The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Obama’s drilling agreement

There are two sides of this coin, and I’m willing to look at and consider both; but this agreement just doesn’t seem too smart to me. Negotiations 101, if I give you something, you have to recognize that I made a concession and you need to be willing to give a concession as well.

But in Obama’s recent concession to domestic drilling, it doesn’t seems as if he’s getting anything tangible for “our” side: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/po ... ted=1&_r=1

This is about energy. The REALITY is, sooner or later, we’ll have to drill these domestic resources. Personally, I’d much prefer LATER, but I’ll allow a concession that they COULD be on the table now. But back to energy, a Democrat president needs to understand that any concessions for more of the same (drilling for more fossil fuel) should be matched by equal or greater concessions toward renewable energy. Something should be designated toward renewable energy. If I were President, I’d put a proviso on all future US drilling; that a % of the dollars extracted from US land goes toward technology that will offset our need for fossil fuel. Make the energy sector pay for future energy needs.

There’s no getting around the fact we’re hooked on oil far worse than any heroin addict in a methadone clinic. But we can’t even get one side to admit the first step “That you have a problem”. I voted for Obama based SOLELY on his 300bn energy plan…can someone tell me how much has actually been spent, or how much of his plan was enacted?

America – This should be our next SPACE RACE; the race toward energy independence. Brazil did it, why can’t we? Now Brazil didn’t do it real pretty, but they did it. We CAN do this, we just lack the desire.

Democrats need to be much smarter at the negotiating table, and not give in like a stoned cheerleader at a frat party.

FrontSight wrote: The REALITY is, sooner or later, we’ll have to drill these domestic resources.

I don't agree, that we will have to...We may choose too because to some, it's easier than facing the real issue, that in yesterday's thinking and yesterday's reality it is cheaper.

What do you tell a junkie...the sooner you're off the stuff the better for you -or- just keep going like you're going and it will be okay eventually?

Our reluctance to face reality will be our undoing.

I voted for Obama because part of the 'Hope and Change' thing was the balls and honesty that came with it, or so I thought.

Watching our President cave again made me want to vomit.

I am right there with you guys. I am not sure what he is getting at by continuing to do this. If his aim is to show the Republicans as unwilling to compromise, then that plan has not worked. They are known for their unwillingness to work or to govern for that matter. The American public does not seem to care either. Gain with no pain is the mantra. A false and dangerous one, but it is the prevailing thought since the 1970's. Economists have already said that there will be no effect on the price of oil or gasoline so then what is it about?

Every president does things their base doesn't like. Clinton reneged on half the things he promised, Reagan and Shrub Sr raised taxes a dozen times or more, and Nixon was willing to give Ted Kennedy a better health care bill than the one Obama signed.

Nowdays we're held hostage by political organizations posing as media outlets. We should be gratefull Obama didn't give Rs a chance to ruin the killing of OBL, because they would have.

rolandson wrote:

FrontSight wrote: The REALITY is, sooner or later, we’ll have to drill these domestic resources.

I don't agree, that we will have to...We may choose too because to some, it's easier than facing the real issue, that in yesterday's thinking and yesterday's reality it is cheaper.

Unless they legalize hemp as an alternative source of oil to manufacture plastics we'll be using crude oil long after we switch to an alternative fuel source. I'd rather see us use our oil supply to that end than burning it away in our gas tanks.

FrontSight wrote:This is about energy. The REALITY is, sooner or later, we’ll have to drill these domestic resources. Personally, I’d much prefer LATER, but I’ll allow a concession that they COULD be on the table now. But back to energy, a Democrat president needs to understand that any concessions for more of the same (drilling for more fossil fuel) should be matched by equal or greater concessions toward renewable energy. Something should be designated toward renewable energy. If I were President, I’d put a proviso on all future US drilling; that a % of the dollars extracted from US land goes toward technology that will offset our need for fossil fuel. Make the energy sector pay for future energy needs.

FrontSight, I agree with you on the politics of this (shitty negotiating strategy), and also on the larger energy issues.

The net energy of fossil fuel is so much higher than any alternative that it will be pretty much impossible to leave it in the ground. That will be true, I'm afraid, throughout the world and no matter who is in charge -- even though burning it all might well destroy the biosphere.

As an analogy, think of a starving man with a plate of food in front of him. He knows it contains slow poison, and he could leave it alone and go look for better food elsewhere, but he will fixate on the food in front of him and will eventually eat it. We're just not mature enough as a species to do the right thing, I'm afraid.

That being the case, one part of me says drilling now might be better, because we still might have some environmental regulations in place, vs. later when we are more desparate for energy and any rapaciousness will be allowed (think if tearing up the entire Canadian forest for tar sands or levelling all the Appalachians for coal).

The counter-argument is, if we can slow it down the burn rate a bit, it could mitigate the climate change impacts slightly.

We could probably avoid all of this by converting to natural gas and regulating the hell out of speculators. Then we could convert to planet friendly fuels as the technology develops.

Count me as one of those who's preference would be to 'remove the band-aid quickly' because ultimately it hurts less.

I think, but I don't truly know, that the reality will be, within my life time, that oil will prove to be a commodity that we will no longer be willing to afford, in cash or blood.

I am hopeful that that the genius that brought us into the nuclear age, the electronic age, the age of space travel (such as it is), will also bring us to the advent that we will no longer care about oil in the manner and fashion that we do now.

Domestic drilling will not help unless there is a ban on selling U.S. oil on the open market. Current oil production in this country is sold to the highest bidder. If we were allowed to use the oil, we might not need to buy from Canada and the Middle East.

FrontSight wrote:There’s no getting around the fact we’re hooked on oil far worse than any heroin addict in a methadone clinic.

Let's face it, Americans don't really care. How many hummers, SUVs, and other gas hogs do you see on the road? How much of American culture revolves around "having wheels" and just cruising? Money for practical mass transit systems is hard to come by. And like my local initiative idiot says,"People just want to drive their cars."

With that being said, I am ok with the drilling itself. I just want it to have little environmental impact and the drilling sites cleaned up after the wells are dry.

And like any addiction it will hurt a lot when the reserves run out, but we will get over it.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

rolandson wrote:

FrontSight wrote: The REALITY is, sooner or later, we’ll have to drill these domestic resources.

I don't agree, that we will have to...We may choose too because to some, it's easier than facing the real issue, that in yesterday's thinking and yesterday's reality it is cheaper.

Unless they legalize hemp as an alternative source of oil to manufacture plastics we'll be using crude oil long after we switch to an alternative fuel source. I'd rather see us use our oil supply to that end than burning it away in our gas tanks.

That's very much my point. We'll be using oil 1,000 years from now. Oil is in EVERYTHING, even our food, so our need stretches far beyond just motor and heating fuel. So EVENTUALLY, we'll get to drilling these locations, but there is NO NEED to do it now by any stretch of the imagination.

rolandson wrote:Count me as one of those who's preference would be to 'remove the band-aid quickly' because ultimately it hurts less.

I think, but I don't truly know, that the reality will be, within my life time, that oil will prove to be a commodity that we will no longer be willing to afford, in cash or blood.

I am hopeful that that the genius that brought us into the nuclear age, the electronic age, the age of space travel (such as it is), will also bring us to the advent that we will no longer care about oil in the manner and fashion that we do now.

There is NO silver bullet technology that is going to replace oil, that's the reality. This is why it's so important that Obama doesn't just give in on this crap. ANY domestic drilling should come with a committment toward funding new technologies. Even if we got cold fusion tomorrow, the infrastructure to make it a true alternative to oil would take a decade, and then only if we were in a hurry.