New thread: If we can't drill our way out of the problem, then why is it presented as a solution?

[FLAprogressive]

Go.

We all know, even the president knows, that oil drilling is NOT a solution for gas prices.

http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/dec/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-says-expanding-drilling-would-ha/

Why is it being presented as a solution when the president knows it's not a solution?

The speech was a walking contradiction and a lame attempt to placate conservatives who will never vote for him.

[cliffordu]

1. He specifically stated that the reason he said what he said was

to prove the lying shits on the R side are lying shits about how he is preventing drilling around the CONUS.

[FLAprogressive]

2. So we need to increase production to prove that the GOP is lying?? What?

[cliffordu]

24. Try to keep up - he said what he did about the current increases in domestic

production because the R's have been lying about his blocking drilling.

Read the transcript.

[FLAprogressive]

37. So prove them wrong by saying that they're right? Huh?

Say they're wrong about him not drilling by drilling and validating the Republican mantra of "Drill Baby Drill"?

[cliffordu]

Running in circles???

Read the transcript

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

4. Why do people assume any oil/gas would stay in the US?

Any single fucking resource our Overlords extract would end up on the Free Marketz.

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

5. More mindless bullshit being posted at DU. So tiring.

No context. No attempt to understand. Just take a phrase and run. Even Freepers kill their own for doing this.

God damn. :mad:

[FLAprogressive]

8. No context?

"We need to increase domestic oil production" implies that it is a SOLUTION. If he does not believe it would SOLVE anything, why is he saying it?

"We can't drill our way out of the problem" says point blank that it is NOT a solution. Then why did he say that it is?

Are you all redefining solution now??

[Buzz Clik]

10. Snore.

Rant on. Nothing will dissuade you, and I don't care.

Just be mindful that not everyone is a mindless idiot. We can read, think, and interpret for ourselves. Thank God.

[SidDithers]

12. +1...nt

Sid

[villager]

27. -1...nt

Villager

[DirkGently]

6. Another day, another dishonest Republican meme treated as fact.

[Kennah]

7. Because a lot of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of Peak Oil

Peak Oil does not mean when oil runs out. It means when supply can no longer keep up with demand. There will be oil for a long time, but there will not be $4 a gallon gas for a long time.

If Big Oil can remain profitable at $4, $6, $8, or $10 a gallon, they don't give a flying fuck about anything else. So what if it's militaries rather than consumers using their product so long as the money is still green, right?

The Valdez spill has amply demonstrated that it's easier and cheaper to spend money fighting lawsuits rather than employing safe practices.

[SidDithers]

9. It's being presented as part of a solution...

along with conservation and development of alternative energy sources.

Sid

[FLAprogressive]

13. But he's said it himself, it is NOT a solution. It has been proven that it is NOT a solution.

To present something that he knows is NOT a solution as "a" solution is pure baloney.

[jeff47]

17. It is not _the_ solution. It is part of _the_ solution. A small part

Are we seriously going to bash Obama about which article he used?

[FLAprogressive]

20. It is not "a", "the", or "part of the" solution, it's not a solution period. Come on, when the GOP

talks about drilling shit we're all over them because we know it's BULLSHIT.

Oil expert Mike Rodgers: "Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today."

http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/dec/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-says-expanding-drilling-would-ha/

[jeff47]

25. Yes, because you're being willingly blind to the problems and solutions

More drilling indeed won't impact gas prices _today_. It will impact gas prices in the future. As reserves run out elsewhere, we will need to tap more domestic reserves as we transition away from a dependence on oil.

Empty sloganeering is bad, whether it's done by a Democrat or a Republican. "Drill baby drill" is stupid. But so is insisting that increasing oil production won't increase oil production.

[FLAprogressive]

30. "the U.S. contribution .... would not be enough to make a significant dent [after 10 years]"

Nope, try again.

[jeff47]

34. Golly! Almost like it's just a component in the overall solution to the problem!!

I wonder how long it will take you to notice you're replying to me in two places.

[jeff47]

15. Bah! You can't be logical about this!!

Everything is always black or white! There's no nuance allowed!!!1!!1!!!eleven!!!

[FLAprogressive]

18. Expanded production is not only not "the" solution, it's not even "a" solution either.

So for the president to be talking about it as "one" solution is pure bullshit.

http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/dec/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-says-expanding-drilling-would-ha/

[jeff47]

22. Because there is only ever a single thing to be done to solve any problem. /sarcasm

Seriously, this isn't even grade-school level thinking.

Our dependence on oil is a large and complex problem and there will be a lot of stuff we do to solve it. Increased domestic production can be a small part of the solution. But there's lots of other parts.

We're the party that's supposed to understand nuance.

[FLAprogressive]

23. "Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today."

It takes years to bring new oil wells online, said Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington. Companies need to drill exploratory wells, then discovery wells around the exploratory wells that show promise. Shipyards that build platforms, a two- to three-year job, are already booked solid.

"It's foolish to sell it as a short-term solution to high gas prices," Rodgers said. "Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today."

[jeff47]

26. Please identify where I said it would impact prices today.

I'll happily go through this as if I'm talking to a child, if you'd like.

Also, please explain how "today" means "forever".

[FLAprogressive]

28. "the U.S. contribution .... would not be enough to make a significant dent [after 10 years]"

[jeff47]

32. Golly! Almost like it's just a component in the overall solution to the problem!! (nt)

[FLAprogressive]

35. Where do you get that "component in the overall solution" from "it will not make a significant dent"

either in the short-term or long-term?

[jeff47]

36. Basic logic

Oil production will slow down faster than we can transition away from oil.

So the oil will have to come from somewhere while we finish the transition. Domestic production won't help today, nor in the near-term. In a more like 30-year window, it will be a buffer to make the transition away from oil smoother.

[FLAprogressive]

38. except that it *might* uncrease our supply by under 1 percent....which is not significant enough to

make any sort of a real difference.

[jeff47]

39. You are talking about prices

I am talking about quantity. As in there will be oil, instead of no oil.

You are also continuing to insist that domestic production must solve the problem completely, which is something neither I nor the president have asserted.

[FLAprogressive]

42. No, I am talking about quantity as well. "you get .32 percent increase to the world supply."

"Increasing production to 5.344 (5.07 + 0.274) millions of barrels a day, would increase that number to 27.4 percent -- or a decrease reliance on foreign oil by 1.4 percentage points."

If that is ANY kind of "solution", it is a lame one when we could instead shift all of our resources to real solutions instead of wasting time validating GOP non-solution "solutions".

[jeff47]

48. Again, you confuse today with the future

You get a tiny increase against today's supply.

You get a much larger increase against 2055's supply. Because we're running out of oil.

"when we could instead shift all of our resources to real solutions instead of wasting time validating GOP non-solution "solutions"."

There's two major problems with this.

First, there are no solutions that we can implement fast enough. Oil and products that rely on oil are too deeply embedded in our economy. So if we are to avoid a massive depression, we will have to tap domestic reserves as we run out of other sources of oil.

Second, we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. Domestic drilling does not mean we can't do the other steps we will need to do to get off oil. In fact, oil workers are not trained to do the R&D we need to get off oil.

To sum up:
Today is not the future.
Domestic drilling will not solve the oil problem, it lessens the economic damage of the oil problem.
We can multi-task.

[Uncle Joe]

11. The easy stuff has already been drilled, there can only be

increased human, environmental and economic cost to expanding drilling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x561059

We must wean ourselves from the addiction of fossil fuels.

Thanks for the thread, FLAprogressive.

[FSogol]

14. More concessions to the GOP?

:shrug:

[FLAprogressive]

16. Well if you read some of the posts he's proving them wrong by basically proving them right

Yeah, the spin is just as bad as it sounds.

[frazzled]

19. He said it was short-term and partial solution to spikes

in prices. But reiterated that it was not in any way a long-term solution: that conservation together with new alternative energies must continue to be pursued.

[FLAprogressive]

21. But it isn't, and when the GOP implies one or both we're all over them about it.....

....it is not a solution.

And I quote oil expert Mike Rodgers: "Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today."

http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/dec/13/debbie-wasserman-schultz/wasserman-schultz-says-expanding-drilling-would-ha/

[Bluerthanblue]

40. the quote you are presenting isn't about what Pres. Obama was

addressing TODAY. Mr. Rodgers wasn't addressing the spike in crude oil prices because of the political instability in the Middle East.

The opening of drilling cites could very well work to ease the jitters of speculators.

You are correct when you make the statement that drilling isn't a solution to our fossil fuel dependency- what you are incorrect on, is saying that Pres. Obama thinks it IS a solution. - He doesn't- he's said it before, and said it again today.

Can you not see this?

[FLAprogressive]

43. I honestly can't see how saying "We need to increase domestic oil production" and

"Drilling (aka "Domestic Oil Production") is not a fix (also known as a "solution")"

You can parse this til the cows come home....."he didn't really mean that" or "he meant something else".

I think it's clear that what he said is a walking contradiction.

[LoZoccolo]

29. It is presented a temporary solution while we work to implement a permanent solution.

P.S. Are there any D.U. rocket scientists? This is only my theory about why he said this, but I'm really unsure of it. I understand that it will take a rocket scientist to figure it out. So if you are a rocket scientist, could you please chime in and let us know?

[FLAprogressive]

33. Except it's not even a temporary solution.

"For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas."

""It's foolish to sell it as a short-term solution to high gas prices," Rodgers said. "Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.""

[Bluerthanblue]

41. was this comment made in response to the current spike in oil prices?

no-

The comment was made before Egypt- or Libya, or Tunisia.

There is a difference.

[TheKentuckian]

44. The Gulf isn't enough for you guys?

What is it about having 3% of the world reserves, mostly in environmentally sensitive areas and a global market do you "sensible centrist" can't process?

We cannot meaningfully affect cost or supply and what we do have to go after is dangerous to our habitat. The risks outweigh the rewards significantly and extend big oil's dominance and our dependency.

You folks are nearly as reckless, foolhardy, and locked into the status quo as the TeaPubliKlans.

[FLAprogressive]

46. They are only supporting drilling because Obama is supporting drilling. You can bet

that none of them were these staunch advocates of drilling as any kind or part of a solution when it was only the GOP pushing it.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. have I said anywhere here that I 'support' drilling?

please show me where if so-

Understanding why someone makes a decision, doesn't mean that you approve of it, or that you want it to happen.

I'm having a hard time with your credibility here today.

[SidDithers]

51. Assuming facts not in evidence...

again.

Sid

[Shagbark Hickory]

31. Simplez. B/c the oil lobby says so.

[taught_me_patience]

45. It is comlpete and total political suicide to even suggest we conserve

Americans have a god-given right to waste gas with big trucks!

[Marr]

47. Because the real solution (commodities trading regulation) is unacceptable to big business.

That means it's excluded from debate. More drilling is acceptable to big business. So Obama, and the rest of the political establishment, will work the issue within the accepted boundaries.

Politicians are like ticket scalpers here. They don't get to choose the game. They just hustle around the edges for a few dollars.

Domestic drilling won't do anything to change oil prices, for a multitude of reasons. The prices are up because Wall Street managed to pry open the commodities markets and turn it into another casino operation. Same thing that caused the food "shortage" some time back.

[jeff47]

50. Commodities trading has nothing to do with it.

We're running out of oil. There is virtually no excess capacity in oil production. One example: if "the taps" are turned off in Libya, the Saudis can't increase production to stabilize prices.

At the same time, demand for oil is inelastic. The infrastructure changes required to reduce oil consumption take time. For example, you're not going to go out and replace your car tomorrow. But fuel economy will probably be a factor in your next car. Your city won't be able to build a massive mass-transit system in a year. But they'll be able to build something over the next decade.

The result of those two conditions is that oil prices are going to swing wildly from here on out. Any little shock will send prices soaring. Which is an overcorrection, which will cause prices to plummet.

As for the food shortage, that was caused by large scale crop failures. Most notably in China. It's not like other farmers can quickly increase production to make up for those failures - they've got to wait until the next year's harvest to do anything about it.

[Marr]

52. Commodities trading has everything to do with it.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on both points. Current gas prices are not a reflection of an oil shortage, and the food "shortage" was nothing of the sort. It was a case of food *prices* having been driven up and prevented from reaching certain places as a result.