"It is appalling that BP let this critical pipeline deteriorate to the point that a major production shutdown was necessary," said Rep. John Dingell, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement.
"The United States Congress has an obligation to hold hearings to determine what broke down here and what laws and regulations need to be improved to ensure problem pipelines like these are found and fixed earlier," Dingell said
Don't forget that the Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent drilling in ANWR.
So which is it? Are high oil prices bad, or is oil production in Alaska bad? Can they pick a side and stick to it?
7 comments:
Your question is the problem. You've already answered it in your own mind. Democrats aren't the reason oil prices are high or Hezbollah is attacking Israel. Nor are Republicans.
High oil prices are fine. They sure aren't going down anytime soon.
OTOH, drilling in Alaska IS bad, but it won't save us from our own impending oil doomsday.
I say drill away! The sooner we run Alaska dry, the sooner we will focus on the problem, not a band-aid fix.
Hello, strawman! How are you? BP knew about this since March. Does it financially benefit them to downcycle now during Middle East tensions and hurricane season?
And anonymous is right. The sooner we get of the petroleum crack pipe, the sooner this stops being an issue.
Drop the ideology and start looking for truthiness.
The United States Congress has an obligation to hold hearings to determine what broke down here and what laws and regulations need to be improved to ensure problem pipelines like these are found and fixed earlier, quoth Dingell.
speaking of strawmen, rzklkng... what exactly will hearings do about the problem? I don't see where the original post contained untruthiness or an injection of ideology. I also find this Democrat's statement laughably ironic. A Congressional investigation will do nothing to get us off our petroleum crackpipe, as you call it. It's not that fuel efficient vehicles don't exist. Their popularity is determined by market factors. Political posturing and finger-pointing do nothing to focus on the problem.
what exactly will hearings do about the problem?,
Well, for starters, this is how laws are changed to hold those who are responsible for the pipeline neglect accountable.
Secondly, it is the responsibility of the government, in the interest of national security and its citizens, to take care of our petroleum problem. American consumers are quite obviously UNINTERESTED in reducing fuel consumption in the interest of their neighbors, their country, or the entire world. They are even unconcerned with their own welfare.
This is where the government steps in. It's too bad everyone is too damn wrapped up in their own lives and personal interests - consumers and politicians alike - that we can't even hammer out a comprehensive energy policy to save us from ourselves.
If all the corn raised today was processed into ethanol, it would only provide only 10% of today's fuel needs of the U.S. - that's a staggering statistic, IMHO.
If all cars were converted to electric, just how would we support them when we can't even keep brownouts from occuring during the summer?
Fuel cells create energy at a cost of $2,000 per kilowatt compared to $35/kw for the IC engine; and those engines wear out five times faster.
None of these are the answer to the future. You can't squeeze [enough] power out of a turnip or a sugar beet.
liberals have already picked a side. it's called the "not-america-side"
anonymous 3 said:
This is where the government steps in. It's too bad everyone is too damn wrapped up in their own lives and personal interests - consumers and politicians alike - that we can't even hammer out a comprehensive energy policy to save us from ourselves.
riiiight. because the Government has done such a SPECTACULAR job protecting us "from ourselves" when it comes to drugs, pollution, political corruption, disease, unemployment, and welfare. I certainly don't expect them to hammer out an energy policy that encourages efficiency and a decreased dependency on foriegn oil. Not when the government makes so much money from oil revenues. Unless, as you suggest, they do so by expanding the role of government. Which is what we need right? Let's put the Governemnt in charge. Let's let the government decide what kind of cars we should drive. yay Big Government! Save me! Peak oil! Peak oil!
I say NO. Call me a Capitalist, but i think people are smart enough to make decisions about their own energy policy. And the market will respond accordingly. I think if gas gets up to $5/gallon, you'll see alot more interest in hybrid vehicles, car-pooling, and telecommuting. And nuclear energy. I just wish GM would make a hybrid El Camino. With an mp3 player.
Post a Comment