ANWR: The solution to all of our energy problems.

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 @ 2:58 pm | Energy

In a not-no-stunning display of poor leadership, President Bush has once again recommended that drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the solution to our current energy woes. Iowa Liberal has tackled this issue as have many others. At the very least, rational leadership would accept the simple fact that policies based upon keeping the cars running at all costs are doomed to failure as demand has simply exceeded supply with no possibility for reversal. Rational leadership would start looking at making other arrangements that aren’t completely dependent upon cheap and plentiful liquid hydrocarbons which are disappearing faster than even a pessimist like myself would have imagined. Politicians who lead people into believing that drilling ANWR is a solution are selling false hope.

-mg

11 Responses to “ANWR: The solution to all of our energy problems.”

  1. Dana Says:

    Rational leadership would also realize that there are around 200 million vehicles on American roads, the vast, vast majority of which use either gasoline or diesel fuel. Even if someone had a hydrogen or anti-matter or whatever type of engine already designed and ready for mass production, you’ve still got those 200 or so million vehicles out there which require some form of refined petroleum.

    We will never be done with dependence upon petroleum, even if some technologies emerge which can reduce our dependence; it is beyond foolish to not exploit the oil available under ANWR.

  2. jeromy Says:

    Don’t say “never” with a finite source, Dana. That’s foolish.

  3. jeromy Says:

    Heh, more troublesome factual analysis on ANWR. I wonder why Republicans are so convinced this little drop in the bucket is so worth having?

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

    Really, it’s a few more billion dollars in profit for some oil companies, kickback for some Alaskan congressmen, and…? It certainly won’t do anything for gas prices.

  4. Iowa Hawk Says:

    Dana> you could also close your eyes, cross your fingers and yell “jinx”. It’ll do about as much good.

  5. jeromy Says:

    Iowa Hawk: Um, that’s what Dana’s already doing. I was the one that just provided some actual factual analysis…

  6. Iowa Hawk Says:

    Where are the OCS (outer continental shelf) crazies? They usually pile on during discussions like this. You know, the “we have plenty of crude right here but the moonbat enviro-whackos wont let us get to it!!!” people.

  7. jeromy Says:

    Okay, wow, I’m sorry IH, I completely misunderstood what you wrote.

  8. Iowa Hawk Says:

    prick.

  9. Fanook Says:

    The hopefuls always want to lump in the OCS with total hydrocarbon numbers because it helps them blame environmentalists for every woe encountered in the energy markets. The problem is that the OCS is largely unexploitable because of technological constraints and the enormous cost of bringing those reserves onto market. OCS oil would actually cause prices to rise, not go down.

  10. Thomas Tallis Says:

    [i]We will never be done with dependence upon petroleum, even if some technologies emerge which can reduce our dependence; it is beyond foolish to not exploit the oil available under ANWR.[/i]

    it’s so weird when people take such a shorsighted historical view – of course we’ll be done with dependence on petroleum; first, because the supply is finite, and second, because progress means there’s no resource or technology that won’t be replaced – the only ones that can’t be replaced are air & water. aside from those, well, my man, you sound like a horse dealer circa 1908 who expects to have a boom year as soon as this car fad blows over.

  11. jeromy Says:

    IH: Apology retracted, dickhead!