I'm not proposing to go cold turkey. That is irrational. But you know what, I keep seeing the resistance towards a working public transportation system with little political backing. Makes me wonder if it'll ever happen.
Dude, nothing is impossible, especially considering the Democratic Party's unreal propensity to shoot itself in the foot. If you (and the Democratic Party in general) are foolish enough to believe that Americans don't vote their pocketbooks, there's stormy seas ahead for BHO.
Congress didn't vote for it, and most people saw that it was a band-aid on a gushing, arterial wound. Look at the polls showing how much average people favor drilling.
When their tourism goes to **** and their beaches and water start looking like Galveston on a bad day, they will all remember why we have this offshore drilling ban. http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml
This isn't true. Galveston's water looks the way it does because of silt from the Mississippi River. It's always looked that way...long before there were rigs offshore drilling.
that was 39 years ago. and as has been stated numerous times, the water in Galveston has nothing to do with the Oil Industry. i don't want to come off like a guy overreacting to oil prices, i honestly had no idea the only offshore drilling in this country of significance was off the tx/la/al coasts.
The waters off of Galveston aren't bad because of oil, but the tar on the beaches is in part because of oil, correct? Also there are huge catastrophic spills that can happen with offshore drilling. It happened off the coast of Santa Barbara, CA. There is a definite risk and downside to offshore drilling.
Not really. Yes, Galveston's water looks the way it does because of the silt from the Mississippi River, but it was "always" deposited in Mississippi River Delta. With the proliferation of dikes and levees for flood control along the River after the turn of the last century, that silt can't be has been dumped into the Gulf, gets carried along by the currents, and is deposited along the coast to the west.
What makes you believe there is oil under these leases. The land/ocean floor was leased to explore the possibility -- not the certainty -- of oil being there. If there were significant oil there for the taking, do you really believe exploration companies would sit on it at current prices?
Point taken. There may not be any there either. Leases are signed so oil companies can explore. However, if you have been reading my posts in this and related threads, I favor conditions attached to the drilling/production -- that is, selling the oil products produced from U.S. lands in the U.S., i.e., not for export. Further, I would be for any sound economic plan to channel the government revenues from the oil produced into alternative energy sources, particularly nuclear.
Because politicians that are holding a bad hand are desperately trying to discredit the opposition. From the horse's mouth: Interview with the CEO of Chevron
