?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More Palin

Amplifying a good explanation of Palin's qualifications with which abce replied to my earlier post.

If she weren't a pro-life Republican who would pop open ANWR's oil reserves like a six pack of Miller Lite, I'd have to think about McCain's VP choice having some effect on my vote.

Oh, and I'm not totally against drilling against ANWR for conservation reasons. I just think it'd be nice to have that oil under our ground in 5-30 years, when the Middle East either can't, or won't, keep selling us their oil. As a hedge, a cushion, an emergency reserve... the "strategic" oil reserve we do have is already being used to manipulate oil prices on occasion.

I don't know much about the conservation arguments against drilling in ANWR, and could easily believe that those arguments can counteract the couple-of-pennies differential it would make in Americans' gas prices. I could also see such arguments falling to the logic of providing fuel for food distribution in a very, very dark future...

I hope not, though.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
kvarko
Sep. 2nd, 2008 02:36 am (UTC)
Pennies? You're being quite generous! I think the best argument is this: The US is going to be a tiny fraction of the market; China and India are going to be huge consumers of oil; in the absence of nationalized oil (which I really doubt the GOP is going to support), 99% of any oil we drill in Alaska is going to go to them, not the US. Any savings is going to the rest of the world and barely to the US.

If we start now by developing non-oil technologies, then we can sell those technologies to the growing giant markets. That strikes me as how we succeed. Not by taking on the oil drilling risks in order to subsidize the rest of the world's oil supply.

tirianmal
Sep. 2nd, 2008 03:28 am (UTC)
99% of what is gonna go where now?
Why do you think that oil drilled in Alaska would go to China or India?

Sure, it's a free market and the oil companies could sell to whoever they want, but if it is oil drilled in the U.S. why ship it overseas if there's demand domestically? It doesn't make sense to ship it overseas. Now, true, if you think if it as a "fluid" commodity (pun not intended), the demand you fill domestically would allow more of the oil drilled in say, Saudia Arabia, to go to China, but that's not the same thing as saying that ANWR oil would go to China.


Edited at 2008-09-02 03:28 am (UTC)
crs
Sep. 2nd, 2008 03:31 am (UTC)
Re: 99% of what is gonna go where now?
Actually, perfectly liquid commodities work just like that.

I doubt oil is perfectly liquid, though, in those terms - nothing is. And moving it around costs money...

But it's close enough that I think my original "pennies" comment stands.
tirianmal
Sep. 2nd, 2008 04:11 am (UTC)
Re: 99% of what is gonna go where now?
Oh, I wasn't commenting on your statement.

But true. If you drill more oil, all you're doing is helping the oil companies and the OPEC companies. You need to get off oil and onto another energy source ... or at least make oil just one choice out of several.
outerjenise
Sep. 2nd, 2008 02:38 am (UTC)
I would so hate to be Sarah Palin right now. Yes, I'd take the damn nomination, but in the back of my mind, I'd constantly be asking myself, "If not for Hillary, would I have even been considered?"

As a female voter, I'm snarlingly angry at McCain's choice. Does he really think all women are stupid enough to vote for him just because he picked a female veep? His selection undoes so much of the good that Hillary's campaign did for women in politics.
navrins
Sep. 2nd, 2008 01:07 pm (UTC)
I've been hearing lately that she's aimed not so much at the female voters who backed Clinton, but at the blue-collar voters who backed Clinton. Can't say whether that'll work, or if it's even true, but that's what I'm hearing.
kvarko
Sep. 2nd, 2008 02:40 am (UTC)
Oh, and the Museum of Science has a cool live presentation of alternative fuel technologies. I thought the coolest was what they showed at the end: using parachute-like sails to harness wind power to pull giant shipping boats through the ocean. With the current small-size sails they claimed something like 30% reduction in petroleum fuel needed to propell the vessel and they're working on using larger sails to get more savings. They plan to make computerized units that fly the kites and attach to the towing connections already on the front of the ships.

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )