I signed my name to the post. That is not a plant. I am listed on the Bech website as a staffer. I made it clear that I knew Nathan. It is not a secret plan. I think the Phoenix readers are smarter than they are getting credit for by some.
I would just ask everyone here how John Olver is going to lower energy prices. It is easy to throw out all kinds of rhetoric, but I'd just like an alternate explanation for the crude price drop. The executive order was merely a *suggestion* that the ban *could* be lifted. It suggests that the basic laws of economics do, in fact, apply to this commodity market.
I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Green Party candidates over the years. I don't think that Democrats are the problem here. Nathan and I do not believe that we can drill our way out of this problem. In fact, we KNOW America cannot drill our way out of it. But drilling would help. There needs to be immediate relief from the high prices on the futures market and this is the most potent way to change the expectations upon which investors make decisions.
Please show me one place in that speech where Olver said that energy places were too high. I don't see it. That leads me to believe that he thinks we are the problem and not energy prices. Nowhere did he provide a plan to get energy prices down. There was no mention of putting refinery capacity back where it was in the 1970s or tax credits for hybrid cars. His only solution is a LIHEAP handout.
It is rather amusing to watch all this vitriol being hurled at an ardent environmentalist like Nathan. He only wants to drill where the environmental impact will be *very* low. He wants price gouging and speculation to be addressed.
So if he only wants to drill in safe places, what's the harm in increasing our production capacity? If the oil companies have all this acreage and aren't drilling, what is the harm in giving them more? They won't use it, right? If it is an unprofitable venture, why worry about opening up ANWR? Profits will be so low that no one will set up shop, right? If we put strict environmental conditions on exploration, why are all these polar bear scare tactics being used?
Nathan's plan includes using some of the offshore drilling tax revenue to finance the cleanup and/or replacement of the most polluting electric plants (i.e. "The Dirty Dozen"). Doesn't sound like an oil company hack to me.
I am totally with you on us needing to get off oil. Like Nathan, I am very much behind alternative energy and a carbon-free energy policy. The problem is that we aren't there yet and people need relief from the current pain in order to cope. The transition must happen at a pace that doesn't leave neighbors cold.
I really fail to understand why a clear plan for transitioning to clean energy (which I think is more ambitious than Sen. Obama's plan) is so objectionable.
Call me what you want, but I'm making an argument here. Feel free to disagree, but please do not insult me. It only makes your position look bad.
Brian