He stated:
"Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolution, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours."
Today our nation is challenged with an energy cost explosion that has resulted in oil flirting with $150/barrel and gasoline exceeding $4.00 at the pump.
So how does our President plan on dealing with these extraordinary challenges?
Drill more. Just keep on doing the same thing over and over.
In today's radio address, President Bush stated:"Last month I called on the House and the Senate to lift this legislative ban, so we can allow States to have the option of opening up OCS resources off their coasts."
Drill on the far reaches of the outer continental shelf.
John McCain isn't supposed to be a clone of Bush but as reported:
"...he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. "They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions," McCain said. "I'm not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria."
Bush continued:
"Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale."
McCain as reported:
"For long-term energy needs, McCain said "all options" are on the table, including exploring oil shale deposits in the western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
"It becomes more and more affordable as the price of gasoline goes up and a barrel of oil goes up," McCain said of the expensive oil shale extraction process."
Bush continued:
"Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in northern Alaska."
McCain, to his credit, has resisted drilling in ANWR.
And finally, Bush explained we needed to refine more oil as well.
"Finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. It has been 30 years since a new refinery was built in our Nation, and lawsuits and red tape have made it extremely costly to expand or modify existing refineries."
Where is McCain on refineries?
"Sen. McCain: "At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people especially in the summer season. But the policymakers in Washington haven't got around to that, either. There's so much regulation of the industry that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president."
Bush and McCain---Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. Just the same old same old I guess.
But what about Obama? Is he offering anything new in the picture?
As noted:
"The senator announced no new proposals as he laid out his plans for a new energy policy, including support for research and development into alternative fuels and raising fuel efficiency standards, and highlighted his differences with McCain on energy in general and on specific issues like the gas tax holiday proposal to offshore drilling in particular.
Obama slammed McCain for voting against clean biofuels, solar power, wind power and against an energy bill that represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country and mocked the Arizona senator's recent remarks that Washington had done little over the last 30 years to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, noting that McCain has been in Washington for about 26 years."
The contrast couldn't be greater. On the one hand we have a Senator who asks us to do what we have been doing all along but more of it.
And then we have this upstart who calls upon us to use our imagination, to apply our research and development skills for new energy sources, clean biofuels, solar power, and wind power.
The echoes of 1961 are clear. Americans are at a cross-road. We can search for new solutions to old problems or we can apply the same old and tired attempts at temporizing a national challenge.
America is hopeful, optimistic, and looking to the future. Our solutions to our problems lie within our imagination and natural curiosity in finding new approaches to old problems. It has never been the case that more of the same will deal with a problem that hasn't been already solved by the same old same old.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
When I suggested elsewhere nuclear others rightly pointed that it would take ten years to bring to production. Most of the other solutions (alternative fuels or fuel from corn) may also reach ten years or more before they begin to economically produce.
I say to all of you that think that nuclear power is great, look at Davis Bessies history, and that of the Fermie II nuclear power plant in Monroe, Michigan. Both plants have had huge problems, Fermie I and II has spent more time down, then up. Bessie had a hole in it's reactor, and if it would have gone by any longer it would have been another three mile island. So Gary would you like this in your back yard? Davis Bessie is run by First Energy in Akron, remember that black out that put most of the northeast in the dark afew years ago? That was First Energy, how would you feel about having a company that it this incompetent running a nuclear power plant in your back yard. If you want nuclear so bad, call your energy company, and your representatives in congress, and tell them you want one in your back yard. I am sure that your family would love to have a possible nuclear bomb in their backyard, and I am sure it will do wonders for your resale value. I don't think your representatives have to worry about hearing from you.
Who else is there to drill? Since you don't like the options, who would you like to do the drilling? China is more than anxious to exploit our oil... Maybe we should ask Hugo Cesar Chavez to do the drilling for us.
NO, don't be afraid, Mark S. is wrong. You are not under attack.
I understand you are not satisfied with the performance of our "greedy" oil companies... therefore who else would do it? You willnever accept any proposals from the Republican party, therefore, if Hussein Obama calls for drilling... will you support our own filthy rich oil companies do the drillin or who else?
So far you have 4/10 scores. I will not score for or against, because you are not under attack or under agreement. This is a forum for intelligent arguments and I respectfully disagree with you!
Greetings.
Thanks for writing! In terms of 'supply and demand', it is important to consider that McCain's 'summer holiday' is a bandaid on a major wound. It is only helpful in reducing tax revenue, expanding our deficit, and making political points without dealing with the underlying problems.
If we drill now, it doesn't go to the United States. We have not nationalized our oil reserves, they would be licensed to the major oil companies who would then go and sell the oil to the Chinese, the Indians, or wherever the market demanded. That is the free enterprise system.
There are millions of acres available for them to drill right now. And they are drilling.
This is simply subterfuge about trying to get some more advantages for oil companies that they don't need, and that will not solve the burden of the gasoline and fuel oil price for the individual consumer.
Thanks for writing and you can rate the article any way you want. The points given are not about the views of the writer but the quality of the content. At least that's what I believe the system represents....but I am new at this.
Thanks for respectfully responding.
While there are "millions" of avaibable acres to drill, the leases are on UNPRODUCTIVE land, or these :evil gluttons" would be drilling more. 95% of available land is made UNavailable due to Democrat, environmentalist and "global warming" obstructionist's, and the American people are left to suffer. Oh, we CERTAINLY wouldn't want to drill where the KNOWN vast oilfields reside...
Drilling is the ONLY answer...meantime, we can begin to develop ALL THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES we wish.
Admit it...nothing else is viable as a solution, currently. And the American People will not stand for Leftist obstruction in Congress much longer. The World runs on oil. Accept it. America, let's GET ON with it.
What's spurious about all of the Republican proposals is the fact that they bellow "Drilling for oil in ANWR and off-shore will increase our oil capacity!" and then whisper "by 3% over the next 20 years."
We should explore alternative energy sources regardless of the price of oil, as fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. However, we should also be frank with people - especially in an election year - that whether we open the Arctic reserves or offshore areas for drilling, it's not going to be a magic bullet for the price of gasoline at any time in the foreseeable future.
I am not disputing with you the fact that the world "has run on oil, and the World will CONTINUE to run on oil [emphasis yours]". I am stating no canard but a verifiable reality acknowledged by politicians and oil companies alike - that drilling for oil in untapped reserves will not have an immediate effect on the price of gasoline to the end consumer.
I quote from a washingtonpost.com article on the candidates' positions on offshore oil drilling:
A report last year by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." It added, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
The entire article can be found here
The oil is THERE, and we should all be disgusted by the obstruction perpetrated by those fools in Congress.
Further, the oil companies do NOT agree with you, and "timetables" for leasing and market impact are further examples of unadulterated, obstructionist garbage.
Drill!!! NO, you can't drill there!
Nuke energy!!! NO, you can't nuke here.
$300M for a new battery car!!! NO, that is ridicule; first guv has to put tax payers' money in front.
To be honest: I was born out of the U.S. Got naturalized and love this country in my own right winged way.
All of us: left and right, conservative or liberal, progressive or rational... we have been taught to support the policies of political parties that do not support us at all.
American citizens are within a civil war of words and ideologies. This civil war benefits either party. Meanwhile we the people just divide apart.
As a rep voter, the rep party has failed me. You, as a Dem voter, the Dem party have failed you: this recession got started since the new congress majority took over the senate in 2006. You can deny it if you want, and you can blame it to W.B. Weak minded bloggers resource to that all the time... so... there is no problem if you want to do it again, and again, and again... and ignore the appalling work done by the by the new senate that offer a change.
There is also no doubt that this energy crisis has caused people to look more seriously at these alternatives and to pursue them more agressively. If nothing else, people have seriously curtailed their usage of SUV's and other gas guzzlers, and the Toyota Prius hybrid is now the #1 selling car here in the states, and Toyota recently announced plans to open a Prius factory here. Those can only be seen as positive developments.
But the fact remains that in the SHORT term, and probably the medium term as well, our nation remains a petroleum based economy. We can't instantly replace the millions of diesel semis that transport goods across this country (at an average of about 8mpg). We can't instantly put a hybrid or electric car in every garage, or a hydrogen cell service station on every street corner. These things take time.
In the meantime, we have to do what we can to make sure our supply of petroleum is not overly constricted to the point that average americans can't afford to get to and from work. That means looking at all the available sources we have that haven't been tapped yet. That includes the ANWR, offshore sites, and whatever else we can get our hands on.
Another limiting factor in supply is our refining capacity, despite much higher demand. The US has not built a domestic refinery in about 30 years. The costs and regulations are extremely high, as well as the NIMBY effect (Not In My Back Yard!)
Again, we do need to look for alternatives. But until they are found and the support structure is in place for them, we need to do what we can about keeping oil prices low too.
Thanks again for commenting.
I think we are all, liberal and conservative, being HAD by Big Oil.
Yep.
Try this article on for size:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-06-17-2740041135_x.htm
You know, from that mainstream newspaper USA Today. Not really a liberal rag.
This is some of what they had to say:
""By creating a situation of extremely tight supply, the oil companies gain control over price at the wholesale level," said Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America. He argued that a wave of mergers in recent years created a refining industry that "has no interest in creating spare (refining) capacity."
Only last year, the Energy Department was told that refiners, reaping big profits and anticipating growing demand, were looking at boosting their refining capacity by more than 1.6 million barrels a day, a roughly 10 percent increase. That would be enough to produce an additional 37 million gallons of gasoline daily.
But oil companies already have scaled those expansion plans back by nearly 40 percent. More cancelations are expected if Congress passes legislation now before the Senate calling for 15 billion gallons of ethanol use annually by 2015 and more than double that by 2022, say industry and government officials.
"These (expansion) decisions are being revisited in boardrooms across the refining sector," said Charlie Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
With the anticipated growth in biofuels, "you're getting down to needing little or no additional gasoline production" above what is being made today, said Joanne Shore, an analyst for the government's Energy Information Administration."
I didn't make this stuff up.
So while you might like to make this a question of lefty vs. righty, this is actually a question of the American consumer vs. Big Oil.
And sure, if there's no guarantee of a future profit stream, an oil company would be insane to spend the billions and years required to build a new refinery, only to have demand fall apart when by the time it was finished. I can't say I blame them on that point, as you aptly illustrate, with the growth of biofuels and other alternatives. The time to build a new refinery was likely 5 years ago, but there wasn't enough foresight on the part of the oil companies when gas was $1.50 a gallon.
I would add, however, that American oil companies have VERY little control over global prices. The largest US oil corp, Exxon/Mobil, is only 14th in the world, the rest being large nationalized oil industries in the oil producing nations. They (with help from OPEC) are the REAL big oil, and the real manipulator of prices.
My apologies. It was WARIO who talked right v. left.
The solar tax credit drew support from both sides of the aisle in Congress but died by one vote in the Senate when Bush threatened to veto the energy bill because the solar tax credit would be financed by repealing previous tax breaks given to Big Oil.
Now this puzzles me......well not really..you'd have to be a fool not to be able to spot the obvious. My opinion is that even at the lowest level,..individuals should be able to contribute to our energy needs by supplying rebates and tax credits to homeowners to put solar and wind in their homes to get us to energy security.
Imagine all the jobs to be created if every home in america had solar panels.and even wind turbines in their backyard...
Imagine big oil crying because they would lose their grip on the average taxpayer.
Imagine our independence.....wow! a true energy independence day!
A nuclear reactor in a stable, well regulated, modern economy such as ours might be the best option available. It sure beats giving all our money to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela...
Solar and wind are nice as partial answers, but each has their own problems as well. Those may be solved in the future with improved technology, which I advocate the support of, but right now they aren't the answer, by themselves. And certainly not for autmotive uses, which is where the majority of our petroleum consumption is anyway.