Drill for Oil in Kalifornia – Crunchies Cry
Share this Article
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
Author:
Harrison
Tags:
alternative energy california Debt defense spending deficit Democrats drilling for oil global warming hypocrites kalifornia Liberals Obama oil rigs policy report Spending taxes
Caution, oil rigs have been known to produce oil, jobs, and tax revenue!
Kalifornia is drowning in debt. Many years of a spend-happy Democratic legislature – and one broken Republican governor – have left the state impoverished now that it can’t depend upon the taxpayer to fund all of those dreams of a larger government. Defeated in the polls where every tax measure was voted down by the voters, Gov. Arnold comes to the realization that maybe all of that oil under the waters off the Kalifornia coast might just produce tax revenue, create jobs, and decrease America’s oil imports. But, wait, there’s the environmental lobby crying foul saying they want “alternative” energy instead (supported, of course, by the taxpayer). Who will win?
I stumbled upon this blog with just such an article:
This week the Schwarzenegger administration announced it’s intentions to seek an oil lease for the purpose of slant drilling of the oil reserves under the coast of Santa Barbara, California. Schwarzenegger’s intention is to help close the $24.3 billion gap in California’s unbalanced budget by generating new revenue and to work toward reducing California’s dependence on foreign oil. This plan however, is not the ideal solution to meeting California’s energy or financial needs. Rather than risk further damage to California’s environment and lift the 40-year long moratorium on drilling off of the coast of California, other viable energy solutions — such as nuclear power — could meet California’s future needs for energy.
This article is wrong on a variety of levels. Firstly, where are all those proposals to build nuclear power plants? The answer: there are none. While Obama has not come out against nuclear power, he has decided not to use Yucca Mountain to hold any nuclear waste and he has said several times that without a solution to nuclear waste there can be no expansion of nuclear power (though it’s okay for Iran to build as many plants as they want).
Secondly, where is the proof that Californians are forced to choose between drilling for oil (and the tax revenue and high paying jobs that come with it) and putting the “environment” at risk. Except for tankers transporting oil, there have been few examples of environmental damage due to oil exploration. Indeed, many countries safely drill for oil off their coasts without any problems. And when hurricane Katrina hit and knocked many Gulf of Mexico rigs offline where were the oil slicks and other environmental damage left in its wake? Exactly, there was no damage even though that area is ground zero for oil transport and refining.
The article continues:
Schwarzenegger’s insistence that California should drill for the oil under the Santa Barbara coast is a marriage of convenience. He is hoping that the voters — who destroyed the Democratic attempt to increase taxes last month — will see this proposal as an opportunity to help balance the budget and reluctantly agree to new drilling. This assumption couldn’t be farther from reality. Voters don’t want to have to choose between a balanced budget and the environment.
Additionally, many Californians don’t want to see new drilling for oil. They want to see lawmakers propose policies that encourage the development of alternative and renewable energies.
Wrong again. A majority of Americans are in favor of drilling for oil (59.6%) and a majority of Californians favor it, too (51%).
These types of articles are common from the Left. What sums it up best, however, is this sentance:
Drilling for new oil enables California to forget about it’s dependence on oil and takes focus away from developing a renewable energy economy.
What does this really mean? Forget about cutting oil imports or increasing domestic supply, simply let the price of oil and gas rise so high that Liberals will be able to manipulate the anger of voters into using more tax money (“alternative” energy is very expensive to produce) to subsidize things like solar, wind, and bio-fuels. Of course, when the skies are cloudy or the winds aren’t blowing you won’t be generating any electricity so what do we rely on..? That’s right… oil, coal, and nuclear (all things the Left wants less of).
Don’t fall into the trap of believing their lies.
Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email
Related posts:
09:00
Leveraging your assets to go into debt isn’t a problem (essentially what the U.S. is doing with Obama’s little deficit spending spree) as long as those assets are 1. appreciating in value or 2. generating income. Democrats want to go into debt to pay for their unrealistic utopian social projects, but they don’t want to use the vast wealth of resources possessed by this country to generate the income necessary to pay off this debt.
Rather than dealing with budget the problems the hard way, Kalifornia should take the Obama approach and get a good team of economic forecasters and modelers who will tell you that everything will be alright.
Burro’s last blog post..Baracktile Dysfunction 4: In defense of Jake
09:52
I hear there will be a new position soon in Kalifornia called Optimistic Economist. They will enjoy eggs sunny side up every morning for breakfast.
11:04
Good post. Anyone notice how Obama has been silent on the fact that oil has risen to $71 a barrell already? Obama want’s oil high so he can push Priuses and whatever new crap cars Government Motors will churning out on us.
11:06
Why would Obama speak about oil getting more expensive because it’ll just make him look like more of a rube? Oh, wait… it’s Bush’s fault!
13:33
i just love when people voice their personal biases on behalf of “the people”. as in, “People support oil drilling because they don’t believe they have realistic alternatives to oil.”
in the response to some very good points by a commenter, the author whiffs and seems to think that a society can abruptly shift to nuclear power. the author’s rebuttal seems more like a 6th grade book report.
i wonder how the author would feel about a nuclear facility in his back yard…..you know, considering his opinion on the environmental hazards of slant drilling.
14:21
Living in South Carolina, I have Nuclear Power in my backyard [Keowee Toxiway] and even a Breeder Reactor [The Savannah River Complex] in my front yard and I appreciate it very much! Duke Power is one of the cheapest suppliers in the nation, very well maintained, highly profitable, and pays its employees very well statewide.
They haven’t had any accidents yet – to my own personal knowledge – and I have never caught a three-headed fish in any of our lakes or rivers…. What can I say… there [honestly] aren’t too many rivers left to damn up around here and we already have plenty of recreational lakes?
The Real American recently posted..Freedom From Offense And The Islamic Mosque Controversy
14:54
Thanks for your comment. Nuclear power makes a lot of sense but Democrats aren’t interested in this technology.
00:41
Just thought I’d tell “The Truth.” lol Nuclear Power is cheap, efficient, and clean for the environment. The only drawback is waste disposal and I already have the cheapest and most reliable solution figured out. However, nobody wants to hear “Common Sense Ideas” anymore… just impractical, cost prohibitive, and/or stupid ones. Go figure?
The Real American recently posted..Freedom From Offense And The Islamic Mosque Controversy
14:55
Hey Harrison,
Thanks for the reference. I appreciate the debate on slant drilling. Hopefully it brings more light to the issue.
First, I think you have uncharacterized me as a Democrat when in reality I am a Republican. I am a strong fiscal conservative (like you) and believe we can solve our budget problem through spending cuts, rather than through excess taxation or unneeded revenue (like this slant-drilling proposal is).
Second, You conventiently neglect to mention the two Republican proposals for alternative energy from the article. Tony Strickland, a Republican has about 6 bills that promote renewable energy, one of which is a tax credit for installing renewable energy equipment (like solar panels) at your home. The other is Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s proposal to build a new Nuclear Power Plant.
Again, thanks for the reference.
18:28
Thank you for your response. If you are a fiscal conservative then one has to wonder why you support using tax dollars to pay for energy production losers like wind and solar power. You say on your site:
“A social moderate, he supports policies that allow individuals their human rights without paying for those allowances with other citizens’ tax dollars or infringing on the personal rights of others.”
I am a social moderate, too, but I am not in favor of spending tax dollars on things like alternative energy that is inefficent and politically charged (no pun intended). One of the reasons cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid sold so well was because of the taxpayer support in the form of tax credits and, in California, a free pass in the HOV lanes. These technologies should stand or fall based upon their own merits, not because of carrots given to prospective buyers, and so I believe the same thing with respect to solar power and other forms of “alternative” energy.
As to nuclear power, you may already know that these plants are very expensive to build, costing between $4 to $8 billion each yet the Obama administration has only allocated $18.5 billion in loans for nuclear power while Congress has authorized $27 billion for “alternative energy.” So nuclear power, which is reliable, continuous, and safe, only gets enough money for maybe three plants (the last nuclear power plant was built 30 years ago).
Furthermore, Obama has de-funded Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste disposal so it is unlikely any plants would be built without a place to store that waste. The nuclear power option is essentially dead for now, which is what I said in my article.
I still stand by my statement that you offer a false choice between “helping” the environment and drilling for oil. You may call yourself a Conservative but the views expressed in your article, in my opinion, do not sound like things I hear from Conservatives.
The best way to reduce oil consumption is to increase the gasoline tax, something neither party will do for political reasons so, instead, shady arguments are made and taxes are raised through the backdoor.
Thanks for the time to reply.
00:58
Raising the Fuel Taxes, however, only enforce stricter fuel consumption upon the low paid blue collar workers – who can ill afford it already – while doing nothing to curtail its use by the upper classes who could easily afford it at more than $50.00 a gallon. Not a very good fix, I think!
Why not go back to: using paper bags in the grocery stores [a renewable resource], mandating that packaging actually is sized properly to the products inside them, and other such practical measures? 35 percent of all oil is used in the manufacture of plastics – a large percentage of which is largely unneeded.
Or, even get rid of emission control devices [which decreases fuel mileage by over 30 percent on modern cars], eliminate Toll Plazas [with their attendant massive traffic jams]? With today’s cleaner burning engines and additives, emission devices are overkill at a great cost to fuel efficiency and just idling at Toll Plazas burn millions of barrels of oil each day. Just properly synchronizing traffic lights nationwide would result in even more substantial savings on oil.
These a only a few of my ideas – which don’t involve socking it to the poorest among us. Before America takes another damn dime from the poor, why don’t they consider using “Common Sense?” It worked for our ancestors and believe it or not it would for us to if we’d try it!
The Real American recently posted..Freedom From Offense And The Islamic Mosque Controversy
11:52
Environmentalists, particularly in California, have a strong desire for expensive oil; they know that high gas prices make alternatives seem attractive to consumers and investors. So, they will continue to dish out the same tired bromides about the environmental “dangers” of drilling for offshore oil even though there is plenty of evidence that it can be done safely.
The reality of all this is that when the “alternative” energy options fail terribly to supply a growing population and economy (nominal growth) while crushing the middle class with what is essentially a higher energy tax, it will again highlight that there is a limit to how much state government can spend in pie in the sky ideals.
[rq=3280,0,blog][/rq]Americans Love Government
11:56
You are correct. By the time it becomes glaringly obvious that “alternative” energy is a joke we’ll all be living in mud huts unable to afford anything.