tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post9171563939922947976..comments2023-07-20T02:54:39.833-06:00Comments on lybberty.com: Re: Drilling, A Few Points of ClarificationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-74513375097637442382008-06-24T13:17:00.000-06:002008-06-24T13:17:00.000-06:00My mistake, Matt. If I knew you better I would hav...My mistake, Matt. If I knew you better I would have known you were being sarcastic. Well said. But, my comments remain for those who would believe something similar.Ryan Deckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060713323484397524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-17444811461507770882008-06-23T22:55:00.000-06:002008-06-23T22:55:00.000-06:00rd,I read your blog regularly and enjoy it. You st...rd,<BR/><BR/>I read your blog regularly and enjoy it. <BR/><BR/>You state that the solution is not more oil but less and I agree. That is the sole reason why I made the comparison between JFK's definitive goal of reaching the moon within the decade and my desire for a leader to put an equivalent goal relating to our oil independence from not only the middle-east but most importantly independence from ourselves. <BR/><BR/>In regards to if I think Iraq is a "possession." The paragraph of which you refer was stated with a tip of sarcasm and I was actually surprised that you dedicated 3+ paragraphs to it. Iraq is not the answer to anything let alone oil. It is a SNAFU but it would be nice to place America first on the contract list which has proven not the case of late. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Matt B.Matt Berryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03196875648353901288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-17253374513663867462008-06-23T15:48:00.000-06:002008-06-23T15:48:00.000-06:00Matt,Are you arguing that the oil under Iraq belon...Matt,<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that the oil under Iraq belongs to the United States? I didn't know that the invasion of Iraq was an imperial conquest to increase our empire's possessions and use its resources. I was under the impression that the oil in Iraq belonged to the Iraqis. Now, if they had invited us to come to Iraq and spend our "blood and treasure", then perhaps we could demand some sort of payment. But, since we went there uninvited, I don't understand why you think they have to give us their oil.<BR/><BR/>We must buy Iraq's oil like anyone else. And we're in the process of doing that. Last week <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Iraqi+oil&st=nyt&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow">the Times reported</A> that American oil companies are working on the beginnings of oil concessions in Iraq. But this is a long process - not as simple as talk shows would like you to think (much like ANWR and shale oil).<BR/><BR/>That said, if you think getting oil from Iraq will be sufficient to solve our energy problems, you suffer from the same myopia as the <B>drill fetishists</B> (great word, Jake). Iraq currently produces about 2.5 million barrels per day; it could get up to 3 during the next few years. While this is nearly 3 times what the magical ANWR can produce, it is still not sufficient to quench America's 20 million barrels per day thirst for oil.<BR/><BR/>I may be confused - you seem to think that Iraq is a US possession - but I think Iraq is actually an independent, <I>foreign</I> country. As such, importing Iraqi oil will do nothing to fix our dependence on <I>foreign</I> oil, will it?<BR/><BR/>Add together the two solutions proposed on this page - more drilling in the US and free oil from Iraq - and you get a max of 5 million barrels per day, probably not fully available for 10 to 20 years, to address America's 12+ million barrel deficit (which will be larger in 10 to 20 years, won't it?). <BR/><BR/>The solution is not more oil; it's less.Ryan Deckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060713323484397524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-54624652869430796502008-06-23T13:16:00.000-06:002008-06-23T13:16:00.000-06:00The national charge for energy solutions has not b...The national charge for energy solutions has not been heard. And I believe the biggest reason it hasn't is due to the rhetoric harbored in these posts; where anyone who doesn't support dependence on oil is made out to be a communist flag burner.<BR/><BR/>The rhetoric has got to stop and a solution must be found. And not in the form of more oil, just so we can face more of this same nonsense in 5, 10, or even 50 years down the road.<BR/><BR/>Even if we drilled tomorrow, and there was in fact oil in the numbers we need (still unclear), the soonest we'd get any of it hitting our supply would be 5 years. Apparently you aren't a real American if you need relief sooner than half a decade out for $400 a month for gas (which is what MY SUV takes). This relief would come in the form of beefed up public transportation, more bike friendly local communities, and a comprehensive plan to rid us of oil dependence--and all of this subsidized through tax incentives (etc). But the idea of turning someone's desire to minimize what amounts to an outrageous monthly expenditure (one that currently exceeds what I pay in rent per month) is way out of line, and completely counterproductive to the health of this nation. Anyone telling someone who pays their own bills to basically 'hold the phone' for five years is also entirely out of touch with the concerns of real people in this country. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the charge for more drilling has been spearheaded by an administration whose vice president has had repeated closed door meetings with oil executives in violation of the moral integrity of our entire form of governance. So is anyone surprised that, as the populous finds market stimulus to look elsewhere for their energy needs so that they can keep paying their bills on time, this oil administration is telling us that solution is (surprise!) MORE oil? And true to form, they've made this charge by questioning peoples patriotism all the while.BThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267406311477974023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-23233715688195325602008-06-23T13:03:00.000-06:002008-06-23T13:03:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.BThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05267406311477974023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-79996326251330218492008-06-23T12:48:00.000-06:002008-06-23T12:48:00.000-06:00Again, I would like someone (Lybberty or Pendulum)...Again, I would like someone (Lybberty or Pendulum) to give me a non-predictable, indefensible, non-partisan, and completely rational explanation for as to why no one is considering/demanding Iraqi oil as short-term or long-term solution to $4 and beyond gas prices. By my calculations from the blood and treasure we have spent in Iraq it should cost me about $9 to fill up my gas-guzzling SUV. <BR/><BR/>On May 25, 1961 John F. Kennedy responded to the launch of the Russian Sputnik by stating; "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The goal was definite and unequivocal. Why is it so difficult for a President, politician, Congressman, Senator, to make such a distinguished goal relating to our oil independence not only from the Middle-East but more importantly from ourselves?? <BR/><BR/>Matt B.Matt Berryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03196875648353901288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-51976098826387417192008-06-23T08:30:00.000-06:002008-06-23T08:30:00.000-06:00Earth Day, Jake's arguments are "poorly reasoned" ...Earth Day, Jake's arguments are "poorly reasoned" because he has no defense for them. I asked in the last post what benefit we get from drilling besides an election issue; instead of doing some research and providing an answer, Jake stuck to his opinion and employed a series of straw man arguments. Drilling is not a short-term solution or a long-term solution; drilling is no solution (Jake says he has reason to believe it is a long-term solution; what reasons?). Rather than being a solution, drilling is just another Republican <B>fetish</B>, just like supply-side fetishes, military buildup fetishes, anti-Europe fetishes, talk show fetishes, abortion fetishes, and the rest.<BR/><BR/>This is what we're getting used to from this blog. On any issue, get your information from conservative talk shows; find one person in the intellectual community who agrees with you; cite that person as the prime authority on the subject (in this case Lomborg, who is actually a journalist, not an academic), label anyone who disagrees as a tree-hugging communist liberal, and pretend you've made an argument. Adopt every Republican <B>fetish</B> regardless of its social or economic merit.If you ever actually disagree with Republicans, it's because they are being too liberal (which naturally leads to communism).<BR/><BR/>For discussion of this issue without predictable, indefensible partisan irrationality, visit <A HREF="http://pendulumpolitics.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">pendulum politics</A>.Ryan Deckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060713323484397524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-57086020313103215832008-06-23T00:04:00.000-06:002008-06-23T00:04:00.000-06:00Fetishist. Revealing choice of words. Is someone...Fetishist. Revealing choice of words. Is someone showing a little repressed sexuality in those tightly fastened conservative pants? <BR/><BR/>Frankly, the latest writing has been drivel, likely induced by a long drive and hours of talk radio. In addition to the poorly reasoned argument, the intentionally offensive language also dumbs the debate down. What about the gun fetishists? Or the anti-gun fetishists? Or the Christ fetishists? Or the tax-and-spend fetishists? Or the military conflict fetishists? <BR/><BR/>I guess I'm a crappy-blog fetishist, because I keep coming back to Lybberty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17475707.post-5448557453899337632008-06-22T20:52:00.000-06:002008-06-22T20:52:00.000-06:00Great post.I have certainly never advocated a comm...Great post.<BR/><BR/>I have certainly never advocated a command-and-control solution to alternative energy. in fact, I don't think anyone who comments on this blog has. Rather, the government should seek to use market power to develop it. Friedman's gas tax idea (and related plans) does just that: it incentivizes alternative energy R&D in the private sector. By reducing demand for oil, we (1) gain leverage over OPEC, and (2) create incentives for the private sector to develop better solutions. This is the great thing about markets, but those on the far right often act as if there are only two choices - laissez-faire and command economy. This creates some very superficial dialog.<BR/><BR/>All the drilling you advocate will not fix our dependence problem; rather, it will prolong the problem. Because America consumes three times what it produces, those who control marginal supply get to determine prices. Drilling more will not fix that problem. Rather, it will divert the private sector from real solutions. Indeed, while you say you want drilling as part of a comprehensive solution, what the current discussion of drilling will do is <I>prevent</I> a comprehensive solution. To avoid this prevention, we must wait to drill until it actually <I>is</I> part of a comprehensive solution. When a Republican or Democrat proposes such a solution, I am all for the drilling. But I don't have that much confidence in either party.<BR/><BR/>You are absolutely right about nuclear power. Opposition to it is archaic at this point. It must be part of any comprehensive solution. Ethanol is also a debacle, but this is a straw man argument; you act as if everyone who has ever liked the environment supported ethanol. You are right, however, to point out that government subsidies are certainly not the answer.<BR/><BR/>You often make your right-wing arguments by comparing them to far left-wing arguments, calling the left ones stupid, then presenting yours as the only remaining option. There is a lot of ground in the center that you are ignoring. This is unfortunate, and it simply represents the typical false dichotomy in American political dialog. This is the problem when we do our thinking based on what our party thinks, rather than choosing what party to side with based on our own thinking.Ryan Deckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03060713323484397524noreply@blogger.com