Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Can somebody explain this to me?

The House of Representatives voted to move forward with oil development in ANWR, over Democratic objections:

The bill's sponsors said oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as much as a million barrels a day, will be needed to help curtail the country's growing dependence on oil imports. Opponents argued the oil wouldn't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.
What does that have to do with anything? In fact, isn’t it a reason to start development now so that the oil could be potentially available in case of another 1973-type oil shock? I have never understood this illogical “ten years away” argument.


Bruce said...

Just further proof that the Democrats don't want what's best for the country. They want what's best for them, the reclamation of their lost political power. They have no interest in fixing social security either. I mean, that might take a long time. How will that help them retake the White house in '08 or '12? It won't.

And why is a 10-year forecast for oil production a reason to vote against it, but a open-ended timetable for potential life-saving medical advances that MIGHT come about as result of stem-cell research is OK?

Anonymous said...

Good comparison! Because stem cell research isn't going to run dry? Because stem cell research isn't in the hands of our geopolitical foes? Because the results of stem cell research will get cheaper, not more expensive? Because the scientists who go out to obtain stem cell research for our nation don't get their arms blown off?