I
1. Do my best to help the environment and minimize my family's footprint on the earth
&
2. Firmly believe we need to find better fuel sources and start producing more fuel efficient cars.
However,
I also find it ironic that it's ok for us to buy oil that taps other people's environment and natural resources as long as we don't touch our owns.
Very hypocritical.

I hope congress stands their ground on this one.

"I also find it ironic that it's okay for us to buy oil that taps other people's environment and natural resources as long as we don't touch our owns."

This is a good point.

Also, the argument that it is going to take 10 years to have any impact is not a good one, IMO. In 10 years, we could either be saying that we should have started drilling 10 years ago (which is what some people are now saying) or we could see results in 10 years. We should absolutely continue to research other alternatives, but being energy dependent with respect to oil should not be an option.

Not only will it take 10 years to produce anything, it will NEVER enter the global market (because of where it was drilled from). If it doesn't enter the global market, it will not bring the global price of oil down. For all of their talk about how we really need to do this, I have yet to see how they think it would benefit Americans. It won't lower gas prices, not now and not in 10 years...so it seems pretty pointless to me.

During 10 years, there is so much we could do that would benefit Americans. Let's focus on those.

I didn't know about the 68 million acres. Why aren't those acres being used first, or at least explored? I don't understand. Does anyone know?

Also, calling Reid "chicken" for not wanting to do offshore drilling? I'm sorry, I thought this was about the energy crisis, not about trying to see who would take a dare before anyone else. Gimme a break.

Also, what's the difference between the environmental impact offshore drilling would have on America versus drilling in the coutries from which we already receive our oil?

tiff58: excellent excellent point!
my husband was just using that point last night.
if Clinton had started it 7 years ago we would be in a different place today

"I didn't know about the 68 million acres. Why aren't those acres being used first, or at least explored? I don't understand. Does anyone know?"

Em,I liked to know why those 68 million acres that are available are not being used as well.

In ten years, if we haven't learned to conserve and if we aren't driving cars that run on alterntaive fuels, then we don't deserve to be saved from the mess we've made.

Jill - Why won't it enter the global market?

Cabaker, because it was drilled in the US, so it will stay in the US. I have heard many economists say this, although I have noticed that it is not mentioned every time this issue is discussed. I wonder why?

I am really curious as to what was the straw that broke the camel's back for McCain. He spoke out against off shore drilling in May 2008, only to come back 2 weeks later in June and say that he supports it. I wonder what made him change his mind so quickly.

Maybe he realized the gas tax thing wasn't the right route!

I read an article a few months ago that said there was a smaller, but still influential oil crisis in the 70s. Then they found new oil fields and everything was hunkey-dorey again. I don't understand how people can't see that even if we find more oil and continue to consume the way we are, we're still eventually going to run out. We're just prolonging the inevitable. We really need to start looking into better energy options. That would have a global affect: we wouldn't be supporting the destruction of any country's environment, plus we would stop putting so much pollution into the world's environment. I had never though about this last one until I heard a piece on NPR claiming that our air pollution affects Sweden. I don't know the facts on this, but you have to admit. There's no way our pollution stays only within our borders!

I always thought the offshore drilling ban was about the environment. Am I wrong? I never really looked into this issue very much.

I have heard many economists say this, although I have noticed that it is not mentioned every time this issue is discussed. I wonder why?

Maybe because economists are still in disagreement over it.

Also, even if the oil were to stay in the U.S., it would lower the U.S. demand for outside oil, thus effecting the cost of oil as a whole because it would lower the overall demand for OPEC oil.

Because the U.S. is part of the overall demand. Am I making any sense? It makes perfect sense in my mind, I'm just having trouble articulating it.

I copy lilkim! Roger that!

haha! too much Generation Kill for me!

Bush just said this in his news conference:
"The only thing standing between these vast resources and the American people is action from Congress," he said. "The sooner Congress lifts the ban, the SOONER WE CAN GET THESE RESOURCES FROM THE OCEAN FLOOR TO THE REFINERIES TO THE GAS PUMP."
How many people are going to register that it still means years - Jill, I'm guessing the ability to say things like this are what turned McCain's position.

I dunno, I don't think most people are stupid enough to think if you drill on Tuesday that oil will be in your pump on Friday.

But there's been so much talk about the speculators and all their speculation driving up the cost of oil. Personally, I think thats pretty accurate, so therefore if we SAY we're going to start drilling and we start the process to make that happen, the speculators will take notice and will swing the opposite way, which could an immediate effect on prices even if the supply isn't increased.

could cause*

The fact that US oil would not enter the global market is a good thing. It would only be available to the the US. The amount drilled would probably not have an impact on the global market but on the US needs it would make a difference.
I read an article months ago in Forbes saying that we should drill in the US to free our domestic dependence on oil which will sustain us for a time. In the meantime we work on other sustainable energy and wean ourselves off the oil eventually.
But we need to stop foreign dependence, obviously, and find alternative solutions. Domestic drilling will help achieve that. Are we facing any alternative solutions that are available instantly? I don't see anything replacing the gas pumps outside.
Even if it takes 10 years we are always gong to need some form of oil. We are never going to be free of it completely, IMO.

Cab and redegg I was thinking the same things.

That I don't think too many people actually think that this will be a fast process, it will take time to get the oil into our pumps.
And that if we do this it could cause the prices to come down a bit if the "competition" knows that we are now doing something about helping ourselves - working on getting and using our own oil.

and I agree too that while yes other alternatives should be explored and will hopefully be used one day, there will always be some need for oil, I don't think we'll ever be completely free from using it.

I think the bottom line is that no one believes this will solve the problem, but there's no reason it can't be part of the bigger picture solution.

Hmmmm....

"Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court," Bush said after signing a memorandum reversing a presidential ban that was instituted by his father, then-President George Bush, almost two decades ago. "The time for action is now."

Reuters, By Jeremy Pelofsky and Tom Doggett

From the same article:

Environmentalists said more drilling would not end U.S. dependence on oil or cut gasoline prices.

"Calls for more drilling will only increase the already record profits of big oil and will do little to reduce the costs of gas at the pump," said Larry Schweiger president and chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation.

The presidential offshore drilling ban was instituted in 1990, was later extended by President Bill Clinton and was set to expire in June 2012. Most offshore drilling is allowed in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, but not Florida.

"The president cruelly is misleading Americans for attempted political gain," said Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat. "He knows ruining our coastlines won't bring down gasoline prices nor solve our energy challenges."

Hmmm...an environmentalist and a Florida democrat.

I'm sure an environmentalist would have no other motivation for opposing drilling.

lilkimbo, I see where you are going with your logic, it does make sense that if the demand for foreign oil goes down, the world market price for oil may also drop (or we will be using less of our resources on it, anyway!) I wonder about how rising economies such as India's and China's are affecting this as well. I am really on the fence on this issue, because I can see the arguments on both sides. My real fear is that if Congress overturns the ban, it will become "business as usual" until the next crisis...I wish I could see some clear action by our leaders towards lessoning our oil addiction and putting in motion a plan to develop alternative energy sources!

*lessening, not lessoning! UGH!

I'm with you, Martini. I agree with overturning the ban. However, I would like to see it coupled with a real commitment to alternate forms of energy, as well.

redegg, there isn't enough oil to sustain us. The amount they want to go after in offshore drilling is very, very small in comparison to our usage.

Even McCain, when confronted with the fact that offshore drilling would not lower gas prices said it would have "a psychological effect."

Even McCain admits that it would not lower out gas prices.

McCain admits that it would not immediately lower gas prices.

Immediately being the key word.

"on this issue, because I can see the arguments on both sides. My real fear is that if Congress overturns the ban, it will become "business as usual" until the next crisis"

That I can def. understand!

"The amount they want to go after in offshore drilling is very, very small in comparison to our usage."

Agreed. "if the most promising areas off Florida and California were opened for drilling, their peak production in a decade could be as little as 250,000 barrels a day - less than a quarter of what the Gulf produces now."

The President is right off shore drilling will increase domestic supply and allow us to keep more money here in the U.S. The end result may be what we all want however the side effects of the remedy seem to be overlooked because we can't take our eyes off the prize. America needs to take a moment of pause and think about the centuries of implications our actions today will have on future generations and the environment.

No one to date has explained why we can not receive the same relief from intense focused exploration into alternative energy. It has been explained very clearly how we can, but no one of authority who is in favor of new domestic oil exploration has stepped forward and said that we can not receive the same relief from alternative energy.

Our priorities should not lie in perpetuating a deep rooted problem that only comes back to haunt us time and time again. Through inadequate supply, pollution which causes decades of environmental damage, serious regional health implications and of course War. Our focus should engage our intellect in producing and implementing the elements of energy which are sustainable, cleaner, safer and release us from the shackles of a one element energy source. Here is where we will find salvation from this crisis.

The American people have a choice to make between salvation and relief. I suggest we choose wisely.

Hypno, why can't it be both?

Its necessary for us to drill, it will ultimately benefit US...not the global market, but US, and like lilkimbo said, it would bring down the overall cost since the demand wouldn't be as high...economics 101 people. It obviously won't solver our problem on its own, but it will help and bring relief whether its 10 years or 20 years. The point is that it WILL help, and thats the best, realistic, and feasible offer we have gotten so far. Like others said on the thread, if Clinton had started drilling 10 years ago, the mess that we are in right now wouldn't have been as bad.

There is a clear majority of Americans that want to start drilling, and they are right.

I agree, lilkim. I think it should be both.

LOL! I'm sorry lilkimbo reading your comment and looking at that avatar cracks me up.

Well it can be both and it can be one or the other. The question is which is the more wise choice. IMO there is no insurance policy great enough to cover the disaster of an oil spill along the Atlantic seaboard. Then we'll have decades of law suits by the very people who are for the domestic oil production suing the oil companies for property damage and health issues.

This is what I mean about perpetuating a problem, if you don't need to don't do it. Like I said if America just want's relief and “F” everyone else then hey let’s take our relief. If we want to break the shackles and get some real salvation from this recurring headache than let's do it for real.

Personally I'm on the F everyone team, but ya know...

I have heard from so many economists that it will not help even in 10 years, and the "best case scenerio" is a savings of 20 cents per gallon. However, the VAST increase in demand from China and India will still dwarf the tiny amount of oil that might be there, resulting in no benefit to US consumers.

The problem is that you have sources like Forbes which are probably invested in oil, and you have environmentalists who would do anything for nature. Finding an unbiased economic source of information is pretty hard these days, but from the sources I trust, it seems that it would not do any good.

F-ing everyone has got us where we are, why not try something different. Sure, it requires thinking about what we're doing and using and why, but is thinking and conserving really worse than killing people, crapping up the environment and lurching from crisis to crisis?

Jill, I never said there was enough oil here to sustain us. I said that it would make a difference while we looked for other alternatives to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil.

Having listened to McCain and Obama speak today, I am convinced that alternative fuels are decades away. So even if drilling and adding refineries (which we desparately need to do as well) only affect us in 7 years, that still helps us from then until the time when the "renewable" energy sources are developed enough to be finacially marketable.

"I said that it would make a difference while we looked for other alternatives" Sorry to pilfer redegg.

This I think is where some of the confusion lies. New alternative energy sources have already been found and some of them years ago. However, with out emphasis to produce on a mass scale it leaves the general public with an impression that they are still in a prototype phase. Also through mass production designers will be able to better the technology with each succeeding design generation. There is no reason other than our allegiance to oil not to do this.

A lot of you don't realize what this could do to our economy over time however. Envoking the words of pretty much the FATHER of economics, Adam Smith, Economics is a system based on failure. We have FAILED globally and nationally in the oil market several times but yet the government as well as foreign governments believe we can just bail ourselves out. Economics 101 blondie, is that there is a natural price and a market price. The market price takes into account 3 things, labor, rent and demand. Just because supply and demand falls below natural price because there's more to go around does not mean the cycle won't go back up. And in the oil market this is a badddd thing because we don't have an unlimited supply. Supply and demand cannot infinitely work for the oil market. Demand will continue to rise as we lose more and more Granted yes i agree we cannot 100% ween ourself off of oil, we do need it for most things, like plastics but especially in terms of gasoline we are using it up a lot faster than we should. Drilling more is not going to help our cause. The effects are intirely TOO long term and the global market is an important factor because it effects us all ESPECIALLY our economy. We should be exploring what we have already and the amount we get from drilling off shore will benefit us for about 5 years then we're back here once again. Also, to give an example of what this is like, it's much like the housing crisis. The government believes if it gives us checks and bails out banks it's solving our problems BUT ITS NOT! you're only hurting the failure/redemption system of basic economics. Let's envoke Tocqueville for a second here. Centralizing the oil market based on goverment bail outs is NOT a good idea. It CANT HELP FOREVER. The government has no power over our oil markets anyway. only big oil does. We need to be serous about our dependence on oil. It's only gettin worse. We need to begin to get more serious about alternative fuels individually as well as nationally. Let's not make our number 1 pollutor status any worse.

When this offshore oil reaches the market, the peak oil production in the Middle East will be declining. Anything found off shore will not offset those missing reserves, it will be like pouring a bucket of water into the Mississippi River. This has more to do with oil company long term strategies in selling to China and India, as they emerge as industrial consumers, than in easing US domestic prices.