Skip to main content

View Diary: Arctic Drilling Debate NOW!! Call NOW!!! (Updated) (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Allowing drilling in ANWR isn't pragmatic (4+ / 0-)

    Pragmatic suggests that there is a sensible way to accomplish something if only positions weren't hardened on either side.  Drilling in ANWR is not sensible
    -- it will do nothing now to alleviate oil shortage,
    -- if the best estimates are correct it will have a very limited effect in the future,
    -- the effects of drilling are permanent and irreversible
    -- the other side won't give anything up even to get this.  They aren't bargaining, they are demanding.

    So, as one pragmatist to another, this just isn't the place to find a 'solution' because the only one proposed by the Republicans is to drill, no other option, just drill.

    -6.75, -5.79

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

    by edgery on Thu May 25, 2006 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  good points but in all fairness: (0+ / 0-)

      you said:

      "the other side won't give anything up even to get this.  They aren't bargaining, they are demanding."

      "the other side won't give anything up even to get this.  They aren't bargaining, they are demanding."

      This goes both ways.

      My idea is pragmatic. It requires both sides to give up something to reach a solution. The savings of corporate subsidies attached to permission to drill would be well received by the public and shrink the deficit while making other kinds of alternatives more competitive and pursued.

      Honestly, I don't think the oil lobbies would go for my proposal for some of the reasons I mentionned above. But, sadly, neither will people here at Dkos for other reasons.

      Nonetheless, Having the Dems propose such a bill would have positive political benefits from many many voters on both sides of thwe aisle and in the center.

      A bill that allows drilling, promotes competition and saves money...all if the these companies are willing to forgoe corporate welfare??

      Sounds like a great idea to me.

      (-0.75 econ., -4.72 social) Democratic Freedom Caucus-a better way.

      by ztn on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:58:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so in the name of competition (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ztn, Elise

        we're supposed to forfeit a pristine part of our country.  Isn't that the same argument that justifies telecom deregulation, and other wonderful ideas?  Sorry, what is available from ANWR in oil is not worth the cost to future generations.  The old fashion cost/benefit analysis that actually values wilderness and future options.

        -6.75, -5.79

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

        by edgery on Thu May 25, 2006 at 02:31:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Consider one upside: (0+ / 0-)

          Assuming the oil lobby actually went for it (which they wouldn't), the loss of subsidies will make oil less viable and less competitive faster which will lead to heavier private investment in research and development for alternatives.

          That would be the long term wisdom of my idea.

          (-0.75 econ., -4.72 social) Democratic Freedom Caucus-a better way.

          by ztn on Thu May 25, 2006 at 05:24:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site