Just watched GWB talk on tv about the economy..

[Guest]

and was curious how others feel about the U.S. exploring our own country for more oil in an "environmentally friendly way" and not depend on foreign oil? Does Congress blocking his proposals really reflect the desire of the citizens?

[jvirginia]

I listened to his speech ...

and even he was pretty clear that the Alaska oil reserve would not solve our country's problem with oil. That oil would go on the international market and make only a slight dent in global demand and only have a slight impact on the price of oil. However, a lot of oil companies would get very rich

Also, if we really are in serious danger of "running out of oil" shouldn't we SAVE the Alaska reserve for a true crisis instead of allowing Exxon, etc. to exploit it now?

There are two totally distinct issues:
- Environmental impact of oil consumption (and other uses of energy)
- Cost of oil

The high cost of oil is a good thing from an environmental standpoint because it is FINALLY getting people to stop driving 14 mpg SUVs, or even drive at all. That + the housing downturn is even getting people to buy homes with shorter commutes.

The high cost is a BAD thing because it makes people poorer, and in some cases dangerously so, especially when food prices are affected. But, in my mind, $4/gallon gas doesn't begin to cover the TRUE cost of oil in terms of environmental and geopolitical costs. I just worry about what it does to people in economic distress.

I am a big supporter of nuclear power, and of paying developing countries to develop in a way that limits greenhouse gas emissions. However, I don't think Bush's policies are well thought-out and the real objective is not clear.

[Guest]

Yes, I did notice that he said that. I would only support domestic oil exploration and more production if that oil/gas stayed within the U.S. to help control prices.

This economy is really starting to scare me. I live in small town U.S.A. and the high gas prices are really starting to affect middle class and the poor here too. Everytime I've been to the grocery store lately, the parking lot is 1/2 full. Restaurants are starting to suffer. I even know one family who is about to take their children out of after school activities in order to cut down on the running around. It won't be long here before businesses start closing down. They barely make it in a good year as it is. I don't see an end to this and just wish someone would do something to take the pressure off. I just got my home appraisal and it went up by almost $40K!!! Everything is going up all of the time except wages. It has to really start hurting here soon.

Does anyone even know what the Dems say they will do? And why aren't they doing it? It seems that if they do have an answer they should be all over shouting it from the mountain tops to secure a win in the Fall elections. I think they don't have a clue either. The only thing I've seen is to raise gas taxes to make it even more expensive so that people will stop using so much . That makes sense when people are struggling.

I also think gas prices will have to go a lot higher before people get rid of the 14 mpg SUV's around here. My brother is one. His is paid off, so to go get a vehicle that gets better gas mileage it means that he'd have to have a car payment again. Until gas costs savings = more than the amount he is saving by keeping his paid off SUV, he's not budging.

[zoeyz]

I'm okay with exploring our country for oil, but not for doing it in protected wilderness (or what I think should be protected wilderness).

[Guest]

But why do we have this...

I'm okay with exploring our country for oil, but not for doing it in protected wilderness (or what I think should be protected wilderness).

"Not in my backyard" mentality? It is o.k. for other countries to destroy their wildlife so we can consume gas? It is really a little arrogant, isn't it? As long as it isn't happening on our soil, it is o.k. whatever they do elsewhere in the world as long as it satisfies our need. I can see why other countries hate us.

[zoeyz]

"Not in my backyard" mentality? It is o.k. for other countries to destroy their wildlife so we can consume gas? It is really a little arrogant, isn't it? As long as it isn't happening on our soil, it is o.k. whatever they do elsewhere in the world as long as it satisfies our need. I can see why other countries hate us.

Did I say we should destroy other countries' wildlife so we can consume gas? No, I didn't. And no, I'm not being arrogant. I said I am FOR exploring in our country, but not in our protected wilderness. If we don't find what we need, I did not say we should instead trash another country's wilderness to get what we want. Your post to me was rude.

[Guest]

I certainly didn't mean my post to come off as rude...

Did I say we should destroy other countries' wildlife so we can consume gas? No, I didn't. And no, I'm not being arrogant. I said I am FOR exploring in our country, but not in our protected wilderness. If we don't find what we need, I did not say we should instead trash another country's wilderness to get what we want. Your post to me was rude.

I'm sorry that you got the wrong tone. It certainly is not directed at you personally. It is just a question about how greedy we are in the U.S. I'm at fault as much as anyone else. I do think we have that mentality of not in my backyard. Anywhere else but here.

[zoeyz]

I'm sorry that you got the wrong tone. It certainly is not directed at you personally. It is just a question about how greedy we are in the U.S. I'm at fault as much as anyone else. I do think we have that mentality of not in my backyard. Anywhere else but here.

Thanks- sorry my tone wasn't good. I didn't say NIMBY though. I am just opposed to drilling in designated wilderness areas. They were not created for multi-use. One article I read was jumping on McCain for comparing ANWR to the Grand Canyon, saying the Grand Canyon is a national treasure compared to ANWR which is nothing more than a frozen slab. But the Grand Canyon is not much of a national treasure any more. It's dam controlled and a far cry from it's original state. It didn't have a chance once someone decided the water use was more important than protecting the canyon.

Why aren't we exploring/drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts or in the Gulf of Mexico? This article says they are off limits, but I don't know why:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._drilling.html

And I'm disturbed that drilling in ANWR seems like nothing more than a bandaid, an incentive to scare other countries into upping their production instead of their prices. It doesn't seem like there is enough there to make much of a difference in terms of our own use (although granted that isn't known for sure). And granted, that is just one article and one point of view, but to me it points to drilling in the wilderness refuge merely to keep using foreign oil and get it at the prices we want.

And while we're on the topic, I'd trade my car right now for a hybrid/electric/etc if my car wasn't paid for and if I knew the hybrid/etc was reliable. As it is, I'll probably wait until I need a new car, until the cost of filling my tank exceeds the cost of taking on a car payment.

Feel free to point me to any good articles on the subject, I'm interested in learning more about it now.