Hemry Lamb in World Net Daily  over the weekend:
With gas prices now yon-side of $3.50 per gallon, wouldn’t it be great to have an extra million barrels of domestic oil flowing daily into the American pipeline? Blame William Jefferson Clinton, who vetoed a bill in 1995 that would have opened the Alaska reserves that could have been producing much-needed domestic energy today.
Blame the green environmental extremists who block every effort to expand domestic energy supply, whether in offshore oil reserves, expansion of clean coal production, or the construction of new nuclear energy facilities. It’s just plain dumb to allow the shortage of readily available energy to drive prices so high that the entire economy and food supply are in jeopardy.
Environmental extremists prefer to mandate the expanded use of ethanol, rather than using abundant oil supplies. This alternative produces less energy per gallon of fuel than gasoline, while driving the price of food upward, causing riots and forcing the cultivation of more land where wildlife can no longer flourish.
Environmental extremists wring their hands and cry crocodile tears at the thought of “ruining” the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge by using only 2,000 of the 18 million acres for oil production. But they seem to have no problems with the idea of covering millions of acres in the southwest with solar panels.
Environmental extremists celebrate their victory in banning DDT to save birds. But they have no problem with miles and miles of wind turbines that slaughter millions of birds every year. Nor do they seem to have any sympathy for the millions of people who have died from malaria as a direct result of the ban on DDT.
Big oil is not to blame for the high price of gasoline; the blame must fall squarely in the lap of the environmental extremists who use propaganda and fear-mongering to block the increases in the production of readily available fossil fuels. There are sufficient reserves of coal to last about 200 years. Despite Jimmy Carter’s 1970s declaration that the world would be out of oil by 2000, and considering the anticipated increase in demand, there are enough known oil reserves to last at least 60 years. This energy should be available now.
Of course, research should continue to find abundant, affordable energy supplies for the future. But forcing technology to advance by arbitrarily and unnecessarily prohibiting the use of currently available energy supplies makes no sense.
Exactly. It does make no sense, even under the highly questionable guise of environmentalism (I say ‘questionable”, because had Kyoto, for example, been signed and actually followed by all signatories, it would have resulted in no measurable difference in either air quality or in world-wide temperature. None. ) Yet they continue to doggedly pursue these seemingly misguided policies. Why?
Well, let’s look at ANWR, as an example.
Remember back in ’95 when Clinton vetoed ANWR? What was the stated reason? It wouldn’t help for 10 years, so why try? It’s now a few years past hat ten years. Think having 20% more oil in the market would have kept us from paying 4$/gal now? Think about what the Democrats have done to us when you fil up. Think about how much extra yo’re paying because of their nonsense. The stated reason for ethanol production subsidies was that we wanted to break the dependency on foreign oil. Yet despite having the oil right under our noses, we instead launch off on ethanol, causing world wide food shortages, and economic crisis.
Well, let’s imagine you’re Bill Clinton. You’re not only concerned about your legacy, you want to ensure a freindly political climate for Democrats in future election cycles… 2008 for example. You know that if you sign the ANWR dilling deal, you’ll be injecting a huge amount of oil into the market in ten years, You know that oil equals economic growth, and a lot of that will happen even before the pumping comes on line, as oil prices will be going down in advance of ANWR being a serious player in the actual delivery of the crude it contains. By 08, that oil will ahve been online for two years. Do you sign it, making the next two term president look good, or do you not sign it, collapsing the economy with the option of blaming that Republican president for the problem?
More than granted, that this is speculation, but it does fit rather nicely with what we know of the Clintons, and it also fits with the fact that they knew in eight years they’d need Republicans to look bad, because Hillary Clinton would be running. Does anyone not understand that the Clintons would easily be motivated to such an end?
That’s just one aspect of motivation. There are others. As ane example of these, let’s look at this from the standpoint of the whacko-left, who thinks the word “profit’ a dirty one, particularly where oil is concerned. I submit to you we are now seeing the results of their left-leaning.
Let’s do it this way:
- Had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995, our supply of available crude would be at least 20% higher than it is today. think that would have kept us from paying $4/gal today?
- That is one of several examples of our being prevented from dilling where the oil is. There are countless offshore examples, off California, and Florida.
- We have more crude oil available to us here in these not-so United States than is in the whole of the Middle East. However environmentalists make it their business to prevent us from getting to it. Mostly, this is political reasons.
- As a direct result of our environmentalist wing, we now have food shortages (Ethenol production) and an economy that is threatening to dive into the tank.
- If the world-wide left had wanted to ruin our economy, they could hardly have picked a better way to do it, than to limit our energy supply. The only way to limit our use of our own energy is ‘environmental;’ concerns.
Are you getting the picture, yet?
The solution list to these issues are rather simple.
1: Tell the greenies to sit down, and shut up, and then give them all the attention they deserve: Ignore them totally.
2: Drill, pump refine, and repeat.
And if I’m John McCain, I’m proposing ending all enthenol subsidies, ending the moritorium on domestic drilling, and saying that if president, the first thing I’d be doing is ordering ANWR opened up along with all offshore sites, eliminating the environmentalist red tape. (An apt name, “red tape”, given the politics..) and ordering the EPA back into it’s corner.
Mind you, I don’t think he’ll do it, beacuse simply put, he hasnt the stones. A real leader would, though. A national and world crisis has been caused by the enviro-whacko left. It’s time we responded as such.