gas tax holiday proposal - Page 3

Debaser · 05-06-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starla

Either we mass produce electric cars, or we cut down on our dependence on foreign oil. I prefer the first but it's not gonna happen any time soon.

Well those top ten reasons could be fine and dandy, but if your number one goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and/or reduce gas prices (rather than create jobs, make money, etc.) then drilling in ANWR will not really help that. barely.

Nimrod's Son · 05-06-2008, 04:27 PM

Even if that report is correct (and it seems to refute most previous ones I have seen) that's a hell of a lot of money we're shipping to the Middle East that could instead stay domestic

Starla · 05-06-2008, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Boy

ANWR should be held off and used for a compromise in an overall energy plan which invests more resources into green/alternative energy. You know, throw 'em a bone.

I know. I'm one of these people who fought against it in 2002. I want to believe that alternative energy would be the only possibility put on the table but it's not happening. Years are going by and we're digging ourselves into two big holes, not just one big one. sigh.

Starla · 05-07-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debaser

Well those top ten reasons could be fine and dandy, but if your number one goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and/or reduce gas prices (rather than create jobs, make money, etc.) then drilling in ANWR will not really help that. barely.

what do you propose we do in the meantime, until someone listens to the EIA? It's not *my* number one goal to do anything. I'm speculating. I can see where we have wasted years of doing nothing, and here we are....

Debaser · 05-07-2008, 04:33 PM

Be more efficient and/or find alternative sources of energy - the logistics of which, I do not know.

By the law of supply and demand, in order to reduce gas prices, we must either increase supply (significantly) or reduce demand. Drilling in ANWR does neither.

Nimrod's Son · 05-07-2008, 04:49 PM

It’s time to support ANWR drilling

America’s anti-oil policies are hurting jobs, prosperity and the poor.

Political policy writer Paul Driessen of the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise writes very directly on the merits of ANWR and the nonsensical arguments of environmentalists and obstructionists in Congress against it.
Read Paul Driessen’s piece below.
The budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the US Senate would finally open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. Environmentalists are “outraged,” while most Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to go against their constituents’ best interests by voting against drilling.
Sadly, that’s to be expected. What’s amazing is that a number of House Republicans are likewise saying they intend to vote to lock up ANWR’S vast energy resources. They’re supposed to understand market forces and energy economics – at least better than their colleagues across the aisle. And yet they are planning to cast “nay” votes precisely when global demand for petroleum is soaring, energy prices are reaching all-time highs, and winter heating bills will make it increasingly difficult for poor people to heat and eat.
That any responsible member of Congress could vote against this energy development legislation underscores the ideological blinders worn by drilling opponents, the vast misinformation that still dictates discussions about this issue, and the refusal of elected officials even to acknowledge the cumulative effects of “environmental protection” rules enacted over many decades – much less do anything about them.
Many votes against drilling will come from California, Northeastern and Midwestern legislators who have made a career of railing against high energy prices, “obscene” oil company profits, unemployment and balance of trade deficits – while simultaneously doing everything possible to constrict supplies, increase demand and drive up prices. For instance, air quality rules – coupled with a virtual prohibition on building new nuclear plants – mean that most new electrical generating plants are gas-fired. So demand for natural gas continues to climb, while domestic supplies continue to decrease.
But these same legislators have consistently opposed natural gas (and oil) development in Alaska, off the East Coast, off the Florida coast, along the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, throughout the western states, and in any other areas where petroleum might actually be found.
They apparently believe it’s OK to drill in other countries, even in sensitive areas in other countries. It’s likewise appropriate to buy crude from oil-rich dictators (especially when offered at a discount by Venezuelan despots), send American jobs and dollars overseas, reduce US royalty and tax revenues, imperil industries that depend on petroleum, and blanket habitats with “ecologically friendly” wind turbines and solar panels. However, drilling in the USA, even for natural gas, is strictly verboten.
This is truly political theater of the absurd.
ANWR, government geologists say, could hold up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s 30 years’ of imports from Saudi Arabia. Turned into gasoline, it would power California’s entire vehicle fleet for some 50 years. The area’s natural gas could fuel Florida, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin generating plants for a decade or more.
At $50 a barrel, ANWR crude would eliminate the need to import $800 billion worth of foreign oil, create up to 700,000 American jobs, and generate hundreds of billions in royalties and taxes.

Bringing this oil online would have another vital benefit. As Prudhoe Bay and nearby oil reserves decline, a point will be reached where there isn’t enough to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline running at capacity. That would mean enormous quantities of otherwise recoverable oil will be left in the ground, instead of fueling our economy. New supplies from ANWR would ensure that our oil lifeline remains open.
But all that is irrelevant, insist environmental purists in and out of Congress. Energy development would “irreparably destroy” the refuge, they assert. Caribou droppings.
ANWR covers 19 million acres, an area equivalent to South Carolina. Of this, only 2,000 acres – scattered in small parcels across the “coastal plain” – would actually be disturbed by drilling and development, thanks to modern directional drilling technologies. That’s 0.01% of the refuge, one-twentieth of Washington, DC – or 20 of the buildings Boeing uses to manufacture 747 jets!
The potentially oil-rich area is flat, treeless tundra – 3,500 miles from DC and 50 miles from the beautiful mountains seen in all the deliberately misleading anti-drilling photos. During eight months of winter, when drilling would take place, virtually no wildlife are present. Only oil field workers are crazy enough to remain outdoors when temperatures drop to minus 40 F, the tundra turns rock solid, and that chaw of tobacco they spit out freezes before it hits the ground.
However, these unforgiving conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and platforms. In the spring, they’ll all melt, leaving only puddles and little holes. The caribou will return – just as they have for years at the nearby Prudhoe Bay and Alpine oil fields – and do just what they always have: eat, hang out and make babies. In fact, Prudhoe’s caribou herd has increased from 6,000 head in 1978 to 32,000 today. Other Arctic wildlife will also return, along with the Alaska state bird, Mosquito giganteus (which locals claim can carry off rabbits and small dogs).
Vast oil and gas potential, in a distant, mostly desolate area. Unprecedented global demand for petroleum. Soaring energy prices that hurt productivity, prosperity and the poor. Modern technological marvels that enable us to find and develop petroleum resources with no significant environmental impacts. Jobs, revenues and reduced dependence on foreign sources. Ensuring that we can recover all the oil we’ve already discovered along Alaska’s North Slope.
The benefits are many and obvious. The negatives few. Finding and producing ANWR’s oil ought to be a slam-dunk. The fact that so many congressmen (and senators) can’t bring themselves to support drilling there – or anywhere else in or off our 50 states – ought to make every American question the analytical skills of the people they’ve sent to Washington.
Every thoughtful taxpayer and voter ought to tell their representatives: These oil and gas resources are vital to our future. It’s time to end the obstruction and political posturing. It’s time to drill in ANWR.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).

Nimrod's Son · 05-07-2008, 04:52 PM

Oh and maybe we should listen to the locals, rather than have elitists in their ivory towers in New York and San Francisco proclaim protection for an environment they'll never visit:

Quote:

More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

duovamp · 05-07-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexthestampede

it's a horrible idea. our tax policy should discourage behavior that we need to curb, and gas consumption needs to be curbed.

Oh yeah, I forgot you're a hypocritical fascist fool. Taxing cigarettes really stopped smoking completely, good call. And who the fuck are you to decide what needs to be curbed? Demand will dictate what must be curbed- a notion fans of the free market and socialism support. It's like you walked out of second grade and into a political discussion. You're the kind of moral absolutist who gets from God that consuming gasoline is bad and thus must be stopped, and taxes will satisfy that.

Debaser · 05-07-2008, 11:12 PM

I don't trust anything that Paul Driessen writes without separate source confirmation. He's a right wing corporate shill propagandist who plays loose with the facts and mostly only appears on far right wing websites like newsmax.

Nate the Grate · 05-07-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Oh and maybe we should listen to the locals, rather than have elitists in their ivory towers in New York and San Francisco proclaim protection for an environment they'll never visit:

Well, obviously they do, you know how many jobs that would create for them?

I'm undecided on the issue, but asking the Alaskans what they think probably isn't the best route to go. The whole "But it's beautiful there!" line of arguing doesn't work for me either, though.

Debaser · 05-07-2008, 11:38 PM

Making money and jobs in Alaska is a better argument for drilling in ANWR than claiming it will help ween us off of foreign oil.

Starla · 05-08-2008, 02:56 AM

just putting my own experience and thoughts on the energy /gas/food costs

I think Americans need to start taking responsibility for conserving their own energy and gas, and learning how to garden and hook up with farmers markets and support them and each other. The costs are rising and it's out of control but it's not totally out of our hands to do something about it.

I have alot of love for people ca, but I don't know if some of them understand how different life is outside of where they live.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
holiday bonuses	Thaniel Buckner	General Chat Archive	6	11-16-2007 12:40 AM
New tax proposal by Charles Rangel (D-NY)	dudehitscar	General Chat Archive	4	11-05-2007 11:42 AM
does anyone have the net4ian christmas song?	yo soy el mejor	General Chat Archive	41	08-26-2007 12:00 AM
White House proposal would expand authority of military courts	BlueStar	General Chat Archive	3	08-02-2006 07:10 PM

05-06-2008, 04:27 PM	#62
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	Even if that report is correct (and it seems to refute most previous ones I have seen) that's a hell of a lot of money we're shipping to the Middle East that could instead stay domestic

05-07-2008, 04:33 PM	#65
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	Be more efficient and/or find alternative sources of energy - the logistics of which, I do not know. By the law of supply and demand, in order to reduce gas prices, we must either increase supply (significantly) or reduce demand. Drilling in ANWR does neither.

05-07-2008, 04:49 PM	#66
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,943	It’s time to support ANWR drilling America’s anti-oil policies are hurting jobs, prosperity and the poor. Political policy writer Paul Driessen of the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise writes very directly on the merits of ANWR and the nonsensical arguments of environmentalists and obstructionists in Congress against it. Read Paul Driessen’s piece below. The budget reconciliation bill recently passed by the US Senate would finally open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. Environmentalists are “outraged,” while most Democrats in the House of Representatives plan to go against their constituents’ best interests by voting against drilling. Sadly, that’s to be expected. What’s amazing is that a number of House Republicans are likewise saying they intend to vote to lock up ANWR’S vast energy resources. They’re supposed to understand market forces and energy economics – at least better than their colleagues across the aisle. And yet they are planning to cast “nay” votes precisely when global demand for petroleum is soaring, energy prices are reaching all-time highs, and winter heating bills will make it increasingly difficult for poor people to heat and eat. That any responsible member of Congress could vote against this energy development legislation underscores the ideological blinders worn by drilling opponents, the vast misinformation that still dictates discussions about this issue, and the refusal of elected officials even to acknowledge the cumulative effects of “environmental protection” rules enacted over many decades – much less do anything about them. Many votes against drilling will come from California, Northeastern and Midwestern legislators who have made a career of railing against high energy prices, “obscene” oil company profits, unemployment and balance of trade deficits – while simultaneously doing everything possible to constrict supplies, increase demand and drive up prices. For instance, air quality rules – coupled with a virtual prohibition on building new nuclear plants – mean that most new electrical generating plants are gas-fired. So demand for natural gas continues to climb, while domestic supplies continue to decrease. But these same legislators have consistently opposed natural gas (and oil) development in Alaska, off the East Coast, off the Florida coast, along the Pacific Coast, in the Great Lakes, throughout the western states, and in any other areas where petroleum might actually be found. They apparently believe it’s OK to drill in other countries, even in sensitive areas in other countries. It’s likewise appropriate to buy crude from oil-rich dictators (especially when offered at a discount by Venezuelan despots), send American jobs and dollars overseas, reduce US royalty and tax revenues, imperil industries that depend on petroleum, and blanket habitats with “ecologically friendly” wind turbines and solar panels. However, drilling in the USA, even for natural gas, is strictly verboten. This is truly political theater of the absurd. ANWR, government geologists say, could hold up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That’s 30 years’ of imports from Saudi Arabia. Turned into gasoline, it would power California’s entire vehicle fleet for some 50 years. The area’s natural gas could fuel Florida, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin generating plants for a decade or more. At $50 a barrel, ANWR crude would eliminate the need to import $800 billion worth of foreign oil, create up to 700,000 American jobs, and generate hundreds of billions in royalties and taxes. Bringing this oil online would have another vital benefit. As Prudhoe Bay and nearby oil reserves decline, a point will be reached where there isn’t enough to keep the Trans-Alaska Pipeline running at capacity. That would mean enormous quantities of otherwise recoverable oil will be left in the ground, instead of fueling our economy. New supplies from ANWR would ensure that our oil lifeline remains open. But all that is irrelevant, insist environmental purists in and out of Congress. Energy development would “irreparably destroy” the refuge, they assert. Caribou droppings. ANWR covers 19 million acres, an area equivalent to South Carolina. Of this, only 2,000 acres – scattered in small parcels across the “coastal plain” – would actually be disturbed by drilling and development, thanks to modern directional drilling technologies. That’s 0.01% of the refuge, one-twentieth of Washington, DC – or 20 of the buildings Boeing uses to manufacture 747 jets! The potentially oil-rich area is flat, treeless tundra – 3,500 miles from DC and 50 miles from the beautiful mountains seen in all the deliberately misleading anti-drilling photos. During eight months of winter, when drilling would take place, virtually no wildlife are present. Only oil field workers are crazy enough to remain outdoors when temperatures drop to minus 40 F, the tundra turns rock solid, and that chaw of tobacco they spit out freezes before it hits the ground. However, these unforgiving conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and platforms. In the spring, they’ll all melt, leaving only puddles and little holes. The caribou will return – just as they have for years at the nearby Prudhoe Bay and Alpine oil fields – and do just what they always have: eat, hang out and make babies. In fact, Prudhoe’s caribou herd has increased from 6,000 head in 1978 to 32,000 today. Other Arctic wildlife will also return, along with the Alaska state bird, Mosquito giganteus (which locals claim can carry off rabbits and small dogs). Vast oil and gas potential, in a distant, mostly desolate area. Unprecedented global demand for petroleum. Soaring energy prices that hurt productivity, prosperity and the poor. Modern technological marvels that enable us to find and develop petroleum resources with no significant environmental impacts. Jobs, revenues and reduced dependence on foreign sources. Ensuring that we can recover all the oil we’ve already discovered along Alaska’s North Slope. The benefits are many and obvious. The negatives few. Finding and producing ANWR’s oil ought to be a slam-dunk. The fact that so many congressmen (and senators) can’t bring themselves to support drilling there – or anywhere else in or off our 50 states – ought to make every American question the analytical skills of the people they’ve sent to Washington. Every thoughtful taxpayer and voter ought to tell their representatives: These oil and gas resources are vital to our future. It’s time to end the obstruction and political posturing. It’s time to drill in ANWR. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).

05-07-2008, 11:12 PM	#69
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	I don't trust anything that Paul Driessen writes without separate source confirmation. He's a right wing corporate shill propagandist who plays loose with the facts and mostly only appears on far right wing websites like newsmax.

05-07-2008, 11:38 PM	#71
Debaser ghost Location: @SactoMacto Posts: 12,201	Making money and jobs in Alaska is a better argument for drilling in ANWR than claiming it will help ween us off of foreign oil.

05-08-2008, 02:56 AM	#72
Starla ***** Posts: 15,778	just putting my own experience and thoughts on the energy /gas/food costs I think Americans need to start taking responsibility for conserving their own energy and gas, and learning how to garden and hook up with farmers markets and support them and each other. The costs are rising and it's out of control but it's not totally out of our hands to do something about it. I have alot of love for people ca, but I don't know if some of them understand how different life is outside of where they live.