Several months back, Senate Democrats preened for the cameras after filibustering the drilling in ANWR, saying that they’d protected ‘the environment’ by doing so. What they didn’t say is that they also caused us to get more addicted to foreign suppliers of natural gas. That’s just part of the Democrats’ energy policy.

Democrats filibustering the drilling in ANWR didn’t tell you that ANWR is home to one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. Everyone knows that natural gas is the most efficient, cleanest burning home heating fuel. What we don’t know is why Democrats are blocking us from tapping into a natural gas field that would eliminate most of our foreign purchases of natural gas.

People living in the Rust Belt states, from Montana to Maine, are adversely affected by that filibuster. What’s worse is that the area in ANWR where the drilling would occur, isn’t “pristine wilderness.” It’s 3.13 square miles of tundra swamp.The section of ANWR that is “pristine wilderness” is 200 miles away.

By not drilling in Section 1002, states like Massachusetts had to make deals with the devil to get the home heating oil they needed. In this instance, the devil is known as Hugo Chavez, the American-hating terrorist supporter. Massachusetts Representative Bill Delahunt brokered the deal.

What’s scary is that this is the most coherent part of the Democrats’ energy policy. It gets worse after that. Consider their bemoaning our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Their proposed fix? Levy a windfalls profit tax on the oil companies, which will cause them to shrink production. It sounds good to the average person who doesn’t think things through but it’s counterproductive. It makes the situation worse, not better. Far worse.

For years and years, the Democrats blocked everything in terms of building new refineries and nuclear power plants. We’re paying the price for that, too. While our population went from 205 million in 1976 to nearly 300 million today, while our economy has increased by trillions of dollars, our refining capacity has remained almost the same. And Democrats have led the way in making sure that “the environment” was protected in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

We’ve also heard Democrats’ cries for more alternative fuel cars. They’re already being built and purchased. Then again, Ted Kennedy blocks all attempts to put in a windfarm off the coast of the Kennedy family compound. Other rich liberals applaud him from their mansions, which cost more to heat for a winter than a school teacher makes in a year. That windfarm should be built ASAP.

The other Democratic proposal is to suspend the federal gas tax for an undetermined length of time. While it would decrease the cost per gallon temporarily, it does nothing to expand production. In fact, the cheaper gas prices might cause a spike in people taking longer vacations, etc., which might cause actual gas lines.

So add it all up and the Democrats’ energy policy is tax hikes, gas tax moratoriums, no production increases and increased dependance on foreign suppliers. That’s what we should expect should there be Democratic majority in the House or Senate.

That’s an energy policy that we can’t afford.

Technorati Tags: ANWR, Environment, Energy, Democrats

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Great post. Keep hammering away on this topic.

   Comment by Mike — April 27, 2006 @ 9:07 am

2. It’s hard to know where to being with the mis-information and bluster in this that you’re trying to pass off as ‘analysis’ so I’ll let that slide (if you think I’m not qualified to comment on such things, I used to work for a large oil company and have a background in geophysics). In any event, what’s not been said is that economists and analysts across the board (even from the Cato and Heritage Institutes) agree that being ‘energy independent’ is simply not doable, you would basically kill the US economy. The demand for oil and natural gas in this country simply far outstrips our known supplies, and that’s today. It would take years to develop a field like ANWR and even then it would hardly last that long at our current rate of consumption. Most natural gas reserves are in places like Russia and the Middle East (we get a fair bit of ours from Canada). The best, most immediate thing we can do is conservation. In a way, that’s happening now because gas prices are encouraging people to drive less. In that vein, I think we can agree that higher taxes are not necessary or desireable since that money would basically go down some black hole, never to be seen again (a Republican black hole or a Democratic one, take your pick). If I do blame ‘the government’ (meaning both parties) it’s that they haven’t done enough to avert the problem by enforcing energy standards for vehicles (2/3 of our oil consuption is for transportation needs … so talk about things like nuclear reactors and wind farms is a bit of a canard). However, if we find ourselves in this situation, our government is only partly to blame. Most of it lies with ourselves: our perceived ‘need’ to own gas-sucking trucks and the need to heat a 4000 square foot home etc etc.

   NB: Fuel oil is not natural gas. Thus, ANWR natural gas doesn’t really affect them. If you just want to have a rant about Ted Kennedy and Masschusetts then just write a separate column. ;-)

   Comment by Matthew — April 27, 2006 @ 11:13 am

3. In Matthew’s comment, he continues to raise the canard that ANWR would “hardly last that long at our current rate of consumption.” That’s true if we supplied all of our petroleum needs from ANWR. However, no one has proposed that except for the libs who are adamant that no drilling occur in ANWR. Based on current EIA data, we import 10% of our petroleum from Saudi Arabia. What would happen if that were replaced with domestic production? We would be in a much stronger negotiating position in the Middle East if we could show that we could live without their oil.

   Granted, it would take a long time to bring ANWR online. In the meanwhile, how about if some environmental processes were relaxed so that additional refinery capacity could be brought on line? How about if air quality standards could be relaxed to that the requirement for “boutique” gasolines could go away?

   Don’t get me wrong. At $3 per gallon, I’m driving less and driving easier when I have to. Is Matthew arguing for even higher gas prices in order to reach his desired end?

   Comment by Joe — April 27, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

4. Oil and Gas is not going to last that long. ANWR will mearly be a stop gap measure. The world needs to move beyond oil and gas and look at alternatives. It is the only way to get energy security.

   Also conservation is vital. America and Europe has pretty much the same standard of living yet Europe use half the amount of fuel. One of the main reasons is the engine sizes of American cars.

   Also I friend of mine was over in Arizona in a room that was quiet warm and the heating was on. Now instead of turning off the heat the guy turn on the air conditioning. That sound crazy to me and when my friend questio ned the guy he saw nothing wrong with it.

   If you think $3 per Gallon is bad. It is about €1.20 a litre in Ireland which is about $6 a gallon. This is due to tax on oil over here.

   As for the Kennedy’s objecting. Tell him where to go.

   Comment by simon — April 27, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

5. My comment about ANWR was meant to illustrate that the reserves there are merely a drop in the proverbial bucket to our daily energy needs. Thus, the hoopla about what it might contain apropos petroleum isn’t warranted. Having worked at Prudhoe Bay, I can say that it’s possible to drill in ANWR without a large environmental effect. I say this, admittedly, being pretty staunchly pro-environment on a lot of things. Extra care does need to be taken though as it is a pretty important wetlands area (what Gary refers to, disparagingly, as a ’swamp’). With proper oversight (assuming the state of AK does it’s job….) I think this can be done. Do I advocate higher gas prices? From the personal point of view, obviously not (duh!). I actually think we’re just playing ‘catch-up’ with the actual market price of gas, rather than the artifically low price we’ve paid for years. Do I advocate giving oil companies subsidies to extract oil from public land? No. I think have more than enough money for exploration/development without throwing more of our money at them. Do I advocate the feds being more proactive about raising mileage requirements on vehicles? Yes, I do. Anyone who reads enough will know that people don’t always make rational economic choices, and they rarely, if ever, make economic choices that are good for the nation as a whole (and it’s future). Thus, in this case, I think there is a rational case for the Feds to impose standards that will aid us in conservation, even if it means you’ll really have to pay through the nose to drive that Hummer if you want to.

   Comment by Matthew — April 27, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

6. Glad to see SOMEONE tell the truth about ANWR drilling–that the “pristine” wildlife refuge IS 200 miles away from the basically uninhabitable wasteland where the great reserves we need are located.

   Comment by Dairenn Lombard — April 28, 2006 @ 1:44 am

7. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

   Comment by Matthew — April 28, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

8. The democrats may be pushing alternative fuel cars, but now that people are actually driving them (and hybrids) what are Democrat-controlled states doing? California and Oregon, for example, are considering adding a miles-driven tax on cars because more economical cars are reducing their gas-tax revenues. As a bonus, the freedom-loving Democrats want to implement this tax by putting GPS on all cars. Odometer tampering being illegal and all, you would think it sufficient to read the odometer during those state’s mandatory emissions inspections. Apparently, knowing exactly where and when you drive is important in determing your tax.

   Comment by Bob Smith — April 30, 2006 @ 10:43 pm

9. 5335
   Everybody is looking for Free Sex.

   Find your free sex Porn Downloads here.

   Comment by 0e9fa1f3e9 — July 11, 2006 @ 12:57 am