NY Times Editorial hits the nailnon the head

[telcoman]

I think most Americans can see thru the BS that both parties hand out so the decision in 99 days will be which party offers the best hope for our future.?

INMHO its Obama for the needed change in direction

A well written editorial

EditorialGas Price Follies E-MailPrint Save ShareLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink Published: July 28, 2008Add high energy prices to a sagging economy in an election year and politicians will inevitably come up with bad policies, like converting the corn crop into ethanol or John McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax — neither will provide real relief at the pump while both are guaranteed to create other problems.

Skip to next paragraph The Board BlogAdditional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » The good news is that Congress failed last week to cut a deal on two more bad ideas: Republicans’ misguided push for offshore drilling and Democrats’ misbegotten plan to curb speculation in oil futures.

Republicans should know that allowing more offshore drilling might marginally trim oil prices — in about a decade — while sacrificing important environmental protections. Democrats should know that financial speculation is not what’s driving oil prices, and that curbing futures trading could hamper the ability of companies like airlines and oil refineries to manage their risks by locking in the price of oil. Putting them together is compounding one bad idea with another.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence that markets can be manipulated by fraudulent speculation — recall the Enron mess. Yet all evidence suggests that speculation has little to do with the rising price of crude. From rice to iron, commodity prices are all rising, even without much financial speculation, due to a variety of factors including a weak dollar and growing demand from China and India.

A report by government agencies — including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury and Energy Departments — found that speculative trades in oil contracts had little to no effect on the rise in prices over the last five years.

Oil futures are financial contracts for future delivery of oil. Their price has been responding to the same factors: growing world demand in the face of stagnant supply and the expectation that this dynamic will continue.

Like some of the other “cures,” offering to solve Americans’ energy woes by drilling or slapping Wall Street around merely feeds the myth that there is a quick and easy solution out there. There isn’t. Expensive oil is likely here to stay. Americans must burn less oil and find alternative sources of energy that do far less damage to the environment.

More Articles in Opinion »

Telcoman
Modified by telcoman at 2:27 PM 7/28/2008

[rn79870]

I'm convinced that the oil companies can meet all environmental standards for off shore drilling. So it may not help with the current problem, it is an asset that can be sold and help return the balance of trade.

I thought GW used his Executive Order powers to open this up?

[AZhitman]

Someone please teach our crotchety uncle how to cut / paste.... Bob?

[OriginalWheelman]

I thought GW used his Executive Order powers to open this up?

If I recall correctly, there were two bans in place, and he could only remove one of them. It is either the states or the congress that has to repeal the other.

INMHO its Obama for the needed change in direction

You know, people always accuse the GOP of being stagnant, why is it that all the dems ever want is change? Isn't there anything that needs to stay the same?

[rn79870]

You know, people always accuse the GOP of being stagnant, why is it that all the dems ever want is change? Isn't there anything that needs to stay the same?

Conservative: a statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.~Ambrose Bierce

Conservatism is the policy of make no change and consult your grandmother when in doubt. ~Woodrow Wilson

It's interesting that this whole "change" argument is nothing new, as the above quotes prove.

[smockers83]

I'm convinced that the oil companies can meet all environmental standards for off shore drilling. So it may not help with the current problem, it is an asset that can be sold and help return the balance of trade.

I thought GW used his Executive Order powers to open this up?

Most definitely. Technology has improved a lot to prevent spills. A case in point is Katrina, and well, most hurricanes that go through the Gulf. It definitely won't be a drastic change in price and it will take 5-10 years for the oil to get to market, but its definitely a way to balance out trade, put a little insulation from volatility of the world market and its prices, etc. A plan to reduce emissions on cars will take a few years to implement and another several years to get those cars on the roads and replacing the older, less efficient cars. So really, any plan is going to take time, so why not do both at the same time and make everyone happy? Most alternative fuels that are being explored, like ethanol and hydrogen, are not the right answers for their own reasons.

Bush lifted the executive order on off-shore drilling, but the ban is still law in Congress. So his lifting of the ban was more of a, oh what's the word I'm looking for....anyway, it was more of a signal to say hey, lets get going on this guys.

[mtcookson]

Republicans should know that allowing more offshore drilling might marginally trim oil prices — in about a decade — while sacrificing important environmental protections.

That's always, always, always their damn excuse for not drilling "waaaaaahhhh it'll take too long waaaaahhhhhhh". They need to get their head out of their *** and understand that we NEED to drill for our own oil. It will only be a benefit and will have little to no environmental impact. Even if it did, I could really care less about some random species off in the middle of nowhere that I'll never even see.

Also, I find it rather funny that people think conservatives won't change anything. I know if I was in charge I'd change a ton of stuff, just about everything really. That's a lot of change.

[srellim234]

A compromise is in order here.

I'm in favor of drilling to have the oil available to our military. Build up the strategic oil reserve and be prepared to continue to get the oil out of the ground as needed so the military doesn't have to fight depending on the supply of foreign oil.

In exchange, how about a mandate that any new home built south of a certain point in the U.S. be required to have, at minimum, a solar boost on the water heater and some form of alternative energy system (solar, geothermal, etc.) reducing the hiomes' dependence on the power grid for all of its power? Not totally off the grid but reducing dependence.

Maybe north of a point where solar isn't as practical other alternatives could be mandated for either geothermal, more energy efficient and environmentally friendly designs etc. to satisfy the more liberal and environmentally concious people. I don't even have a problem with a certain level of issuing tax credits if it will help our money stay here instead of going to OPEC.

Finding fault with every proposal means nothing gets done and the situation gets worse. So, offer a little progress to each side and eventually we'll get there.

[skylndrftr]

Finding fault with every proposal means nothing gets done and the situation gets worse. So, offer a little progress to each side and eventually we'll get there.

everybody loves these ideas until the NIMBY BS starts. Try building a newrefinery in this country. You'll literally have people on here posting in one thread about not putting a refinery near their house, and in another thread about how damn high gas prices are. What ever happened to all those military bases they closed? seems like a good place for refineries and solar farms and wind farms and nuclear powerplants.

[BigMACKenzie]

You know, people always accuse the GOP of being stagnant, why is it that all the dems ever want is change? Isn't there anything that needs to stay the same?

because this country keeps sinking further and further into the crapper. give me 20 solid years of peace and prosperity and I will let stuff stay the same

[Marenta]

because this country keeps sinking further and further into the crapper. give me 20 solid years of peace and prosperity and I will let stuff stay the same

Wow.. if we saw "peace and prosperity" that would just mean that we would be outsourcing all of our products, technology, resources, money, and welfare to other countries. Because, we as Americans, can't leave well enough alone. We like to stick our dirty little mitts into everybody's business. We like to go digging into other people's garbage for "humanitarian efforts" and we like to deploy small forces for "peace keeping missions." You know that we can't just let the world go. Because, we're rich, and we're so high and fcsking mighty that we think that we've just got to help everybody else in the world, because we're Mother Fcksing Theresa or Ghandi. There is nothing that 0.10 worth of Pb or 0.08 worth of Cu can't fix. We get our jones off of "helping" other countries fight their battles for them. We're pretend martyrs, lying about it being altruistic, like we have no ulterior motives for what we're doing. Unsanitary snakes in the grass. That's all we are. Politicians who do it, and the people who say we should help other countries.

[rn79870]

True, it always amazes me that we have the audacity to think we know what's best for everyone anywhere in this big world. I love our country, but I'll bet it appears pretty arrogant to many other peoples for this attitude.

[BigMACKenzie]

whew! and here I was worried about sounding all aggressive and irrational

[confedup]

Add high energy prices to a sagging economy in an election year and politicians will inevitably come up with bad policies, like converting the corn crop into ethanol or John McCain’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax — neither will provide real relief at the pump while both are guaranteed to create other problems.

He forgot to mention Obama's solutions that suck as well. As compared to the 70's I think we are producing 50% less oil which is a shame? Clean coal, oil shale and more oil drilling should be initiated along with Nuke power. Efficiency from wind/solar need to continually be developed.