Hyperventilating Over Oil

(This just in... Obama says he would discuss a pragmatic approach to offshore drilling as part of a pragmatic over-arching energy policy -
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.")

Why are people hyperventilating over broaching the topic of off shore drilling? The only thing that anyone has actually said is that if supply issues are contributing to the problem then let's talk about possibly increasing supply with exploitation in locations previously off limits. What's wrong with asking the question? It is a completely reasonable question to ask and Democrats and liberals are doing everything they can to stop people from trying to answer it in any pragmatic manner. If insufficient supply is part of the problem how does increasing supply not help? Will it solve all of our problems and make them all go away? Of course not. Only Democrats seem to think that this is the claim - or at least that since it won't solve everything we should not pursue it at all. But even if it is only 1 or 2 million barrels of additional oil, isn't that better than no additional barrels of oil? Does drilling for more oil preclude us from exploiting other solutions for our energy problems? No it doesn't. Except that Democrats seem to think it will. They say we should pursue conservation and alternate energy instead. Instead? Why not AND? And how is the fact that new drilling won't produce oil for many years an argument not to drill? Isn't that what investment is all about - expenditure today for future payoff? Democrats give any number of similar illogical arguments to not drill, which if true, then no wells would ever have been drilled in the first place. We would also never build bridges, or dams, or highways or any other large construction efforts as these don't show results until many years in the future. Yet, not surprisingly, many people actually understand that the reality is that quite often you must begin work today so that the benefit can be realized at a future date and that there is value to this. And that being the case, if it is indeed true that exploration and drilling today will not produce results for many years, isn't that in fact an argument to start now rather than delay and push realization of results even further into the future??? Oh yeah, Democrats don't seem to understand investing today for future payoff.

Some people have simply raised the question for discussion and Democrats have immediately started hyperventilating as if the drills had already started. The thing is some people want the debate in order to achieve rational, fully informed energy policy but Democrats are doing everything to prevent that. (hmm... wasn't it Democrats that were lambasting Republicans for having the audacity to quash debate on other topics? And now Democrats are doing exactly that which had them outraged at Republicans.) The same is true of nuclear energy. Let's start the justified discussion on merits. But instead Democrats immediately start hyperventilating as if atoms are already smashing. How dare anyone have the audacity to even broach the idea of nuclear energy. (Except that even uber-liberal France seems to grasp the pragmatism of nuclear energy. While hard to pin down it seems about 78% of electricity in France is nuclear generated). Ooh nuclear, evil bad, hiss - better we should all suffer carbon emissions and global warming than bury nuclear waste in some desolate uninhabited desert.

And as for the strategic reserve, the intent with that is for a rainy day when we have REAL problems. Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats don't believe in saving for a rainy day as the prospect of any future calamity is only hypothetical. If we tap our reserves today and then something happens like Israel strikes Iran, don't you think we'll then regret having tapped the reserves for something as frivolous as prices rather than keeping the strategic reserves for STRATEGIC purposes? Oh yeah, Democrats only live for today and tomorrow is only hypothetical and consequences tomorrow for actions today be damned. (In Democratically controlled California, we never seem to be able to save in times of plenty in order to have reserves in times of lean - no matter how much surplus revenue we ever have we always end up broke and unable to get a budget out on time. When our lakes and reservoirs are full that's always taken as green light to build more houses seemingly thinking that quantity of water will last forever and ignoring the fact that the lakes and reservoirs are not always full as is the case this year). And speaking of strategic issues, that drop of oil in the bucket from new drilling would take on a whole new degree of significance if something majorly unfortunate happened in the Middle East and our bucket got reduced to a tea cup.

And there are the claims that the proposed drilling would not be economically effective. Isn't that a decision or the oil companies? If they decide it doesn't make business sense they simply don't have to drill. This is like not asking the hot girl out because you decide she would not accept. Shouldn't it be her choice? It is a unilateral decision assuming a second party choice not necessarily in evidence. And like the hot girl, if she declines, then you know for certain one way or another and it's that much easier to move on. And if the outcome is ultimately that the oil companies decide it doesn't make business sense, then what is the harm in having the discussion and letting the oil companies decide for themselves rather than making that decision for them?

The problem is specious and nonsequitur "reasoning" for not drilling that are supposed to somehow be reasons to not even have honest discussion. No it doesn't solve the whole problem but that does not mean it is of no help or no use. No it won't provide oil today but maybe we should start now to make it available tomorrow. What we need is real debate based on real merit and not the false logic and hyperbole expressed by BOTH sides. If we really (and honestly) want more independence from foreign oil shouldn't we honestly be talking about ALL options including conservation and alternate energy AS WELL AS increased domestic oil supply and nuclear? None will single-handedly solve our problems - not even conservation or alternate energy - but they are ALL key components to a COMPLETE, rational, and pragmatic energy policy and none should be off limits to discussion simply because of ideology. Ideology and hyperbole is not the place to start to achieve such policy.