At any cost

June 17th, 2008 9:16 am · 12 comments

You know, we might as well do this, because ultimately we’re going to do it anyway:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist tells Buzz that he loves Sen. John McCain’s idea to lift the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling and let individual states decide whether to allow oil and gas exploration. He also said he wouldn’t rule out letting Florida opt to drill off-shore.

“Florida has one of the most pristine environments on the planet, and I’m committed to protecting it,” Crist told the St. Petersburg Times this evening. “But we also need to be pragmatic. We need to protect Florida and America’s economy, and I look forward to the discussion.”

Whether he’d support a decision by the Florida Legislature to drill depends on “how far (from shore), how safe, how protective of our environment it would be – there’s many contingencies that would have to go into it,” he said.

The main contingency being, we need to keep those Hummers running long as we can.

A rational society would take a collective step back from this precipice and say, look, we can keep careening down this road that’s going to come to a dead end at some point anyway, we can drill and drill anywhere we might find a drop of oil, we can befoul the environment and screw up the planet even more to get every last drop out of the ground - or we can say no, we’re not going to take the Easter Island approach.

But we’re not a rational society. So you know as well as I which approach we’ll ultimately take.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  12 comments  Tags: Oil · Environment

There are currently 12 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
ArtVandolay
6/17/08
2:46 PM
FLA will lose it's biggest revenue generator - tourists. Not because of an unslightly oil pump, but because it will be too expensive to get to Disney, and other theme parks as well as those pristine beaches.



And gas will cost more and more for all of us while we send boatloads of cash to our friends in the mid east. Meanwhile Libs have victory because they stopped Bush from buying 70,000 barrels a day for the national reserve. That is a pretty insignificant amount, but any victory, however trivial for them is a big victory.



Might as well drill with the stipulation that we have to research new fuel alternatives - a long term solution at best.



McCain wants to allow states to drill if they want - and they share in the revenue.

Pericles
6/17/08
3:05 PM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Jun 17 2008, 09:20 AM) [snapback]401967[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.


"A rational society would take a collective step back from this precipice and say, look, we can keep careening down this road that’s going to come to a dead end at some point anyway, we can drill and drill anywhere we might find a drop of oil, we can befoul the environment and screw up the planet even more to get every last drop out of the ground - or we can say no, we’re not going to take the Easter Island approach."

We also need to view this in terms of national security and eventual national energy independence. By that criteria, we need more domestic production and thus more off shore drilling. In the short term, we cannot conserve ourselves out of this problem.

I don't see why more drilling and greater conservation are mutually exclusive. In fact, aren't most good solutions a blending of divergent viewpoints? Wouldn't that be the rational approach, more drilling and greater conservation?
gsmart
6/17/08
3:22 PM
QUOTE(Pericles @ Jun 17 2008, 03:05 PM) [snapback]402137[/snapback]

I don't see why more drilling and greater conservation are mutually exclusive. In fact, aren't most good solutions a blending of divergent viewpoints? Wouldn't that be the rational approach, more drilling and greater conservation?




So long as they went hand in hand, yes. But I doubt they would.



Specifically, any break in prices is going to be seen as a renewed validation of the SUV lifestyle; the profligate ways which have contributed to our current dilemma. Because people want to drive those vehicles; people don't want to conserve, conservation is for the weak and the poor. And we fancy ourselves neither.

Pericles
6/17/08
3:43 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ Jun 17 2008, 03:22 PM) [snapback]402148[/snapback]




So long as they went hand in hand, yes. But I doubt they would.



Specifically, any break in prices is going to be seen as a renewed validation of the SUV lifestyle; the profligate ways which have contributed to our current dilemma. Because people want to drive those vehicles; people don't want to conserve, conservation is for the weak and the poor. And we fancy ourselves neither.



There may be some truth to that if prices fall back, but I think the shock of $4 a gallon gas has sent a message loud and clear to most people. I have two gas guzzlers, but it doesn't make economic sense to scrap them both now. Rather, when they're done I'll replace them with something more fuel efficient. By then the technology should have improved and prices for fuel efficient cars should be lower.

Yes, we have a Big West attitude because gas was cheap. But Americans are pragmatic and practical too. You sell us short Gil.

BTW, conservation isn't for the weak and the poor, it's for the liberal and the elite. cool.gif
gsmart
6/17/08
3:53 PM
QUOTE(Pericles @ Jun 17 2008, 03:43 PM) [snapback]402156[/snapback]

Yes, we have a Big West attitude because gas was cheap. But Americans are pragmatic and practical too. You sell us short Gil.





Some Americans can be pragmatic and practical, but others believe profligacy is our birthright. Who was it on these threads a few weeks ago who wrote about how people in his or her newer suburban neighborhood drive to the mailbox? I'm not sure whether that was a joke, but we live in a country where that isn't always a joke (and those mailboxes aren't always a mile away at the end of the country driveway, either).



johnq
6/17/08
3:56 PM
Why is conservation viewed as something the government must do? Can't we, as individuals, choose to conserve? I can tell you, that we have saved a bundle of money since we chose to be a one car family, and to both find jobs that are within three miles of home. We didn't need the federal government to tell us that. We figured it out all by ourselves.
And while I do consider myself elite, I most certainly am not liberal (although my wife is).
Shawn
6/17/08
3:58 PM
QUOTE(Pericles @ Jun 17 2008, 03:43 PM) [snapback]402156[/snapback]

There may be some truth to that if prices fall back, but I think the shock of $4 a gallon gas has sent a message loud and clear to most people. I have two gas guzzlers, but it doesn't make economic sense to scrap them both now. Rather, when they're done I'll replace them with something more fuel efficient. By then the technology should have improved and prices for fuel efficient cars should be lower.

Yes, we have a Big West attitude because gas was cheap. But Americans are pragmatic and practical too. You sell us short Gil.

BTW, conservation isn't for the weak and the poor, it's for the liberal and the elite. cool.gif




One would have thought that the gas lines and rationing of gas back in the 70s would have certainly fostered conservation far into the future. I think it did for a short time. Right up until the point where gas got cheap again. That is when conservation went right out the window. It would seem that the American consumer is short sighted. The only thing that has led to meaningful conservation is higher prices.



Later...Shawn

johnq
6/17/08
4:00 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 17 2008, 03:58 PM) [snapback]402165[/snapback]




The only thing that has led to meaningful conservation is higher prices.

Which is why high gas prices should be viewed as a good thing.
Pericles
6/17/08
4:01 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 17 2008, 03:58 PM) [snapback]402165[/snapback]


One would have thought that the gas lines and rationing of gas back in the 70s would have certainly fostered conservation far into the future. I think it did for a short time. Right up until the point where gas got cheap again. That is when conservation went right out the window. It would seem that the American consumer is short sighted. The only thing that has led to meaningful conservation is higher prices.

Later...Shawn



Which is exactly how rational markets operate. It's not a matter of consumers being short sighted. Consumers are rational. We've already seen a reduction in driving.
Shawn
6/17/08
4:08 PM
QUOTE(johnq @ Jun 17 2008, 03:56 PM) [snapback]402163[/snapback]
Why is conservation viewed as something the government must do? Can't we, as individuals, choose to conserve? I can tell you, that we have saved a bundle of money since we chose to be a one car family, and to both find jobs that are within three miles of home. We didn't need the federal government to tell us that. We figured it out all by ourselves.
And while I do consider myself elite, I most certainly am not liberal (although my wife is).




I think it is more important for government to invest in researching alternative forms of energy, which will in turn lead to conservation of existing energy sources.



Later...Shawn



QUOTE(Pericles @ Jun 17 2008, 04:01 PM) [snapback]402168[/snapback]

Which is exactly how rational markets operate. It's not a matter of consumers being short sighted. Consumers are rational. We've already seen a reduction in driving.




You are correct. "American Consumer" wasn't the right phrase. I was thinking more along the lies of the "government", which is a representation of the "American Citizen". One would think we would have learned something from the oil crisis of the 70s, and contributed significant efforts towards insulating ourselves from such circumstances in the future. I can remember (barely) back in the late 70s, early-mid 80s that there was a lot of development in the areas of solar energy, nuclear energy, etc. There was progress being made. That all seemed to stop once oil prices dropped. If we had continued the intense investment in research of such technologies, we might already be releived of our dependency on oil. If history repeats itself, I'm guessing there will be a lot of research now, then when oil prices drop again, that research will be abandoned until the next crisis.



Later...Shawn

johnq
6/17/08
4:43 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 17 2008, 04:08 PM) [snapback]402170[/snapback]




next crisis.



Later...Shawn

What crisis are we in now?
lee41
6/17/08
5:17 PM
George and Jeb are the ones who prevented drilling off the Florida coast until 2012 to help Jeb get re-elected.

Of course, Republicans make is sound like they are in favor of more drilling. Actually, what they favor is giving more land to the oil companies. There is no requirement for them to drill. In fact drilling and discovering new finds hurts their profits. They have a history of tight refinery supplies to maintain profits, and now they can do the same for crude oil supplies.

There is a backlog for new drilling rigs, and in 2006, rigs were being moved out of the Gulf of Mexico to go drill overseas where they can make more money.

Exxon and other oil companies sat on leases in Alaska for 31 years, then sued Alaska when it tried to revoke the lease and give it to someone who would actually drill.

Meanwhile, BP's Thunder Horse platform in the GoM just went on-line and should be producing up to 250,000 bpd soon.

In other news, Goldman Sachs reported higher than expected earnings. I wonder if they invested in oil futures.


View Topic | Comment on this blog