For the liberals and the democrats in general, it seems their idea of an energy policy is to do whatever you can to not use it. But more than that, it's also important not to get it. We declare oil and coal fields national parks. How does that reduce dependence on foreign oil? It's been over 3 years now that the President's energy policy has been ignored. The time for a change is long overdue.
About a year ago, before John Kerry was picked as the democrat presidential candidate, he made a statement that this country should drill in the Gulf of Mexico. And my congressman, Jeff Miller (R) reacted to Kerry's comment, quotes below. A year later, now post hurricane Ivan, we have seen many of the rigs in the gulf get damaged and/or destroyed, and yet, no desctuctive oil spills. The record shows that these structures and the technology is as safe as it could be, while at the same time becoming marine life habitats. There's nothing negative about it.
We've already let decades go by, knowing of our need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, without doing anything to effect the changes needed.
This problem belongs to the country, not just the state of Florida. And the NIMBY principle needs to go. I'm an American before I'm a Floridian, and so is everyone else in Florida. Rep. Jeff Miller's words are in bold italic font. Mine are in normal font. Text of the letter follows. . .
Re:Rep Jeff Miller, Jeff Miller Blast Kerry For Advocating Drilling in Gulf
"I think it's unconscionable for a Senator from Massachusetts to come down here and tell the people of Florida what's right for them," Miller said. "It's arrogant and irresponsible."
I agree, sort of. First of all, I don't believe Kerry really wants to get our own oil out of the Gulf of Mexico. In his case, he's only for it because the Florida republican admin. is against it. I've never before heard any democrat support the idea of drilling for our own oil anywhere within our territories.
Unlike you and apparently a majority of voters here, I'm all for using our resources to reduce our dependency on oil from other countries.
And unlike you, I don't make an automatic connection that drilling for oil is an automatic doom for our state's economy. I think technology to mine our oil and gas underwater is safe enough to go forward. Even in a worst case scenario, it is well worth the risk to proceed, we can recover from an accident. If our imported oil stops coming in, candles will be in high demand for about 10 years. That's the case that I wish someone would make. If it takes 10 years to get oil out of the ground from beginning to end of an exploration/drilling project, then that's where we ought to be focused.
If it'll take 20 or 30 years to come up with viable (not experimental) alternative sources of energy to propel our economy, then why on earth aren't we doing everything we can to get us there in the meantime?
Ten years ago, if our leaders had the gonads to stand up to the environmental lobby and actually DO something to reduce our dependence of foreign oil by getting to our own, we'd be in a whole lot better shape. We would have increased our refinery capacity so we could be refining our own oil now, all the while developing the next generation of energy. Instead, we're looking at high fuel prices and dependence on unreliable allies for our fuel; doing nothing to get our own resources out of the ground, including low sulfur coal, and putting our hopes in a substitute energy source that is decades away. To me, THAT is taking a greater risk to our lives than drilling in the Gulf today, AND irresponsible.
'Protecting our beautiful beaches and clean water is important,' Miller said, 'but we also need to remember that those gas leases are right in the middle of Eglin's water ranges. Drilling platforms could encroach upon weapons testing and the Navy's use of those ranges for training. We've already lost Vieques. Where will the Navy train if they can't train in Florida?'
Isn't it easier to find another place to train than to move our oil & gas resources to another part of the earth, before we can get to it? That argument is too weak to repeat.
Push comes to shove; we'll find a place. Cynically, I'd choose the border between Mexico and the U.S. We'd solve two problems simultaneously.