ANWR

We have a new, truly Doug worthy Loon, leaving a comment. He's even doing the "Obama socialist" thing on his own blog. It's pretty funny.. very Doug-esque.

Braden said...
I am going to play Devil's advocate here:

If the war in Iraq was about oil, then (1) why haven't we seen any of it, and (2) why hasn't the price at the pump gone down? Oh, and (3), Nancy Pelosi said she's bring the price down at the pump. I'm still waiting. ;)

So what is he liberal solution to energy independence? Allow me:

(1) Don't drill for oil
(2) Don't drill for gas
(3) Don't build new refineries
(4) Invest in gerbil power and biomass, burn our food, create food shortages in the process, and then sit back and blame the evil oil companies and then punish them, that's right, take away their profits so they all end up like GM.

Thanks to William Jefferson Clinton for vetoing a bill in 1995 which would of opened up ANWR to drilling. His reason? We wouldn't see the oil in 10-12 years time. Way to go Bill!

And thanks goes to the Democrats for voting to not open up ANWR recently.

There's your liberal "progress." There's your Democrat "change."

He asks some questions, then.. makes up "liberal" points of view, and argues against them. Again, very Doug-esque in it's straw man arguing style.

As to the questions;

1. why haven't we seen any of it?
Because the Iraqis and Americans are incompetent at restoring the infrastructure. Insurgent action makes it difficult as well. It's also not really in the Iraqis self-interest. We're giving them billions of US dollars, and not much incentive to get their oil production ramped up.

We were told, up front, that the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. It hasn't. In fact, it's cost us hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

2. why hasn't the price at the pump gone down?
That's a nonsensical question. Oil prices are set by market forces. If Iraqi oil was at peak production, supply would be higher and prices lower - marginally so. It's worth noting that our President is an oil man (in the sense that he ran a few oil companies into the ground), so it's not a surprise that prices have skyrocketed.

3. Nancy Pelosi said she's bring the price down at the pump. I'm still waiting. ;)
Every politician panders.. and everyone knows that Bush would veto any democratic legislation designed to lower oil prices.

The really amusing thing is that he's arguing against the the "war for oil" theme, while missing the point that it's not ME that's saying it was a war for oil. It's John McCain. He just jumped into "attack the liberal by creating straw man arguments" mode. In this case, his beef is with his nominee...

And then his straw man punching bag;

So what is he liberal solution to energy independence? Allow me:

(1) Don't drill for oil
(2) Don't drill for gas
(3) Don't build new refineries
(4) Invest in gerbil power and biomass,

I'm curious, because I've seen many conservatives now arguing in this manner. Would somebody care to answer the question - why do you do that? Is it because you are unable to argue against real liberal policies? Is it just easier to make everything up out of whole cloth? Is it because you are inherently dishonest?

I'm really curious why conservatives do that over and over again.

Nobody said, "don't drill for oil" - we said, not in an Alaskan wildlife refuge. However, assuming you did, it wouldn't amount to much in the big picture.

But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.

James Kendell, one of the authors of the study, said the refuge would add to domestic production, but “when you’re talking of a world oil market of over 75 million barrels a day, adding 900,000 barrels by 2025 is a drop in the bucket.”

There are other, more environmentally friendly places to drill. The current use of oil as an energy source can also be supplemented by expanded use of nuclear plants, as well as wind and solar power.

Ultimately, the spike in oil prices isn't a bad thing. It'll force people to be more aware of their fuel usage, and give an expanded motivation for public transit. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world with unusable public transit. It will also motivate the auto manufacturers to focus on fuel economy and alternative vehicles, such as hybrids.

Unfortunately, the "conservative" approach, such as advocated by Braden, is to simply drill for more oil. It must be lost on him that oil is a non-renewable resource and eventually, there will be none left. I suppose we could wait until then to work towards alternatives, but realistically, even drilling ANWAR wouldn't have much effect on the global supply of oil, nor will it affect fuel prices to any large measure.

We are held hostage to oil, that's the simple truth of it.. and as long as we are, the oil companies will reap record profits, and wars will be fought. Why is it, when Clinton vetoed drilling ANWR, and oil prices were stable, did they rocket 300% higher during the Bush administration? It certainly wasn't due to lack of drilling in ANWR. As the studies have shown, it's impact would be negligible.

Why is it that conservatives always point to ANWR as if it is the answer to all the problems? It's not. It's a very small piece in a much larger puzzle, but because some liberal groups (mostly environmental groups) oppose it, conservatives like to use it as a propaganda tool, without actually substantiating anything.

The only reason I posted this, though, was because of the way this new "conservative" to the blog framed his argument. It's the classic "conservative" method of "debate". He obviously intended for me to read it, and I wonder what he thought my reaction would be? Did he think I would be overwhelmed by the superior quality of his argument? Was he trying to further a propagandist point of view by somehow demonstrating the illogical "liberal" point of view? Was he simply trying to annoy me?

I just don't get why they argue against a point of view that nobody has, time after time after time.

I suppose I'd need to move up the food chain of conservative pundits to find one that argues policy, instead of just making it up as he goes.