The justification for expansion of oil drilling is too "inside baseball" for me

[CreekDog]

Maybe it has it's merits, and i'm sure there are some.

But if it's a coy play to score a political point, I don't really see why i have any obligation to like it or defend it when it's apparently so smart that it should be self-evidently defensible to begin with.

What i mean to say is that at long last i still have soul and it would have to die a little bit for me to come out defending the policy.

I can certainly see quiet skepticism as opposed to flat-out opposition in hopes there is some good to the policy. What I can't see is people who normally would oppose such a policy, swayed to its merits on the basis of some potential political points scored for our side and questionable environmental benefits that seem to mostly depend upon what kind of administration is in charge.

But the larger, more important point to me is that this decision and the reaction to it have shown me that at least for me, there is a line that I think I'm not willing to cross to be a team player. I've certainly tolerated policies I wasn't crazy about or didn't like for some greater purpose.

But when people post in favor of something that seems really counter to what we're about, even what they were about days before that idea, I think: well, I might put up with ideas like this, but I would lose myself if I started liking something I opposed so quickly and easily.

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Isn't the argument against offshore drilling rather NIMBYist?

At least for those who don't forego petroleum products?

[CreekDog]

2. look, if you want to spend a lot of effort coming up with arguments defending oil drilling

knock yourself out.

this place has always been mostly in favor of conservation.

[Cleobulus]

4. How does that make any sense?

Especially considering that whether we drill offshore or not, its not going to make a significant difference in either oil prices or lessen our importation of oil.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Well, some people are OK with oil drilling...

if it's being done in Canada, Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela. But apparently not off the coast of the U.S.

[Cleobulus]

7. That's not the point, oil companies aren't going to drill where it isn't economical...

and it will NOT make a difference to our domestic oil production, not enough to offset oil importation.

Look, I don't oppose Obama "permitting" oil companies to explore or drill offshore, because they won't do it now anyways, too expensive. This is done for political, not practical reasons, and using that as an argument makes sense. Any argument that is framed as if this were a solution to our energy problems is idiotic in the extreme.

[CreekDog]

8. Come on man, please don't lose all your scruples trying to win an argument

That is a total misrepresentation of the argument against "expansion" of offshore oil drilling.

And I'm pretty sure you know in your heart of hearts that it is.

See what I mean about losing your soul?

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. I thought the argument against expansion was that it's bad for the environment.

:shrug:

[Cleobulus]

14. No, there is also the argument that it would be a waste of resources...

that would be better spent on something(ANYTHING) else. Of course, I'm hoping that the Government isn't planning on subsidizing or directly funding oil exploration off the coasts, just letting the oil companies get permits, but no help should go to them to expand offshore drilling, it would be a waste of time and money.

[Uzybone]

6. very NIMBYist

I'm against this decision but the hypocrisy on drilling is ridiculous.

Same "environmentally conscious" folks have no problems using petroleum products when drilled out from under the dilapidated villages of third world countries, but they are sure up in arms when the beautiful coastlines on Louisiana might be affected.

[CreekDog]

9. Maybe you can introduce me to these mythical people

:wtf:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Is that a soy-based computer you're typing on?

[CreekDog]

12. Oh I see, using anything petroleum based means that I have to support extracting it everywhere

and if it is taken from anyplace that i have no control over nor knew about, then i'm obligated to support it being taken from anywhere in the future.

get a new line. wow.

:wtf:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. No, it doesn't mean you support extracting it everywhere.

You appear to be against it if it's in your back yard, for example.

[CreekDog]

17. Really? Where do I oppose it and where is my backyard?

do tell.

[Uzybone]

16. by using it you do support its extraction from somewhere, just not here

Classic NIMBY. I'm not saying it is evil, just saying its ok to acknowledge it.

Unless you object to drilling anywhere, then being outraged over drilling off the US coast is hypocritical. The villagers in Nigeria have coastlines too.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malakai2]

29. NIMBY is not the only possible explanation

It isn't even the only reasonable alternative.

[CreekDog]

13. do you know how many barrels of oil it takes to grow soy?

:shrug:

[joeybee12]

24. Not at all..why don't you consider conservation...and I live in a place

where they'd never drill...I don't think people who live in a place where they would should have to sacrifice their standard of life for someone's bondehead ploy to score political points.

[Smashcut]

27. WOW. So you've totally crossed over then.

[malakai2]

30. Uh, which argument?

There are several. NIMBYism is just one of those.

I am curious, if fuel or plastic were less expensive than they are now, would your personal consumption increase or not?

[Raine1967]

3. I have more faith in THIS president than

our alternative: McCain/Palin

I don't like it, but I am not willing to throw him under the bus.

I knew who I was voting for, and this was part of the package -- and it is still better than the alternative. This is one part of a much bigger strategy. I am against it -- but I see a bigger picture.

[Dr.Phool]

18. All this proves is, that it takes a supposed "Democrat" to pass Republican policy.

[flvegan]

20. I have yet to see the first "merit" of the expansion.

And the NIMBYists are a delightful reminder that it's April 1st.

[CreekDog]

21. I'm not sure their posts are intended to be as ironic as they seem to be

:shrug:

[polichick]

22. As the saying goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...

k&r

[Dr. Strange]

32. I'm not falling for that.

[polichick]

34. Falling for what? nt

[CreekDog]

35. Rush

except that he did. :rofl:

[Dr. Strange]

37. Geddy watches you while you sleep.

[wishlist]

23. I thought it was a nonissue all along since most states ban offshore drilling

I haven't followed the issue that closely but I always thought the Repubs were just exploiting the concept for political reasons because individual states on East Coast have had bans on drilling all along and can continue to do so. (Maybe the state bans are for less than 50 miles from shore though)

This issue reminds me of Repug claims during Bush Admin that part of oil increase was lack of refineries due to banning or too much regulation of new refineries when in fact the oil companies had been granted numerous permits but just didn't want to spend the money on new facilities as long as they could make as much or more money using existing refineries.

[flyarm]

25. There is no justification for destroying the eco system! NONE!

espeically coming from a dem president!

Hell regan didn't do it..nor did 2 Bushes with 3 terms in office!

This is betrayal at it's worse..

and it is dispicable!

[nosmokes]

26. There is no justification for it. Obama has sold you and me and America

out, and anyone saying otherwise is refusing to face reality. But I know when I'm being reamed a new asshole and sold down the river, even when the corporatist schill doing it is a handsome black man the media tries to tell me is a 'liberal' when dude is to the right of Nixon.

[jeanpalmer]

28. The gains are cmpletely political

The losses are environmental. The concept of saving something by opening up another area currently off limits is a canard.

[PVnRT]

31. This is the kind of thoughtful response to the announcement

that will immediately bring out the IF YOU HATE OIL SO MUCH GO LIVE AS A HERMIT IN THE WOODS jackasses that use to just be freeper trolls around here. Amazing what's OK now that we have Democratic president.

[Robeson]

33. Excellent post. k&r.

[TheKentuckian]

36. It's not inside baseball but rather a scam

There is no rational case to be made. This isn't new debate anybody with sense that doesn't work for big carbon knows that there is almost no measurable benefit to the average American.