Florida: It’s the Petrol, Not the Politics
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on the next in a series of Rasmussen Reports polls in the Sunshine State which seem to indicate that residents are far less opposed to offshore drilling to increase fuel supplies than they used to be.
A Florida poll taken by Rasmussen Reports Wednesday, after Republican presidential candidate John McCain first called for lifting a 27-year-old ban on U.S. offshore drilling, found that 61% of respondents agreed with him that drilling would lower gas prices. A third of respondents agreed with likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama that lifting the ban “wouldn’t do a thing” to lower gas prices. Sen. Obama opposes offshore drilling.
As someone who enjoys political theater, this is one of the more interesting and ironic twists of the election season. The conventional wisdom this cycle had held that a poorly performing economy – presumably including gas prices – would work against the Republicans and bolster Barack Obama’s chances in the fall. However, this apparent shifting tide of opinions about drilling for new domestic energy supplies has some Democratic observers rightly nervous.
Gov. Crist said he merely wants to lower energy costs and that only environmentally safe extraction will do.
Polls indicate that he and Sen. McCain may have made the right move. The Rasmussen poll surveyed respondents on the presidential candidates twice in the same interview — once before they knew the candidates’ respective positions on drilling and again after being told. The poll showed that upon learning of Sen. McCain’s call for more drilling, respondents in the second set of results boosted their support for him over Sen. Obama by two percentage points, to 49% to 38%. Florida will be a critical state in the November election.
The Democrats clearly don’t want to make a move which will overtly annoy their eco-minded, pro-wildlife base, but if gas makes it to five dollars a gallon, Floridians may well start loading up rowboats with pickaxes and heading out to sea themselves. Either of the candidates can, in theory, carve out an electoral map win without Florida, but neither of them wants to put that theory to the test if it can be avoided. With the rude reality of energy needs driving Florida voters closer to “drill here, drill now” and further from coastal sanctity, Obama may need to think up a new strategy if he wants to carry the Sunshine State.
6 Responses to “Florida: It’s the Petrol, Not the Politics”
The solutions to the energy crises aren't as hard as BigOil is making them out to be.
They want it to seem hard, expensive and impractical to maintain their price-fixing record-profit making hold on the market of energy consumption. It's the biggest industry in America after all and they're just being good capitalists..
The solutions are simple:
1. Increase all forms of acceptable and safe (not nuclear>they use this as a scare-tactic to herd people back to oil) technology at-site. In other words if the city in question is located next to thermal vents, you use geothermal. If the city sits in the desert, you use solar. If the city is Chicago, you use wind..and so on. If the city is near a natural water fall/flow you use hydro. Each city has an energy authority and centralizes a power grid to serve its citizens who either pay a premium or are taxed to support the energy production. In most cases costs should be quite low since most alternative types of energy cost most to setup and very little to maintain and keep running.
2. Maximize efficiency in the types of things that still need fossil fuels…until hydrogen car technology stops being suppressed by BigOil, we make laws that no passenger car is allowed to get under 40 mpg. Give tax breaks and subsidies to people who carpool or use mass transit. Keep the prices of gas high for commuters but low for shippers/trucking/farming companies and other vital suppliers of goods to keep food and merchandise prices low, spurring the vitality of the economy. For farmers who utilize alternatives to petrol products like using wind or sun, hydro or geothermal to power their farms and who employ organic methods that eliminate or greatly reduce petroleum based peticides and herbicides..more subsidies and tax breaks. In other words we give people incentives to conserve while still keeping our economy rolling and productive.
3. Give tax incentives to BigOil to join up with #1 and #2, or else.. Pass legislation forcing BigOil to carve a fraction of their megaprofits to fund development of alternative energy production sites all over the nation, giving them shares in exchange in the companies themselves but never allowing them to gain dominant shareholding, keeping the maximum at say, 30%. Pass laws that make preference of more polluting and/or dangerous and/or non-efficient madatorily subjegated to more clean, safe and efficient ones. We can pass “energy efficiency, cleanliness and safety” acts that protect citizens from being manipulated into a war in Iraq and held hostage by one superprovider like BigOil forever.
*******
Drilling in ecologically sensitive areas becomes a moot point when mandatory reduction and switchover to alternate energy production is enacted. The main objections BigOil will have to the foregoing is that it makes sense and therefore is dangerous (to them). If Congress finds a way to cushion the blow to the multi-yacht owning BigOil fatcats then we all should be quite happy with the arrangment. BigOil's push to drill domestically on our puny reserves (forget what they're telling you about what is out there; our reserves are largely locked up in hard-to-process rock deposits) reminds me of a kid who refuses to grow up and is still trying to fit into an old pair of knee-shorts one last time..
Sil! You made it through four huge and two small paragraphs without trashing Obama or hyping Hillary! There's hope for the world after all!
I agree with maximizing both efficiency and use of alternative resources, but disagree that we don't need some bridge supply to get us to the point of total independence from fossil fuels.
If you notice, I allowed for that in item #2.
The trend must be away from oil and towards alternatives. Of course we cannot switch over night, but laws must be enacted mandating a switch. BigOil is not only greedy, it has placed our country squarely in a vulnerable position. If you or I did that we'd be hung for treason.
My lessor “punishment” for them is to force them to help us recover our economy and our world standing among strong economies and governments. Plus, the above suggestions mandate thousands of local jobs in construction, implementation and maintenance of thousands of new (safe, clean and efficient) power plants.
We could punish BigOil without killing them, allow them to mitigate their damage, spur the economy and become independant and strong again as a nation. I'm a patriot at heart. I think I was reincarnated from one of the founding fathers or something…lol.. I get A-N-G-R-Y at anyone who tries to undermine the strength of the greatest country in the world. E-S-P-E-C-I-A-L-L-Y when its spurred by greed and amoral behavior.
BigOil has made us dependant and weak on other countries for our viability. We must smartly spank them and turn that exactly around and prove to the world that we are the top innovators and thinkers when it comes to getting out of a bind. That bind's name: fossil fuels
It's awful that an issue as important as energy policy is being decided on the basis of perceptions instead of honest choices.
The most important question not being asked of the pro-drillers is why there is no drilling in the 75-80% of the offshore areas already available for drilling now.
What is causing this: shortage of refineries, of equipment, of government subsidies, what? Whatever the problem is now will continue to be a problem no matter how much more in available acreage there is. Drilling options need to be considered as part of a package including these other problems.
Could McCain answer this question, please?
It is so badly misleading to link drilling to current gas prices. The new oil production would be priced in the global market, and the trickle down price effect at US gas pumps would be very small and delayed by at leat 10 years. A valid question is how should those 10+years be spent as it relates to energy policy. What is offset between developing new energy sources and drilling? Can both be accomodated without harming the other?
Could the candidates explain in specifics rather than pandering to interest groups and voting blocs?
I've long thought that enviornmentalists and businesses should look for compromise more and that contracts including environmental clauses should be more rigidly enforced to make compromise more palatable and trusted..
This, is a shadow dance, all promises, no details.
Could the candidates explain and explain honestly, please?
I agree. I can't wait to see what Hillary has to say about her position on the matter.
Sill: “they're just being good capitalists” You're right, they are, at the detriment of the rest of us. I do believe that we should be open to Fusion research and the possibility of a few new fission reactors as a stop-gap measure as well as a opening new areas to oil drilling. The oil industry, for 30 years or longer, has done everything it could to keep alternative energy research out of the picture. But they were just being good little capitalists by protecting their little pseudo-monopoly though, right?
Agree with Runasim, there is plenty of locations already open to drilling but aren't being used. Why? Opening new areas needs to include provisions to see why current open areas aren't being used & a tax break removal from the oil companies to alternative energy research/development.
I also agree with Jazz, we MAY need to open new areas to drilling, but no one is being honest to what it will really do for gas prices.
McCain is lying that'll lower the price of gas immediately, UNLESS he's worked out a back-room deal with oil companies to lower the prices artificially. I also believe he's going to be beholden to the oil industry and NOT invest into alternative energy research/development.
Obama is being short-sighted on possibilities we may need to explore to get us past oil into alternative energy to markets.
Out of the two I do think Obama is the one who'll work for energy independence for this country.
Sil, what will you do if Hillary agrees with Obama?