and we can site the first new refinery next to cheney's post-office home.
I've just returned from vacations in two national parks, folks, and I'm of course worried about gas prices soaring to crippling levels. Yes, it costs more in Europe, but they use the extra in taxes paid to support trains and transit so that you don't have to drive a car.
And yes, driving less is a good thing, and it would be good if we had those alternative. But we don't, and won't for years to come.
I'm also worried that I hear those of us on the green side blamed for those high prices by way too many people. Particularly since, in this election year, being blamed for high fuel prices is a good way to lose votes.
And if Obama loses to McCain, we'll have a continuation of the Bush/Cheney energy plan, which is working quite well for those it was supposed to work for (ie, the oil companies.)
Yes, we've blocked drilling in Anwar, for good reason. Big risks for relatively little oil.
But in truth, the reason we don't have offshore drilling, or new refineries, or new nuclear plants, has less to do with environmentalism and more to do with NIMBYs. No one wants to live next to the damn things.
It started with wealthy coastline owners not wanting to look at rigs. But now, even poor neighborhoods get upset when you try to put pollution sources next to them. That's where we used to be able to put such things.
I keep hearing from Republicans how the technologies have improved, and they're perfectly safe now. So here's the pitch.
Let's build a nuke next to the Bush ranch in Texas. Give it five years and if the ex-president is still glowing about nuclear, we can consider a second.
Likewise, let the first new refinery sit next to Cheney's ranch. He can prove they're safe, don't pollute groundwater, don't lower your property values. If that works out, build another -- let's say, next to the home owned by the head of Exxon.
I say, it's about time for these guys to put up or shut up.