It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House approves more offshore drilling

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

House approves off-shor drilling...sort of


link to article

This bill *sorta* allows offshore drilling with limits. Drilling has to be more then 50 miles, while Republicans wanted 3.
Three miles? What a nice view that would be from the beach. A little close for comfort.
There will not be tax breaks fro the oil companies.
And the states would have to give permission for the companies to be able to drill on their land.

I like this last part, giving some power back to the states.While I am not happy about any offshore drilling. I believe it is a just a band-aid.
Reduce the need for oil and then you won't need to increase the supply.By the time that oil finally benefits Americans, the alternatives can be put into place. Then let the rest of the world fight over the oil.
I think now is a good time for America to develope a new industry and exports and quickly become the leaders in alternative energy.
What I don't understand is that if the space race started in 1957, with Sputnik, and we put man on the moon in 12 years: why is it these days it still takes just as long to develope alternative energies? Just my thoughts.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
If you ask me (and I know no one DID ask me) oil is simply too valuable to be burned at all. We desperately need it for all the other things we use it for (chemical synthesis for example).

The politicians and oil companies are making a big deal out of offshore drilling as part of a solution to the problem of our dependence on foreign oil. We don't need to break our dependence on just foreign oil - we need to not depend on ANY oil as just something to burn.

The main reason we haven't been able to get the same kind of success from alternative energies that we did from the space program is that we do not have the right people controlling the direction of the research. Instead of putting our brightest scientific minds in charge of such a program, the politicians have opted to keep their fingers in it and direct those federal funds to those who can help them retain their grip on power. For example, corn-based ethanol is a horrible idea as a solution to our energy woes. However the agricultural industry is very fond of all that money flowing into the pockets of farmers and agribusiness shareholders.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
Yeah, it's a band-aid, but in case you haven't noticed, we could use something to stop the hemorrhaging right about now.


What I don't understand is that if the space race started in 1957, with Sputnik, and we put man on the moon in 12 years: why is it these days it still takes just as long to develope alternative energies?

Because in order to put a man on the moon, we had to work together as a nation. We had brilliant engineers and scientists who studied science without the kind of political inputs that are so prevalent today.

If we are ever to get to that Utopian dream of alternate energy, we have to drill for more oil to help us maintain our standard of living so we can search for better energy sources. We also have to look objectively at every single possibility that arises from research, not just from huge, well-financed think tanks and research labs, but from the ordinary guy with an extraordinary concept. We need a path into the arena for the average Joe, one which vets any ideas to make sure they are worthy of consideration, but one that does not exclude 'outsiders' over unmeaning artificial barriers such as money or college degrees or political correctness.

TheRedneck


[edit on 19-9-2008 by TheRedneck]



new topics
 
1

log in

join