Offshore Drilling a Potent Issue for McCain

[doctorj]

People are dying in developing countries for lack of food while those in developed countries try to figure out if we should drill for more oil or not.

All the more reason that each of us should reduce our expenditure, reduce our waste of food (52% of waste is food in USA and Australia), reduce our use of oil, and give as we have never given to those starving.

As to whether we should drill for oil that is not a lot to do with the way we should be living. However, I do not support drilling for more oil. The fact is that drilling for more oil will not reduce the price of oil in the short term, or in fact for the long term. There is so much pressure on prices from markets that are starting to use automobiles like we do in the developed countries of the world.

But this has got little to do with the way we should as Christians live. Apart from the fact that if we had more to give to the developing nations and delivered through a method that waste is reduced, drilling for oil is a separate subject but one which should be addressed from our concerns of the way the planet is being used.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The fact is that drilling for more oil will not reduce the price of oil in the short term, or in fact for the long term.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Many economists disagree and strongly believe drilling will reduce the price of oil in the short term and the long term. The US is one of the few places on the planet that is restricting drilling.

Quote:

All the more reason that each of us should reduce our expenditure, reduce our waste of food... reduce our use of oil, and give as we have never given to those starving.

We reduce our expenditure we will slow down the economy and unemployment will result. "We" should reduce our use of oil but "we" are never going to stop heating and air conditioning our homes. "We" are not going to demand our supermarkets, shopping malls, schools and hospitals shut off the A/C or turn down the heat. "We" are not going to stop driving cars and take the bus. That is simply not reality. Individual members of society may make these commendable efforts but society as a whole will not.

Looking at reality for what it is, the answer is to drill for more oil, start coal-to-oil production, build more nuclear power plants and use the increase tax revenues from these industries to fund alternative energy sources. Laws should be passed that ban the manufacture of personal automobiles that use petroleum as the principle power source by the year 2025.

[doctorj]

Looking at reality for what it is, the answer is to drill for more oil, start coal-to-oil production, build more nuclear power plants and use the increase tax revenues from these industries to fund alternative energy sources. Laws should be passed that ban the manufacture of personal automobiles that use petroleum as the principle power source by the year 2025.

The reality here in Sydney, Australia is that the price of fuel has hit people hard in their hip pockets. Fewer people are driving to work and loads more people are using public transport. So much so that the State Government has had to put on extra trains, more buses, and have instituted long-bendy buses.

Those people who still use their cars re finding it easier to drive to work because of fewer cars on the road. There are still pockets of traffic that gets snarled each morning, but fewer incidents of these snarls are occurring.

BUT now why recommend that laws should be passed banning automobiles that use petroleum so far out? Why 2025? What about banning them by 2010 -- the technology is already there, why wait? Honda already has a hydrogen car! Why not gear up for mass production by 2010?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Why not gear up for mass production by 2010?

That would pretty much put a stop to the automobile industry because it would increase the cost of a car astronomically. The cost to the factories to switch over has to be passed on to the consumer. If manufacturers are given 15 years to switch over the cost will be passed on to the consumers little by little so the consumer will hardly notice. If the entire cost has to be passed on in two years the cost of a car may double which means people will simply hang onto their gasoline cars longer.

We didn't get into this problem in two years and we are not going to get out of it in two years either. It is great that people are using mass transit in Australia. The mass transit system in many parts of America is so poor it is not a realistic option for most people not living in a very large metropolitan area like New York or Los Angeles.

[carolaa]

Someone told me they saw a news report that Houston is having trouble keeping up with the sudden rush of people wanting to use mass transit (buses).

[doctorj]

Someone told me they saw a news report that Houston is having trouble keeping up with the sudden rush of people wanting to use mass transit (buses).

Don't know about Houston but New York is seeing less traffic on the roads and larger numbers using mass transit.

[Bravus]

Yeah - definitely a pity we didn't start gearing up in the 70s: we'd have had 30 years to switch over and avoid the problem. Of course, hindsight is 20/20... but the lesson to be learned is to start now so we're not regretting in even more in another 30 years.

[Bravus]

Honda's hydrogen car is no solution at all, because all it does it move the energy production from one location (inside the car engine) to another location (a hydrogen production plant somewhere). The energy still has to be generated, and since in Australia we have no nuclear power and only a little hydroelectricity, it would still be generated using fossil fuels. It doesn't change the situation at all. (And, knowing the laws of thermodynamics, making the power elsewhere and transporting it will actually lead to reduced efficiency and more energy loss.)

We need new sources of energy - wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean-thermal and, yes, fission nuclear until we get fusion nuclear working.

[doctorj]

Honda's hydrogen car is no solution at all, because all it does it move the energy production from one location (inside the car engine) to another location (a hydrogen production plant somewhere). The energy still has to be generated, and since in Australia we have no nuclear power and only a little hydroelectricity, it would still be generated using fossil fuels. It doesn't change the situation at all. (And, knowing the laws of thermodynamics, making the power elsewhere and transporting it will actually lead to reduced efficiency and more energy loss.)

We need new sources of energy - wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, geothermal, ocean-thermal and, yes, fission nuclear until we get fusion nuclear working.

Yes we do need new sources of energy but I think the Hydrogen car is a little better for the environment. By the way, hydrogen is produced at the service station from water. So there is no transportation of fuel as is now.

[Bravus]

The only way to produce hydrogen from water is using energy - more energy than is returned when the hydrogen reacts in the fuel cell in the car to produce water and energy. So again, if the production of hydrogen at the service station is powered by solar energy, great, but if it's just using electricity from the grid then it's really generated using coal, and we're no better off from a greenhouse perspective. I guess there are more reserves of coal than oil, so from a resource scarcity perspective we'd be better off.

[doctorj]

Back to the topic: so is McCain going to support more drilling? And if he does what are the implications?

[Dr. Shane]

McCain has supported the off-sore drilling ban and has been opposed to drilling in ANWR. Recently he has been changing his position on that due to our present circumstances. The vast majority of Americans now support drilling off shore so this could be a winning issue for him.

[doctorj]

The vast majority of Americans now support drilling off shore so this could be a winning issue for him.

How do we know that the vast majority of Americans support drilling off-shore? Is there a poll on this subject, or other support for this statement?

[John317]

Yes, the vast majority of Americans, possibly as high as 73%, are in support of off-shore drilling for oil. Obama is out of touch with America on this one. But whether it will hurt Obama in the long run is yet to be seen. I believe it will hurt him only if he continues to oppose it strongly.

See the following:

http://americantruckersatwar.com/2008/06/24/73-of-americans-support-offshore-drilling/

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/05/news/economy/oil_drilling.ap/

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/...shore-drilling/

[John317]

By the way, FoxNews has talked about American support of off-shore drilling. I heard nothing about it on CNN, although it is possible that they also have mentioned it before. There is a good reason why more Americans watch FoxNews and for more hours than watch CNN. I watch both and I used to prefer CNN by far, but now I pefer Fox.

Notice the following on who is watching what. From LA Times, no friend of FoxNews:

Fox News back on top in second quarter of 2008

02:50 PM PT, Jun 26 2008

NEW YORK — Fox News is poised to reclaim the title of the most-watched cable news network in the key advertising demographic in the second quarter of 2008.

The cable channel attracted the most 25- to 54-year-old viewers in prime-time this quarter, according to preliminary Nielsen Media Research data, drawing an average of 346,000 in that age group through Tuesday.

CNN, which was buoyed to first place last quarter by the presidential primaries, is back in second place with an average of 301,000 viewers in the demographic most sought after by advertisers. MSNBC is in third with 269,000. (Final numbers will be available next week.)

CNN’s win in the key demographic in the first quarter of 2008 marked the first such victory for the cable news network in more than six years, and its success with political coverage animated executives.

Bill Shine, Fox News’ senior vice president for programming, said his network regained the top spot in the second quarter because “we do better television than anybody else.”

“In the first quarter, CNN benefited from an intense Democratic race, but I think in the second quarter, after they spent millions and millions on sets and talent and graphics, it wasn’t enough for them,” he said.

Still, CNN’s viewership in the second quarter was up 24% in the key demographic, compared with the same period last year, while Fox News was down 1%. MSNBC’s audience was also up, spiking 46% year-to-year.

“The facts say it all: CNN is up 24% in prime-time, while Fox is down,” said CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson, who added that the network did not build new sets for its political coverage. “The trends are clearly in our favor.”

Fox News rejected the characterization that its audience was eroding, noting that its viewership was essentially flat.

“The only current trend is CNN losing their momentum and battling MSNBC for second place,” Shine said.

Overall, Fox News continues to pull in the largest cable news audience, drawing an average of 1.6 million prime-time viewers so far this quarter. CNN is in second with 977,000, while MSNBC pulled in 690,000.

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/06/fox-news-back-o.html

[Woody]

Sounds like a news channel that can be trusted ....

[doctorj]

What I don't like about FoxNews is its questionable night-time (USA time -- Australian day-time) coverage of the news. Red Eye or whatever it is called is so laced with sexual innuendos it is not funny. Whereas CNN has good coverage during our various time slots from running a program out of Hong Kong, and then later in the day from London and then later and early nighttime from Atlanta. Fox seems to have nothing more than slot fillers during our daytime (after mid-day our time).

[Jeannieb43]

What I don't like about FoxNews is its questionable night-time (USA time -- Australian day-time) coverage of the news. Red Eye or whatever it is called is so laced with sexual innuendos it is not funny. Whereas CNN has good coverage during our various time slots from running a program out of Hong Kong, and then later in the day from London and then later and early nighttime from Atlanta. Fox seems to have nothing more than slot fillers during our daytime (after mid-day our time).

"Fair and balanced" it's not--regardless of the hour of the day.

[Woody]

At least some of those ON Fox News are 'fair'.

Even Neil would have to admit to that.

[Dr. Shane]

Fair and balanced means they give equal time to both sides. That is not talking about the hosts. They hire hosts that get ratings. However most of their hosts do give both sides a voice. In their straight news coverage they are pretty much fair and balanced as far as giving time to both sides.

[doctorj]

Fair and balanced means they give equal time to both sides. That is not talking about the hosts. They hire hosts that get ratings. However most of their hosts do give both sides a voice. In their straight news coverage they are pretty much fair and balanced as far as giving time to both sides.

That may be the case, but what I am talking about is the programmes that air USA time late at night (or early morning), in our case late afternoon. It is called Red Eye and is laced with sexual innuendos and bad taste jokes. I would watch more Fox News if it was not for this poor taste program.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't watch programs at that hour but it is not hard for me to believe. The Fox TV network has some of the most objectionable programming on the public airwaves here in the US. As a business model, my hat is off to them. Everyone said a fourth network would never make it in the US and Fox proved everyone wrong.

[doctorj]

Yes, the vast majority of Americans, possibly as high as 73%, are in support of off-shore drilling for oil. Obama is out of touch with America on this one. But whether it will hurt Obama in the long run is yet to be seen. I believe it will hurt him only if he continues to oppose it strongly.

The population of America might want more drilling, particularly off-shore, but does America need more drilling to take place.

America's demand for fuel is decreasing and not increasing. It is the developing nations such as China and India that have a rampant demand for fuel. Why should the US produce more? Most likely the USA wants to be less dependent on Middle East oil, that is perhaps one reason to do more drilling in the US I suppose.

BUT honestly, the US would be better to put some of that investment in more drilling to put in infrastructure for alternative fuels.

[John317]

Yes, I agree in principle that the US needs to work on long-term solutions such as nuclear power and other alternative energy sources. We need to become independent of the middle east.

It would be good, in my opinion, if we made cars that use other sources besides gas-- such as compressed air (see thread regarding this). The air-car, even though it may not be ready for the American market, is certainly at the very least an interesting beginning to finding solutions.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Fair and balanced means they give equal time to both sides. That is not talking about the hosts. They hire hosts that get ratings. However most of their hosts do give both sides a voice. In their straight news coverage they are pretty much fair and balanced as far as giving time to both sides.

That may be the case, but what I am talking about is the programmes that air USA time late at night (or early morning), in our case late afternoon. It is called Red Eye and is laced with sexual innuendos and bad taste jokes. I would watch more Fox News if it was not for this poor taste program.

Again, I agree with you. I don't watch much FoxNews at that time, and for the reason you give. I don't like their "Red Eye," but I know a lot of Americans do like it. I guess the thinking is that late at night, the viewers prefer more entertainment and less straight, heavy news. These people probably used to watch Johnny Carson late at night.