Larry Gude
Strung Out
Maynard...
...let's look at this strictly from the oil companies perspective for just minute, shall we?
If fossil fuels are a finite resource in terms of being the primary source of energy for human consumption wouldn't you expect to see oil companies starting to seriously position themselves for whatever the future of energy is going to be when oil no longer is available in sufficient quantities?
If a person hated the oil companies, wouldn't it be in the interest of that person to support getting to the end of oil as soon as possible and thus force the oil companies to no longer be in oil but also forced into something better than fossil fuels?
Following that thought process, wouldn't you not care who got the tax breaks or other incentives just as long as the desire to be getting off fossil fuels was being achieved? I think it is only obvious that energy companies are gonna stay in energy, whatever the source.
Now, from your viewpoint (as I see it) I am arguing that current leftist policies (leave oil in the ground) on domestic energy production are at odds with the stated goals of alternative energy sources and that if alternative sources really are the goal, then could you have any better friends than the oil companies?
We know that energy demand, whatever the source, is a given. You agree, yes? Therefore leftist policies that weaken domestic production force the demand to be met from foreign sources which tend to be rather unstable and vulnerable (Venezuela and the Middle east come quickly to mind) thereby causing unrest and fear at home. Leftists say “no blood for oil” and “no domestic drilling”; two goals that are entirely at odds with one another given energy demands and the current fact that plentiful oil makes it #1 for at least the near term, especially if it’s use is extended through conservation policies that delay the need to find alternatives. With me so far?
This has lead, if not directly, then rather substantially to the election of two figures, Reagan and W, because of foreign energy concerns, that you probably don't like. Yet, the left supports policies that, as much as anything else, ensured their election.
Had the left supported, through Jimmy Carters Presidency, aggressive use of domestic resources instead of putting on sweaters, turning down the thermostat and trying to get the Middle east pacified, then the fears of the Middle East (especially Iran) would have likely been allayed and Carter re-elected. Domestic oil production would have boomed the economy in terms of jobs and all those oil profits staying here instead of going abroad.
Had Clinton made Iraq settle into a profitable and stable regime of inspections and the attendant rewards of increased oil production sold to the world for good behavior (fairly clean inspections) blessed by the US, then the energy cost eruption initiated by oil concerns in the Middle East starting in Clintons last year may not have happened and that damn sure would have been worth a few more votes to Gore.
I never fully understand the “no blood for oil” and “no drilling” dichotomy on the left and what I do understand sometimes seems to me that the only consistent conspiracy is one in which the leaders of the left continually hand power over to the right simply by doing dumb things about a major issue that they could dominate.
Thoughts?
...let's look at this strictly from the oil companies perspective for just minute, shall we?
If fossil fuels are a finite resource in terms of being the primary source of energy for human consumption wouldn't you expect to see oil companies starting to seriously position themselves for whatever the future of energy is going to be when oil no longer is available in sufficient quantities?
If a person hated the oil companies, wouldn't it be in the interest of that person to support getting to the end of oil as soon as possible and thus force the oil companies to no longer be in oil but also forced into something better than fossil fuels?
Following that thought process, wouldn't you not care who got the tax breaks or other incentives just as long as the desire to be getting off fossil fuels was being achieved? I think it is only obvious that energy companies are gonna stay in energy, whatever the source.
Now, from your viewpoint (as I see it) I am arguing that current leftist policies (leave oil in the ground) on domestic energy production are at odds with the stated goals of alternative energy sources and that if alternative sources really are the goal, then could you have any better friends than the oil companies?
We know that energy demand, whatever the source, is a given. You agree, yes? Therefore leftist policies that weaken domestic production force the demand to be met from foreign sources which tend to be rather unstable and vulnerable (Venezuela and the Middle east come quickly to mind) thereby causing unrest and fear at home. Leftists say “no blood for oil” and “no domestic drilling”; two goals that are entirely at odds with one another given energy demands and the current fact that plentiful oil makes it #1 for at least the near term, especially if it’s use is extended through conservation policies that delay the need to find alternatives. With me so far?
This has lead, if not directly, then rather substantially to the election of two figures, Reagan and W, because of foreign energy concerns, that you probably don't like. Yet, the left supports policies that, as much as anything else, ensured their election.
Had the left supported, through Jimmy Carters Presidency, aggressive use of domestic resources instead of putting on sweaters, turning down the thermostat and trying to get the Middle east pacified, then the fears of the Middle East (especially Iran) would have likely been allayed and Carter re-elected. Domestic oil production would have boomed the economy in terms of jobs and all those oil profits staying here instead of going abroad.
Had Clinton made Iraq settle into a profitable and stable regime of inspections and the attendant rewards of increased oil production sold to the world for good behavior (fairly clean inspections) blessed by the US, then the energy cost eruption initiated by oil concerns in the Middle East starting in Clintons last year may not have happened and that damn sure would have been worth a few more votes to Gore.
I never fully understand the “no blood for oil” and “no drilling” dichotomy on the left and what I do understand sometimes seems to me that the only consistent conspiracy is one in which the leaders of the left continually hand power over to the right simply by doing dumb things about a major issue that they could dominate.
Thoughts?
