I'll go ahead and provide rebuttles for both of these points.
The main reason that oil cost is high, is for one: the worldwide demand for it has increased, so yes, a gradual increase in the price of oil is to be expected. But the sharp increase we have seen over these last few months in unheard of, which leads me to my next reason: The Saudi royalty believe that we, as americans and abroad, don't have to will to become subsistant on our own, so by jacking up the price of oil they are only lining thier own pockets, preying on our unwillingness to provide for ourselves. Yes, the price of oil in Saudi Arabia is what... under 50 cents? (It's somewhere around there.) If America in specific took a solid stand about opening up drilling in places like ANWAR and the coastal Florida region, along with the oil shale in the mid west, it might send a sign to the Saudis, who surely don't want to lose market share in the North America region, that we as a country WOULD in fact stand up and fend for ourselves if pushed too far, and not just roll over and take these rediculous prices in the anal cavity. So yes, they would indeed lower prices to keep thier market share.
There is a lot more to it than that.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/markets/oil/?postversion=2008061815
That's a big part of it, but...
Do you know who the #1 supplier of crude oil used in US refineries is? Canada.
Here is the list:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
What?!?!? only 3 countries from the middle east?
In 2004, United States refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. Although the United States is the world’s third largest crude oil producer, less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. Net petroleum imports (imports minus exports) account for 58 percent of our total petroleum consumption. About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 19 percent from the Persian Gulf, and 18 percent from Africa and 13 percent from other regions
Is it a long term solution? Of course not, but it certaily would be a decent stall since Detroit is finally getting the point and pulling those damn heavy tanks off the road. And believe me, us sitting on our hands while businesses all over the country are shutting down and people losing thier houses everywhere isn't going to solve the problem either. Democrats won't give you a solution, but they sure as hell will tell you what you CAN'T do to fix the problems. (Obama is a believer in socialism, he wants to destroy our free market, but I'll get into that on some other topic...)
Bush said opening federal lands off the U.S. coast -- where oil drilling has been banned by both a presidential executive order and a congressional moratorium -- could yield about 18 billion barrels of oil.
That would meet current U.S. consumption for about 2 1/2 years, but it would likely take a decade or more to find the oil and produce it.
To your other point about oil rig catastrophies, I'll make one concise point here. Out of all of the rigs setup in the Gulf of Mexico, not one single rig had any significant oil seepage or contaminates of any kind escape into the Gulf during Hurricane Katrina. NOT ONE SINGLE INCIDENT. The last catastrophy to impact the environment on any scale due to an oil excavating incident was I believe back in the 70's, you may correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's what I read, and if you believe they are using the same technology now as they were 40 years ago, you are flat out wrong. So the environment impact of off shore oil rigs is so minimal, it shouldn't even be counted anymore, and the idea is ludicrous.
Exxon Valdez is the worst oil spill in US history. That was in 1989. Almost 20 years later, Exxon still won't pay the $2.5 Billion they were order to pay. As a matter of fact, now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Exxon try to explain why it shouldn't pay. Yet the High Court won't hear anything from anyone as far reasons why the award should be restored to the full $5 billion that a jury of peers decided was necessary to punish the corporate giant back in 1994.
As far as the wildlife reserve ANWAR, they only want to open up a very small fraction (likened to a period on a whole sheet of paper) so the idea that they will be disturbing much wildlife up there in the arctic circle on that small amount of land is laughable.
Many people in this country are victims of disinformation provided by the libral media and the extremists on the left. Check your facts.
You know, the republican presidential nominee, John McCain, is on the side of "liberal media and the extremists on the left".
McCain has been criticized by some Republicans for not supporting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and off Florida. On Monday (June 16, 2008), he stuck to his opposition to drilling in the ANWR but suggested he might be open to exploration in other places.
"I believe that ANWR is a pristine area," he said. "But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we place as a very high priority."
Now I have to say something about the "liberal media". There isn't one.
There are 2 groups, the mainstream media, which attempts to be objective, and the right-wing media, which does not. The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, and the rest at least try to be fair. The mainstream media do have biases toward sensationalism, the easy story, and soft news. The right wing media, including Fox News, The Washington Times, and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, are not interested in conveying the truth. They exist to further the cause of American conservatism by advancing stories and themes that work to the benefit of conservatives and to the detriment of liberals.
The claim of media "liberal bias" is a myth used by conservative politicians. Propagating this myth serves three functions. First, it creates reluctance among mainstream media outlets to cover issues that conservatives don't want them to, for fear that they will be accused of having a liberal bias. Second, it allows conservatives to deny or dismiss reports in the mainstream media, regardless of whether they are true, because they have discredited the source already. Third, attacking the liberal media can be effective at increasing conservative voter turnout.
I will say that many members of the media are quite liberal. However, that doesn't neccesarily mean there is liberal bias. That means that the people who go all over the world and see what is actually happening with thier own 2 eyes are liberal. The people that have the most experience with happeneing around the globe are liberal.
But still, the people that own these media outlets are not. Ultimatly, they are the ones that make decisions about what gets reported and what doesn't.
I would also point at stories where the "liberal media" criticizes liberals.
Here is a link to a story where the Boston Globe asserts that democrats want things to go bad in Iraq.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2007/08/29/good_news_but_not_for_democrats/
Here is a link to a page that that explains How the Left has ENSURED the destruction of the Black Community, and how republicans are the champions of minorities.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_pages_categories&cid=5
Here is a CBSnews article about Obama not letting muslims sit behind him on tv.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/politics/politico/main4191084.shtml
I would go on, but I just got a phone call and I have to leave. But yeah. That.
possibly bad to the environment hmm
