You have to hand it to Obama he's been pretty smart on some of this stuff - the Sotamayor nomination, letting the republicans have it at that dinner a couple months ago, the Nobel speech, the bi-partisan summit, and now giving the republicans one of their BS talking points when it's not likely to ever amount to much either way.

suzzer-

oil and energy companies get subsidies for alt energy stuff as well. They may get some other subsidies, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't a net profit for the govt.

Well that still counters the idea that there's another Saudi Arabia waiting for us offshore if the stupid govt would just get out of the way.

Burn that strawman down buddy.

I'm relating the political part of the discussion we're having, not the practical one. I don't see how that can be a strawman and a former major campaign plank of Obama's foes.

No one was about to claim that all of our oil problems would be solved by drilling. The biggest claim would be that Obama and the Democrats were passing up something that could help, would make the government money and create jobs because of trumped up environmental concerns.

You're burning an absurd strawman.

No, the other side of that argument is that the oil industry is already sitting on some 10,000 permits and they only opened one new rig during Bush's entire tenure. So how again is (or would have) Obama been stifling anything? The strawman here is that the dems have somehow been holding back the republicans from implementing all these rigs that would bring money, jobs and oil.

And if these subsidies still result in a net profit for the US as you claim, then why the hell does the oil industry need our help in the first place? Do they lack capital? Are they averse to taking too much profit for themselves? Something tells me it's a net profit for the US when everything goes right, and the taxpayers are left holding the bag when something doesn't pan out. Now the whole program may be a net oil and jobs gain for us, and therefore still determined to be worth it (go big govt action, yeah!). But if the whole program were wildly profitable I really don't see why the oil industry would need or deserve any kind of subsidies, tax breaks or gear-greasing.

This has just about 0 effect on the elections, as does everything else you're drooling over here.

Sigh, first off, I can't take you seriously complaining about the government giving out subsidies to anyone.

Second, your only source that the oil industry is heavily subsidized is Greenpeace.

Third, the oil industry brings in way more the number put out by Greenpeace.

Finally, the oil industry gets our help because they are influential enough to get enough people in government to help. Rent seeking behavior FTW... not that anything like that could go wrong in other industries.

Lol way to just skip over my entire first paragraph and all the logic in my second paragraph. You admitted there were subsidies and speculated they would result in a net profit for the US (then you turn around and question my source on whether or not there are subsidies). I simply took your argument to it's logical conclusion. So in rebuttal you quibble with the numbers, then make the exact point I was making:

Great we agree. Time for bed.

I'm copying parts of today's NYT editorial, praising the decision, not because I agree but because I think it provides a good, concise summary (though I can't vouch for the accuracy):

The editorial is entitled drill, but not everywhere

I have always reserved the right to start threads with misleading, but catchy titles.

Obama is opening up drilling to make himself look like a moderate.

Next will be cap and trade.

Dems are walking off a cliff

If you think putting the majority of "our" efforts toward renewable energy alternatives makes sense, I suggest investing in companies that are working on renewable energy technologies, contributing to renewable energy subsidies directly, or any number of entrepreneurial actions. But why is your determination that renewable energy is preferable supposed to be valid for others who have different sets of priorities and preferences?

Furthermore, why would you expect that a profit-hungry oil company would undertake an unprofitable venture? If the harm in allowing drilling is supposed to be that it causes damage to the environment, a good that people value, a simple solution is to price the right to drill in accordance with the magnitude of the environmental harm. Even if the venture requires a subsidy to be undertaken, if it improves overall social welfare, why should the mere fact of requiring a subsidy change our views? Presumably you find other government-subsidized public goods perfectly acceptable on precisely the same grounds (maximization of social welfare).

man i so wanted to be able to give Obama credit for something, because unlike many conservative leaning people i actually kind of like the guy and admired some of what he said during the campaign. Unfortunately the more i look into this the more I agree with the belief that this is just posturing.

Can we just chalk this up to a benign action then?

I mean, if you want to give him credit, maybe you can say that he's not doing any harm.

Start with baby steps, then later you can take the big leap to give him credit for something positive.

yeah, well these are the real effects of what Obama's announcement added up to:

* Cancelled five lease sales off the Alaska coast that were planned over the next 2 years. One of the areas is estimated to hold up to 77 billion barrels of oil, or more than 3 times US reserves.

* A study of the southern Atlantic OCS, with the findings due back next year....no leasing.

* Delayed a planned lease sale off Virginia until at least 2012.

Well the point is that until we throw out our whole system of govt (coming soon I'm sure), our tax dollars will continue to go toward energy extraction and generation (in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, govt funded studies, govt taking on risk, etc). When you do the math and consider something like a 100 year timeline and how we will be poised for the future, renewable energy just makes tons more economic and political stability sense. If you look at a 20-year profit window, maybe fossil fuel makes more sense. Which do you think our kids and grandkids would rather us look at? If you're running out of food, how much time and energy do you spend buying food from your neighbors, or frantically searching the house for every last morsel, before you consider planting some seeds?


I don't understand your point. A subsidy means we give them money or some kind of other break to explore and drill. Maybe we're charging them a price to drill, but we're giving them so many breaks in other areas it's a net loss for the US govt on a lot of ventures. I don't think anyone is really disputing that the fossil fuel industry gets tons subsidies now, which leads one to question the overall profitability of extracting the not-so-low-hanging fruit that we have left in terms of oil reserves.


Because oil is a diminishing resource, and all other things being equal we will be in better position for the future if we put our govt initiatives toward renewable energy. Getting off foreign oil is good. Getting off a very finite resource like fossil fuel entirely is better.

I am willing to admit that there could be a case where an oil subsidy makes the most overall sense for the country - but I sure would like to see a more sweeping renewable plan in place first, so that the oil is just a bridge to get us to sustainability.

Meh, theoretically this would be fine with me but achieving a correct price for the environmental harm caused would not be feasible IMHO.

drudgesiren.gif

*cough* concern troll *cough*

drudgesiren.gif

What does this even mean? What is Obama going to do with cap and trade?

Are you arguing that if we allow oil companies to explore and extract oil it takes away "resources" for future technologies? the possibility that more profit would allow more research I guess is totally foreign for you.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that you are making it sound like the resources is government dollars.

I saw an estimate recently where immediate exploration in the gulf and Atlantic around Florida could result in 200,000 new jobs. Seems kind of important in a state hit hard by the economy unless in the end you don't really care about jobs.

And I heard from my cousin's brother's step-father's grandson's teacher's sister that there is a 10% chance that drilling will kill all ocean life within a 100 mile radius.

fine, it will create no jobs