Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LethalWolfe, Aug 4, 2008.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    CNN
    By the time November rolls around is there going to be much separating Obama and McCain besides age and skin color?:rolleyes:


    Lethal
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    By that time, McCain will be a Democrat and Obama will be a Republican. :mad:
     
  3. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #3
    He's starting to remind me of Tony Blair in 1996-1997.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    It's really a shame that he knows damn-all about the Gulf of Mexico, other than it's salt water.

    The bottom is generally featureless, which is why the best fishing is around the offshore oil rigs. The rigs provide habitat. Roughly, one acre of a complete food chain, per hundred feet of water. The only thing better than fishing around a platform is finding a shrimp boat that's culling.

    'Rat
     
  5. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    Im very disappointed, I guess honest, principles, and science just are something politicians will never care.
     
  6. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #6
    Sigh. So, my question is whether McCain will be able to claim the "all of the above" approach as his own, when I know... unlike some erstwhile Obama supporters, that Obama has supported the "diversification" strategy as THE main course of action. Which means nuclear... which means limited offshore drilling... which means cellulosic ethanol. The ONLY difference is going to be in the details and general philosophy behind the two approaches.

    Right now, McCain has been pushing offshore drilling (as well as a very vigorous nuclear plant building stategy and removing tariffs on Brazillian Ethanol), while Obama, while not opposing nuclear power, has been suggesting the focus be on reducing consumption and diversification (not leaning too strongly on options that have serious issues, like drilling and nuclear power). Obama was confronted by Clinton on the nuclear issue, but all I've heard from him are pleasant noises about doing it "right" and solving its problems. When Obama finally shows his actual plans on nuclear power (which is a WHEN not an IF), I'm going to once again roll my eyes when supposed Obama supporters go... "WHAT??? When did he support nuclear power???" It wouldn't be so ODD if it was simple disagreement, like, "Boy, I wish Obama would take a stand against nuclear power" or "Boy, I wish Obama would outright say offshore drilling is off the table". Instead, he equivocates, noting that he's working on a "better approach", or something... and people think they heard something he didn't say... something to the tune of "no". I'm left thinking, "Yeah... these options SHOULDn't be taken off the table. I don't want a hard line here. I only want to see TRULY hardlines on reproductive rights issues and civil liberties like marriage/civil union rights and national security."

    Meanwhile, the McCain camp pushes the advantage while the Obama camp sustains a hit from its own supporters. There is no silver bullet, folks. BOTH candidates NEED to be saying this. Believing otherwise is pure crap.
    http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog/2007/05/there-is-no-silver-bullet/
    http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...-take-on-environmental-concerns.html?PageNr=2

    And the beat goes on.
    LOL. If you think McCain is moving to the left, I hate to break it to you... he ain't. Unless I missed something and you're implying the the entire Democratic party will shift enough for McCain to be a leftist liberal. It cracks me up that Obama's being called a Marxist by some conservatives fearing his populist leanings, while he's being criticised now for simply speaking up on certain issues that are really defining the race.

    ~ CB
     
  7. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
  8. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #8
    Okay, I felt bad when you guys were kicking Clinton so hard. Now its Obama's turn. I guess I give up. I'm just looking for some more critical thinking to win out on our criticisms and not knee-jerk reactions to headlines that single-out a sentence surrounded by a largely differentiated energy policy. I bristle when leekohler effectively calls me an Obama yes-man, when I'm still trying to push for reason. I'm done. I'll just read these boards about the election. Everyone I thought who made good points seem so emotionally wound, its useless for discussion. :: groan :: We DESERVED Bush then in 2000, 2004, and we'll deserve McCain in 2008. It's a riot why people even complain.

    ~ CB
     
  9. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    It seems to me that politicians are forbidden from doing two sort of critical things these days:

    1. Compromise

    2. Changing their mind

    I'm not a huge fan of offshore drilling, especially in Alaska, but Obama's comments could be seen as pragmatism rather than flip-flopping. And until we all stop driving cars or using electrical appliances we're being more or less hypocritical for calling him out on it.

    I change my mind on issues pretty often. How can I expect politicians to be static when the situation can change at any moment? I'd rather have a flexible president than a "stay the course" type.
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10

    I agree 100%

    I don't like drilling either, but if a compromise is what it will take to get a responsible energy through, then I'm up for it. The reason nothing ever gets done in this government is because Democrats and Republicans refuse to find a middle ground on anything.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    There's still some serious debate on whether oil rigs act as habitat or are more like telephone poles for birds. Furthermore, there is some risk in drilling for oil and serious complications in aquatic habitats because of the movement of boats and the rigs themselves.

    To be fair, there's been very few accidents per year (apparently more oil leaks out from the ground naturally than has been spilled), but there is some environmental cost to doing this kind of work.

    I know it's fun to bash Obama as a bobble-headed idiot, but isn't this slight shift a change worth some of your praise? Isn't he heading in the right direction?
     
  12. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #12
    He stopped heading in the right direction when he voted for the FISA bill.
     
  13. dsnort macrumors 68000

    dsnort

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Location:
    In persona non grata
    #13
    Am I the only one who thinks all this talk about off shore drilling and opening up Anwar is just the politicians way of helping big oil secure their next revenue stream? :(
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Some call it CO2, we call it life.
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    I meant this for 'Rat, who had complained in other threads that Obama's economic policies bothered him. I wanted to know if this was, in Desertrat's mind, a move in the right direction. I'm not so sure.

    And, I hear you on the FISA bill. Frankly, I think all parties should owe some pound of flesh for that one.

    Shhh. This is about saving us from foreign oil, helping our economy, saving the little guy...The oil companies will make billions, but that's ancillary to keeping America secure, blah, blah.

    The oil companies want to drill here because, as I understand it, it's cheaper and more likely to result in oil than the lands they already have leases for. Big oil wants a larger area to drill, and with high oil profits, more oil means a lot more money.

    However, to be realistic, we may have to drill in the Gulf and any president has to be aware of the potential need to do so. But, Obama's right about this, if we're going to drill it should not come at the expense of all the other technologies which may result in real changes. Drilling for drilling's sake is just the same road we've already been down.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    I'm usually looking at the overall big picture, worldwide, rather than just some single facet. I guess that's what happens when you work in first, statewide study/planning*, and later, in nationwide study/planning**. As a retiree, I have more time to browse information from around the world.

    Hokay, look: I think we're all generally in agreement that there will be a multiplicity of ways to provide energy for the future. For electricity, we'll continue to use coal and nukes, and we're adding wind, solar and fuel cells.

    We're entering a transition period as regards transportation power sources, whether electric or liquid fuel--or "other". Any argument about "transition"?

    Transition means we'll continue to use gasoline/diesel for some ten to twenty years. That's my opinion, FWIW. It's a mix of physical capability insofar as replacing the existing fleet of vehicles, and the money to do so.

    I'm convinced that it's factual that the world's available crude oil is pretty close to the limit of production. That is, new discoveries are barely offsetting the declines in numerous oilfields around the world. A major problem is that there are emerging economies whose demands for crude oil and/or its products are increasing. This not only holds true for such giants as China and India, but for the very countries which now export oil. So, from Economics 101, the price of oil and its products is in a long-term uptrend.

    In order for the U.S. to maintain economic viability, our lifeblood costs must be controlled by the marketplace. To me, that means contributing to the world supply of oil by enlarging our own production. It's an effort during this transition period to slow the rise in price. Again, IMO, the only way to do this is to drill where we know there are large quantities of oil and natural gas--and since all the above was reasonably obvious over ten years ago, we're running way, way late.

    I haven't seen anybody's alternative, here--or on the campaign trail--as to how we can avoid even higher gas/diesel costs in the near future. Add to those higher costs the derivatives therefrom, such as consumer products and food. (Obviously I think this drop from $147 to $120 is short-term.)

    I admit to getting a bit fed up with cutsie-poo cracks about offshore rigs not being habitat beyond roosting places for birds. The obvious point is that the birds are there because there's food nearby--in the water. Further, I've enjoyed probably fifty fishing trips offshore, being successful around the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Now, I only really know about the surface of the Gulf. Here is the view of a guy who also goes down below: http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova71.html

    And note that anytime your TV shows ANWR, they pan across very beautiful mountains and forests. The problem is that those mountains and forests are a helluva long hike from where the drilling would occur. A little honesty would be appreciated; it makes for more intelligent discussions.

    'Rat

    * -- Statewide water resource planning for Texas, eleven years.
    ** - NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program, four years.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    'Rat, I think you misunderstood my point. There is a discussion among biologists about just exactly how oil-rigs (and indeed other items that have been positioned in the ocean for that purpose) do or do not work as habitat for fish and the larger ecology. The point was, while you see lots of birds sitting on the telephone wire that pole and wire isn't habitat, the analogy is that oil-rigs are convenient hang-out, but may not be stimulating life. Sorry if that seemed "cutsie-poo" but I thought it was a valid point that isn't AFAIK a nailed-down fact. Lots of reasonable inference.

    I don't doubt that there's lots of fish (and birds) around the rigs, I just noticed that rigs=habitat is maybe not the linear progression that Rockwell makes it out to be.


    Otherwise, I think you might be right. The key is think is "transition." I'm might be more cynical about attempts to drill in ANWR and the coasts than I should be.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    My Coastal Zone years were 1975-1979. I brain-picked on folks from National Marine Fisheries, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission and our own in-house staff. PhDs in "bugs and bunnies".

    The deal with any artificial reef is the food chain that develops, whether it's old WWII Liberty ships, obsolete army tanks, bundled tires or oil rigs. There is a buildup of algae and barnacles, followed by whatever other marine growths are around (I'm not an expert on each and every marine critter.) This is then followed by crabs and little "bait fish" types, and then the entire predatory chain develops. From observations by numerous SCUBA studies, the entire system begins quickly, within a few days in the warm waters of the Gulf. Within weeks, SCUBA fishermen began spearing around the several artificial reefs we made from old Liberty ships.

    My understanding is that off Miami, the fishermen have worked out the GPS locations of artificial reefs made from obsolete army tanks. That's where the charter folks take their paying customers.

    Elsewhere, along the Gulf coast, stainless steel straps were used in compressing old tires for artifical reefs. Surprisingly, it was found that the barnacle growth was so rapid that the tires were held in compression even if the straps were cut--and, actually, stainless steel is not required.

    From what I learned some thirty years back, artifical reefs do indeed create entire ecosystems to the benefit of the Gulf fishery as well as the Atlantic. I have to assume that it would be no different off our Pacific coast.

    My suggestion for biologists who are doubtful and want to discuss the subject is that they get out of the office and go to the rigs and go fishing. Or, just watch from up on the rig, because they can see the fish from above. Ling, kings, sharks, dolphin (fish), mantas, sea turtles, lots of stuff. They're there; I know from my own eyeballs--and gaff. And if you dive, you find the giant grouper.

    Another benefit of a rig is shadow. Barracuda and ling will hang out beneath the hull of a drifting boat. The little school dolphin will also seek shadow. The rig platform provides a rather large area of shadow.

    'Rat
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Am I alone in thinking stevento might be right? I'm beginning to think maybe, just maybe, the key to winning this presidency is Clinton. Obama is f***ing up bigtime, and Hillary just "suspended" her campaign. Perhaps this was the plan all along. If it was, it's brilliant, as McCain will have had no time to prepare for Clinton at all. Obama has managed to p*** the base off to the point that they'll vote for Clinton too. I'm smelling a big, rotten fish. But that's just me.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    Yeah, I think you're alone.


    Edit: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/v...dential Nominee Barack Obama (D)&rnd=67871499

    I think he explains himself pretty well here
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
  22. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #22
    I think that's mostly thanks to mccain's horrible attack ads. I'm annoyed that he hasn't yet gone on the offensive yet, but I don't think the drilling thing is hurting him much, and he is still more favored than Hillary.

    Besides, I haven't seen any MSM coverage about Obama on offshore drilling, most of the coverage is on the blogosphere. And on DailyKos, no one is concerned. It's about compromise, and I think being bipartisan is key to getting anything done, and that means both sides have to find common ground. From what it sounds like, if the republicans won't budge on higher fuel efficiency standards and alternative energy, then drilling won't even be considered. I can live with that.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    vg17, yeah, you can live with that--if your billfold is pretty fat and healthy.

    Why bother with worrying about fuel efficiency standards? Mr. Market is taking care of that, right this very moment. Every car maker there is will be churning out all the 35-45 mpg critters they can, since that's what's selling. Such cars have been available for decades, but low gas prices made the Land Barges affordable--and those days are gone. The only reason you'll see four-wheeled Queen Mary stuff now is that the owners can't afford to get rid of them. (There's a lot of "can't afford" going around right now.)

    Alternative energy? There again, billions are being spent on not only R&D but on construction. We're better off if Congress stays the heck out of the way.

    PeMex just announced that the Cantarell output will be down another 200,000 bbl/day by the end of this year, to an output of one million bbl/day. Odds are that by sometime in 2012 Mexico will have no more oil to export; their domestic demand is increasing as the output is declining. So, from where do you suggest we make up that loss of a million barrels per day?

    I hope you can afford the world of $8/gal gasoline, and what that means to the cost of your groceries.

    'Rat
     
  24. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #24
    That's a wonderful thought, but "Mr. Market" SURELY doesn't run on auto-pilot. That's nothing but pure fallacy.

    It's regulation and standards that keep cars from slipping down to the levels found in China and India. Yeah, the market helps to move manufacturing in a more profitable direction, but sometimes the quest for higher profits can cause businesses/sectors/economies to implode. Remember how Ford's CEO was crying about Ford having perused SUVs so heavily? If governance had assisted and encouraged American automakers towards having ready solutions, they wouldn't all be up the creek right now.

    White House Joins Fight Against Electric Cars
    By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
    Published: October 10, 2002
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E6DF163AF933A25753C1A9649C8B63
    I mean... go read Atlas Shrugged sometime, if you think that solely the MARKET decides the perfect shape of a healthy economy in this country. In an effort to get politics out of the way, you can't differentiate actions of bias from actions of correcting bias. And then you have the Fed. We're not in some free-wheeling science experiment. Right now, greed and the absence of a stern hand has produced our housing bubble. Most people agree that in the absence of government intervention (from this market driven train wreck) our economy would be even MORE in the toilet.

    This isn't Yen/Yang, Good and Evil. It's not about Market or NO Market driven economy... its about finding the right balance in governance so that the economy grows as the direct result of good gardening principles.

    ~ CB
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    The housing bubble train wreck occurred in large part because of government interventions. Start with the history of Fannie Mae, an FDR program. Then look at the results of the anti-redlining laws, insofar as lending to people who couldn't repay. Then look at the effects of monetary policy on the part of Greenspan and the FRB, with uber-cheap interest rates.

    The market was merely following along a system put in place by government.

    As far as cars and gas mileage, the public at large was already well underway in shifting from 8mpg Toronados into econoboxes by the late 1970s. All on its own, beginning with the 1973 embargo's wakeup call. The same sort of thing is happening today--even without any change in the CAFE.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page