit different in that it's one of the last places on earth with a perfectly balanced ecosystem. I would think that even with minimal disruption to the environment some would reasonably argue that the oil companies are not a natural part of that ecosystem and hence it would be spoiled to some degree.

This is a more unique example than most other environmental concerns which are founded on the possibility of an accident.

As for being hypocritical...is there concern that the drilling off of Brazil will cause great environmental harm?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Alaska State Constitution provides that the full time residents share in the oil revenues gained by the state, at times this has meant a $5,000 check to a typical family.

There is no other state in the Union that shares such an entitlement, and to think this wouldn't bias the citizens isn't being negative, it's just common sense.

I just don't see what is bad about all that. More power to the citizens of Alaska. Aren't progressives all about business sharing their profits with the people. I would think that progressives would use Alaska as a model. I'm certainly not jealous of any personal gain they receive from oil profits. It's a trade-off for living in a short-summer state with a lack of all the goodies offered by a state such as, say, Massachusetts. I don't see a mass migration to Alaska because of its "entitlement."

You're also talking about underwriting corporate earnings.

Hell, if I didn't know better you seem to be advocating government stimulation of the private sector.

I'm not the one who was trying to provide cover for the Brazil deal. I'd rather the government would keep its prod as far away from the private sector as possible.


The point really was just that there are tradeoffs.

And when tradeoffs are defined: financial benefits versus environment, scenery, political power, etc.

There are various environmental reasons, but ANWR is a bit different in that it's one of the last places on earth with a perfectly balanced ecosystem. I would think that even with minimal disruption to the environment some would reasonably argue that the oil companies are not a natural part of that ecosystem and hence it would be spoiled to some degree.

This is a more unique example than most other environmental concerns which are founded on the possibility of an accident.

Perfect balance, probably, cannot exist but for a moment, granted that geologic moments are longer than mundane ones. And, since everything, as you say, is on a spectrum, along that constantly shifting spectrum one momentary perfect balance is replaced with another momentary perfect balance. We are always, temporarily in a state of balance, but interruptions to that balance always occur and we evolve to newer balances. If environmentalists think they can produce stasis on earth rather than heaven, the devil has a warm seat available to them.

As for being hypocritical...is there concern that the drilling off of Brazil will cause great environmental harm?-spence

Environmentalists and progressives believe that all extraction of oil causes environmental harm. Whether the harm is "great" is not the relevant question. All drilling is to be stopped and alternative ways to create energy is the only option.