Atta boy Johnny, you may just pull this thing off after all. McCain has previously said he supports individual states’ decisions to drill. See video here. Though he still opposes drilling in ANWR, he has followed the advice to make gas price reduction his issue. Today he came out with a great proposal.
As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”
Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”
Obama is on the wrong side of this issue and McCain has finally gained a definitive leg up on an issue that will largely control this election.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
Now if he’ll only dump the rest of the media-driven ecoweenie global warming nonsense.
it would be nice not to have to rely on foreign oil. we should be drilling where we have it, while looking for alternative sources or fuel. how hard is this to figure out? global warming is a crock of shit.
Global warming is a crock? What if your wrong? If those of us who believe it are wrong, what is the worse that can happen? Cleaner air, alternative fuel sources, less smog, more trees. If you are wrong and there is time to make a change, then we are all screwed. Is it really worth taking a chance? Tell me, what bad could happen?
Yes.
We’re not.
Industry shutdowns. Massive unemployment. Poverty. Starvation. Economy taxed into collapse.
There’s nothing at risk. Global Warmening is not a threat.
How do you know you are not worng? Thousands upon thousands of scientist…experts on the field…and 100% of them are wrong? Can you really be sure?
Why would industry’s shut down? In fact, there would be more employment because of all the new american made machinery for windmills, solar plants and more. Millions of dollars in flooding the economy, more jobs, more money. Starvation??? What do you mean, starvation. In case you have not noticed, you great Ethanol plan is doing that already. Econcomy taxed into collapse? Like it’s not there now. Get your head out of your ass and look around!
Here just a couple links disputing what you say. Sorry, Rush did not write them so I know you won’t believe it. George Bush thinks there is global warming. John McCain thinks there is global warming. Newt even thinks so! It’s not a political issue anymore, it’s a fact. Stop trying to destroy the world.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-04-091.asp
http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2008/06/04/Need-a-job-Look-to-green-economy-Portlands-first-conference-for-green-professionals-links-booming-en
Jim, how will you prove that any of the changes you want to make to combat global warming are working? China and India don’t care. The Brits have been taxed to death for years and they have had enough.
http://patriotroom.com/?p=326
The poll showed
The reason is that proponents can’t ever show any benefit from the taxes. It is a socialist scam to confiscate our money.
Wow, Aye Chi, that was impressive. Nary a fact , nary an argument. Just a list of dogmatic assertions. Is there someplace one goes to learn the anti-global warming catechism?
Dave Noble, Aye Chi’s reference to the economic fallout from emissions agreements and cap and trade is well documented in analyses by economic specialists.
i.e., from the American Council for Capital Formation testimony for the Senate committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion Hearing on “U.S.-International Climate Change Approach: A Clean Technology Solution” Nov, 2005:
The Brits are already rebelling on proposed increased “green” taxes.
“Saving” the world is not only far from cheap, but the proposed plans via Kyoto and other amendments promise not to save the environment, but to possibly break the bank of the wealthiest developed nations (like the US and Britain), slowing the advance of needed clean energy for developed, and developing, nations.
Al Gore, however, will continue to be one wealthy SOB for perpetuating, and taking advantage of, the economic plan to “save the world”.
Mata,
My objection to Aye Chi’s post was primarily concerned with his unsupported assertions that global warming is a “crock” and “not a threat.” That flies in the face of the scientific consensus on this issue.
There is no argument that there will be costs associated with any legislation that attempts to reduce green house gases. Whether the Lieberman-Warner Act is the most cost-effective means of reducing green house gases is a matter for debate. The ACCF, which issued a joint report with the National Association of Manufacturers, is not a neutral entity on this issue. Then again, who is? But we need to take into account the bias/agenda of the authors of reports that are often disenguously presented as a rigorous objective analysis.
For your consideration, the following is from a press release by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
While the models offer valuable insights, they do not tell the complete story. They reveal long-term assumptions are at best only approximations. For example, accurately predicting the availability and cost of technologies 50 years in the future is nearly impossible. The models do not fully represent the Lieberman-Warner bill, often omitting potential cost-savings provisions including certain energy efficiency inducements and the Carbon Market Efficiency Board’s role in regulating allowances. The models also fail to consider the costs of inaction, and any credible analysis finds that unabated climate change will cost far more than reasonable climate policy.
Finally, it’s not about Al Gore.
Pssttt….
Dave…..
There is no consensus on this issue.
Dave Noble, global warming has changed to the cliche phrase, “climate change” for a reason. Warming trends are no longer, and again fluctuating. It was subtle, and so few seem to notice the rallying cry as altered to fit the ever changing weather patterns.
The argument for most has never been about whether the climate “warms” or “changes”. Absurd to think climate is status quo. It’s about whether it’s caused by man. As Aye Chi says, for every report you can find that claims “consensus”, there are reports that deny “consensus”.
Al Gore is the iconic poster child for what this is IS about… power, money, and control. That is “climate change” BS in a nutshell. We are, as I’ve said here before, what equates to be a gnat on the butt of an elephant. Man will never be able to control Mother Nature, but he can control other men under the delusion of reigning in natural forces.
And I agree whole heartedly. No one is neutral on the issue. However how they choose to address this still contested issue has global economic effects that will cause guaranteed catastrophe, even if climate change does not.
Mata,
You say things so well.
I am not as gifted with the ability to turn a phrase as you are.
My entire point about Global Warmening is that it’s just another scare tactic used by those who want to control our lives and limit our freedoms.
The people who push this garbage want to control how I light my home (those bulbs contain mercury which is extremely harmful to the environment), what temperature my home is, what I drive to work, and how far I drive to work. They want to prevent tax me for using my outdoor grill if I am in the mood for a juicy piece of Salmon.
Heck, there are even those who want restaurants to only serve what is in season or pay a fine for doing otherwise.
Every bit of this nonsense is an imposition on my freedom.
Throughout recorded history our earth has warmed and cooled and warmed again. There’s nothing new here. Over the past 100 or so years the earth has warmed 6/10 of one degree Celsius.
6/10 of ONE degree Celsius.
Global Warmening….that 6/10 of One degree Celsius has been blamed for an amazingly long list of things:
Those are just a few of over 300 things blamed on Global Warmening, this “crisis” that doesn’t exist. Global Warmening has even been blamed for a decrease in circumcision.
Give me a break!
There is no “crisis” here.
It’s such nonsense.
***
By the way Dave, don’t ever accuse me of “dogmatic assertions” or any other such gobbledygook.
There is always a source or a well-documented set of facts upon which I base each and every post.
Thanks for the compliment, Aye Chi. But I suspect my fingers are perhaps only better in sync with my keyboard, as I find little fault with your reasoning most all times.
But there’s a perfect example of the global warming/climate change racket that escapes most. And that’s the planting trees/carbon offset biz. (of which Gore is vested with Generation Investment Management… he sells his high energy footprint to himself…)
[Update note: GIM invests in companies, not trees that I know of]
First off, the further away from the equator the trees are, the less gain for planetary cooling. ala per Dr [Govindasamy] Bala [of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] and colleague Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, (which I picked up off the Treehugger.com site):
Okay.. we now have a study by the global warming types themselves that say planting trees in the wrong area could actually increase planetary warming. So what are these carbon offset companies doing with the money from the wealthy and gullible?
Amakhala Conservation Centre is reforesting the eastern Cape of South Africa
UK’s Carbon Neutral is planting in the Carrifran Valley in Scotland, and in Canada (see my next post below for update)
PrimaKlima-Weltweit is planting in Hungary and Germany
EcoNeutral is planting in Canada
Carbon Counter is planting in Oregon
The C-change Trust is planting in Wales
Cleanairpass and Tree Canada are planting in Canada
To see specifically what these bright lightbulbs are doing, here’s a list of various carbon offset projects worldside. Bar none, reforestation is the prime money useage for carbon offset monies with 99 projects going. The closest 2nd and 3rd in number of projects is wind (49 projects) and methane (25).
Only 10… count ’em… *10* projects out of 291 total are dedicated to fuels.
Here’s a link to the google map with the reforestation projects marked. A quick glance can show you the bulk of the reforestation projects are, if not worthless, detrimental to the quest.
Duh…. like I want to to economic and financial power to these bozos? Man, they’re making it up as they go along, fer heavens sake!
UPDATE #2
I mentioned above that I didn’t know if Al Gore’s GIM was involved in the tree planting business. They work with two carbon offset companies.
One is Carbon Neutral (assuming on the UK one at this point… another branch in Australia). See them in the list of idiots in my other above post.
They have 28 projects going, 13 of which are reforestation. Nine of those are not equator proximate friendly. Six are wind… 3 in India, one in China, one in New Zealand, one in Turkey. Only one fuel project in Hungary, and two methane projects – one in Pennsylvania, the other in Germany.
The second carbon offset company they work with is Chicago Climate Exchange. They’re not showing up on the carbon offset site at all, so I’m in the process of reading thru the company site.
Jim at #5 asked:
“How do you know you are not worng? Thousands upon thousands of scientist…experts on the field…and 100% of them are wrong? “
100% Jim?
31,072 scientists, many with advanced degrees, have signed the following petition:
And add this to your enlightenment on the issue:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
“U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” “