Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
Agreed, to a point. But I believe if there was a way to get at all this domestic oil cheaply, it would have happened by now. The environmental lobby just pales in comparison to the power of the oil lobby.
My logic is this: if oil can assure a massive American military presence in the Middle East, as well as whacking a fews countries to make sure their product is economically viable; would it not be able to assure that the animals in Alaska/fish in the Gulf of Mexico get whacked?
I know its simplistic, but it does seem to me the treehuggers are a convenient scapegoat in this.
PD
|
I actually think you got it backwards. The environmental lobbies, while currently decreasing in influence in the U.S., has had a hold on this issue for over three decades. The domestic suppliers have been saying they can get to these sources, tap them, and bring them online since the 90's. And that doesn't even address the squeeze from environmental groups and their resistance to increase refinery capacity to match demand from growing population demographics. The tree-huggers as you call them drive this policy directly. Most often through Democrat Party elected officials. Follow the policies, and listen to their words. Even this week, we hear nothing but the same rhetoric designed to delay action on it. It's not scapegoating as you say. But it is holding those accountable who have driven policy that is causing higher gas prices, increased costs of food and goods, and will not address our supply vs. our ever increasing demand. We need oil, we have oil, and they stop us every step of the way while offering non-specific "alternative sources" only policies that will not help us today or in the foreseeable future.
I won't address your second paragraph because it would divulge into a whole other topic. Why we went to Iraq. It would require going back to the UN resolutions and all kinds of stuff beyond the scope of this topic.