Posted by
fiddler on Friday, August 15, 2008 11:13:37 AM
I heard on the news the other day that Nancy Pelosi, speaking on CNN, said she would not oppose a vote in the House on off-shore drilling. On the face of it, this appears to be good news. The Republican protest on the floor of the (adjourned) House appears to have borne some fruit. But I'm suspicious.
In the past few months, each time the Republicans in the House have attempted to bring a vote on off-shore drilling, the Democrats have insisted on adding amendments and placing severe restrictions on just where drilling can take place. That's not a straight up-or-down vote. The Democrats are still pandering to the environmentalist wing of the party that seemingly wants drive the United States into an economic graveyard. No matter how high the price of gasoline goes, the environmentalist whackos won't be satisfied until we are all walking everywhere or using public transportation (which is nice, if you can get it; we can't here in Kokomo). And the Democrats, who claim to be all about helping "the ordinary working family" don't seem to care one whit what $4 gas is doing to those working families. They have their agenda, and consequences be damned, they're going to do their best to force that agenda down everyone's throats.
The Democrats - and some Republicans - say they want to develop alternative energy sources, and that's what we've been hearing for over 30 years. Now I'm all for developing alternative energy sources, especially if they are cleaner, more efficient, and cheaper than petroleum based products. But if such energy is truly feasible, why has it not been developed? Some will say that the reason is that the oil companies don't want to give up the gold mine they presently have. Maybe that's true, but I've never known of any corporation that was against diversification if there was money to be made, and certainly any company that develops a truly viable alternative energy source would be making a lot of money. So I don't think that's the reason. Technology? Technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds, especially over the last fifteen or twenty years. I truly believe that if such an energy source can be developed, it will be, and sooner rather than later.
Now, I don't pretend to know why alternative energy sources have not been developed and used. But I have to ask, could it be that what they've come up with so far (ethanol, windmills, solar power), is expensive and inefficient? We have to produce more energy now. We can't wait until something else comes along. People are hurting, and the economy is hurting because of high oil prices. But Democrats have their agenda, and that's why I'm suspicious of Pelosi when she says that she isn't opposed to a vote in the House on off-shore drilling. A vote? On a bill that would authorize off-shore drilling wherever the oil fields are the most promising? And in ANWR? Without burdensome restrictions? I'm very dubious.
Mrs. Pelosi, we need more energy now, not 10, 20, 30 years from now when they finally find/develop a viable, efficient, cheap source. As to the price of oil, futures trading drives the price of a commodity as much as supply and demand. If traders know that supply will be increasing in the future (and whether it's ten years or three or four is debatable), they will act accordingly, and the price of oil is bound to drop.
Mrs. Pelosi, allow a vote on drilling now, without amendments or restrictions.