apnews.myway.com — Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.
Aug 2, 2008 View in Crawl 4
motivatedmamaAug 3, 2008
Has anyone actually READ the BILL?<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/politics/Will_Big_Oil_Win_the_Energy_War_Senators_Offer_New_Bill">http://digg.com/politics/Will_Big_Oil_Win_the_Ener ...</a>It's called BI-partisanship. The proposed drilling is minimal and ANWAR is off the table.FTA:Their plan includes several of the Democrats' top energy priorities, including stripping oil companies of at least $30 billion in tax breaks. The bill would use some of that money to renew expiring tax credits for wind and solar projects through 2012. It also would give consumers a $7,500 tax credit to buy an electric or fuel-cell vehicle, and a $2,500 credit to retrofit their current vehicles into plug-in hybrids.The bill would provide $7.5 billion in research money to boost electric vehicles, mostly to improve the batteries that store electricity. U.S. automakers would be big winners, receiving $7.5 billion in government money to retool their auto lines to crank out more electric cars.Big oils boohoo fit will squash it anyway and Fla. aint too happy either.
thoughtcrimeAug 3, 2008
On the surface the quote *sounds* reasonable (sort of). But lets face it, the incessant pandering of the left to "environmental" issues is code for "it ain't gonna happen". IMHO, it's a way for BHO to appear to support "sensible" drilling; while allowing himself an escape clause to back-out of the whole idea later on.As far as media sensationalism...so far, most of it has been overwhelmingly in favor of the "Anointed One" - Barack Obama.On McCain, I'll grant you that your point concerning the "holy grail" of oil drilling is pretty much spot-on. He's not the greatest candidate, just a heck of a lot better than the alternative.
thejimmyoAug 3, 2008
"I'm not normally one for tossing gratuitous insults, but . . . you really are an idiot, aren't you? The solution to high fuel . . . prices will only come from . . . plowing over the enviro-tards that oppose everything. . . . [T]otally ignoring the domestic crude supply issue is utterly moronic."You seem perfectly comfortable throwing around gratuitous insults. But I'd like to point out that, if anything, DuggDowner is being overly-optimistic about the effect of outer-continental leasing on the price at the pump. According to the Department of Energy, leasing all of the outer-continental shelf for drilling would result in about 200,000 barrels of oil per day when it finally reaches peak production in the year 2030. That oil then goes out on the world market, which consumes about 76 million barrels per day today, and will probably consume a whole lot more when China and India increase their demand. Since the price is set on the world market, this will amount to a savings of barely anything at all. Maybe somewhere around $0.02/gallon. And not even that until sometime around 2030.But even that is not the whole picture. If we opened these new areas for leasing at the federal level, California wouldn't approve of it at the state level. The California governor, legislature and voters are all pretty set against it. Since CA has about half of the outer-continental shelf's oil supply, you'd probably see less than 100,000 barrels per day, way off in the future. So that's maybe even more like $0.01/gallon.As far as "the domestic crude supply issue" goes, it's insignificant, and it's a lie to say that this will affect the price of gas at the pump or make us any more energy independent. Of course we need a "multi-pronged effort," but let's not kid ourselves about what this prong will do.
thoughtcrimeAug 3, 2008
I suggest you do your own research. I charge $80/hour. But for you.....$200.
thejimmyoAug 4, 2008
"I suggest you do your own research"You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. As I understand it, the only major obstacle to electric cars right now is the price of batteries, which is dropping all the time. As far as infrastructure goes, electric cars are a step ahead of all the alternatives, insofar as we already have an electricity grid that reaches pretty much everywhere in the United States.
thoughtcrimeAug 7, 2008
Ok, try to "think" about electric cars for a moment. First, there is no such thing as a "perpetual motion machine", so this means you have to plug the buggers in at some point to help charge the batteries (alternators and regenerative breaking aren't sufficient).So, when you "plug" your electric car into those holes in the wall, the electricity comes from something called a "power plant". The power plant must burn FUEL to generate the electricity. Since most of the alternative fuel generation technologies are inadequate to supply these power generation needs, more than likely, fossil fuels will be burned (which you enviros HATE). Not to mention the fact, that you greenies also dislike: nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind power. So how have you reduced the consumption of fossil fuel or the "carbon footprint?" You haven't.Here's one more factoid for you to chew on. Electric cars can only go about 80-100 miles under optimal circumstances before needing to be plugged into a wall. Impractical for most people, unless they have a rather short commute to work AND have a regular vehicle for longer trips.OK "thejimmyo". There's 2 for you. The rest is up to you.