Let the drilling begin...so we can save a few bucks in about 20 years (by Mari)

Alright, Bush has now lifted the presidential ban (signed in by his father in 1990) on offshore drilling, and is now calling for Congress to lift theirs. Evidently it's a two-step process in this case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674571/

What interests me here is that Bush makes this move now, in the middle of a campaign that he can really only damage, despite analysis from economists and pundits (not to mention admission from the Republican candidate) that increasing local drilling will not significantly affect the economy in general or gas prices in particular. If legislation designed to decrease dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise, has been sitting "tabled" in Congress for the last 25 years, going again and again without approval, what does Bush stand to gain by making this wild stab now? Especially considering that it will be a tough sell on a Democratic Congress? According to the MSN article referenced above, even several Republican senators in states with large coastal tourist incomes are less than enthused about the proposition. As for the efficacy of offshore drilling as a solution, this article provides some information:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25287795/

Ironically, this author concludes that the real, immediate solution to rising oil prices is to use less oil. Is this a case of those pesky tree-huggers doing their best to ruin the fun for Big Oil again? Or are there legitimate ecological, not to mention economic, reasons to leave the coasts of America alone? Either in the long or short run, is offshore drilling really the salient resolution? I overheard someone at work claiming that oil companies have found a way to drill that has "no impact" on the environment, that is "completely safe." I don't like to get into it with my Limbaugh-listening coworkers, but I had to pipe up in this case and say that there is no action that we can take, large or small, local or global, that has "no impact" on the environment. It's a matter of measuring and weighing risk vs reward.

Ultimately, we are confronted with the question: how dire is the situation we find ourselves in? Though our fuel prices are still below those in Europe, Australia, Asia, and most of the rest of the industrialized world, have we really hit our breaking point? Are we so crippled by the consequences of our oil addiction that we have to smash the iconic piggy bank of "Sea to Shining Sea"? Have we now come to the juncture at which the risk is worth the reward?

DRILL BABY, DRILL! (By Dustin)

I heard this interview on NPR this morning and found it very interesting.  I've been arguing for more oil production as a solution to high gas prices and assumed refineries were also needed.  Mr. Deffeyes makes a compelling argument for more oil production but NOT for building more refineries.  It's very interesting.

Would the construction of new refineries help to lower fuel prices?

"It won't do a thing," says geologist Ken Deffeyes, author ofBeyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak. The problem, he says, is not a lack of refining capabilities but a shortage of crude oil to be refined.

"Building more refineries won't make crude oil appear at the entry side of the refinery," says Deffeyes.

Additionally, he notes that while the U.S. has not built a new refinery in decades, oil companies have added increased capabilities to existing refineries. "We haven't seen oil piling up on the dock waiting to go to the refineries," he notes.

The focus, he says, should be on the lack of crude oil, and he says that problem won't go away. "If world oil production is not increasing — and in fact seems to be in the process of decreasing — you need fewer refineries, not more refineries," he says.

Read or listen to the full article here: 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91625440

Greatest Threat to American Middle Class

Watching MSNBC this morning, I discovered that American Airlines is raising fees and cutting flights.  This move by AA is symptomatic of high oil prices and very revealing of class differences as suddenly, only the wealthy can afford air travel.  Its unbelievable.  My wife and I bring home good dual incomes but are thinking twice about paying for a flight to New York next month.  Several years ago this flight to see mom and dad cost $250, now we can expect to pay over $500!

Raising travel costs are only one example of pressure being placed on the middle class.  But what about the poor?  If the middle class can't travel, what can't the poor do; eat?  We already know that feeding the poor has become more difficult because of food costs.  Rice alone - the most common source of nourishment - has tripled in price (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23832071/)!  What has influenced this price increase?  Namely, oil prices.

I'd like to start a debate (discussion) about the importance of cheap oil in relation to global poverty and world hunger.  I think one key factor in solving these major issues requires cheap oil, which in part means drilling new oil sites.  Drilling new oil sites will require "green" organizations to move out of the way.  Think about it, could the fight to save our planet actually be stifling humanitarian capacity to end global hunger?  Shouldn't these two good agendas work together?

Before all the idealists jump on the glaring problems with my argument, lets discuss pragmatic solutions.  I already know that if America had solar powered cars that oil prices would be less.  But we don't on a mass scale and won't for a long time.  I also know that America produces enough grain and other food products to end world hunger but the cost of shipping keeps it from making around the world.  Companies and the will of people do not allow for food exports to take place because of oil prices.

Discuss.