"Drill Here Dill Now" Bumper Sticker

[AtticaFlinch]

I think almost all of you have missed the point of the drill here drill now bumper sticker.

As well, I think you may have missed the point behind the opposition to it. There probably are a handful of unshaven hippies who go about protecting the environment because it gives them the warm fuzzies, but there are some who do it for the benefit of the future. Whether or not you acknowledge global warming or the detriments of burning all that carbon into the atmosphere (so we won't even go there), you must acknowledge there's a finite supply of fossil fuels. And, after we exhaust more and more of that limited supply the cost of extraction will necessarily continue to get more expensive. By preserving our supply, we can reap the economic benefits of inflated prices when extraction does get too costly, keeping our economy at the forefront of world economic growth. In the meantime, it forces our corporations to plan beyond the standard five years and look at new technologies that can do what oil, gas and coal currently do. So, while we have our eyes on the future with prices, we also have our eyes on the future with technologies. The problem is without this limitation on drilling, most corporations would take the easy way out and drill here and now without providing a working plan for the future after oil. Then, when a barrell costs $500 per, they'd run to the government for a quick-fix solution. Remember, most big businesses are only concerned about the next quarter's profit/loss statements and not that of fifty years into the future. That's the government's job to think that far into the future and develop a plan to get us there. The opposition to drilling here and now are based on the economy far more than you give it credit for. The warm fuzzies are just a nice added side benefit.

People on the right give hippies far more credit than they warrant. They don't control any policy, and their voting contingent is far smaller than even the tea-bagging contingent. You do realize the current administrator of the EPA has a Master's in Chemical Engineering from Princeton, right?

[RedScare]

By the way, why are you using the China/Cuba oil lease myth to make your argument? Your position was weak even before you used a myth to support it. WITH the myth, it is laughable.

[Jeebus]

Drill Here Drill Now could also be considered a symbol of how stubborn, stupid, backwards, and MYOPIC the right has become. In a world of diminishing oil reserves , and where 90 percent of the world's remaining reserves are controlled by governments, the prudent and far-sighted American would seek to use other countries' oil, while conserving our own. By importing oil from other countries, and simultaneously developing technologies that conserve oil and maximize the limited reserves at our disposal, we would create an insurance policy against the inevitable use of foreign oil as ransom. The intelligent and pragmatic American would realize that the US consumes about 7.5 Billion barrels of oil per year, yet has only 21 to 31 Billion barrels of reserves (depending upon who you ask). If the foreign controlled oil were cut off, the US...even if it could pump all of that oil...would run out of reserves in 3 to 5 years.

For once we agree.

[Fringe]

For once we agree.

Me to. Well put Red Scare. Sooner or later we must drop our dependence on foreign oil. Either by drilling here or forcing consumers to use less. (return of $4 a gallon gasoline will do that). 

[LTAWACS]

Me to. Well put Red Scare. Sooner or later we must drop our dependence on foreign oil. Either by drilling here or forcing consumers to use less. (return of $4 a gallon gasoline will do that). 

Perhaps a fundamental shift of the kind needed to ween ourselves from oil is in order. Yes, it will be difficult to overcome, but eventually, all that oil will run out. Then what?

[Marksmu]

Drill Here Drill Now could also be considered a symbol of how stubborn, stupid, backwards, and MYOPIC the right has become. In a world of diminishing oil reserves , and where 90 percent of the world's remaining reserves are controlled by governments, the prudent and far-sighted American would seek to use other countries' oil, while conserving our own. By importing oil from other countries, and simultaneously developing technologies that conserve oil and maximize the limited reserves at our disposal, we would create an insurance policy against the inevitable use of foreign oil as ransom. The intelligent and pragmatic American would realize that the US consumes about 7.5 Billion barrels of oil per year, yet has only 21 to 31 Billion barrels of reserves (depending upon who you ask). If the foreign controlled oil were cut off, the US...even if it could pump all of that oil...would run out of reserves in 3 to 5 years.

This is the same mentality that preceded the Great Recession. Americans saved nothing, borrowed everything. Equity in one's home could be compared to oil reserves. Rather than conserve and boost that equity, many Americans took out home equity loans or refinanced to 100% of the home's value...effectively Drilling their home equity Here, Drilling their home equity Now. When lending (foreign oil) dried up, these Drill Here Drill Now home borrowers were foreclosed.

So, yeah, I guess I missed the point of the bumper sticker. I thought it was just an ignorant slogan showing support for an ignorant Vice Presedential candidate. The reality is that the bumper sticker reveals just how myopic Americans can be, just so that they can drive around in a big truck and play rancher.

http://www.eia.doe.g...l/reserves.html

IF the liberal left actually believed that they were just saving it for later to be prudent I would agree with you, but your absolutely kidding yourself if you think that is why they are blocking drilling. The liberal left is not holding out for more renewable resources, they are simply blocking drilling because the constituents from their individual areas do not want to see an oil well in their back yard...Its more of the NIMBY mentality. If an oil well pops up where the people dont want one, that politician will get voted out for it if they allowed it or did not try to stop it. If the entire plan was to block tapping our resources to spur more growth in renewable energy and to provide energy more affordably, why not then allow clean coal plants to built? Why block that? Why continually block nuclear project after nuclear project? There are currently several different options available to provide more energy to Americans at decreased prices that are not based on petroleum products. If they would invest here in power plants that can operate on other sources of energy we already possess, we could use much less petroleum as a nation on a daily basis and become more independent on foreign oil.

But they are not interested in that. They block all new power plants because that is what their constituents want. The people living in Blue States want absolutely undisturbed countryside they want to eat beef but not know how the cow was slaughtered. They pay more per KWH by purchasing Green Mountain Energy so they can feel good about themselves. They are blocking growth in general, not just clean growth. They want everything to be made somewhere else so they dont have to see the effects that it had on their undisturbed countryside. Their constant blockade of growth costs Americans tens of thousands of jobs. But by blocking literally everything all they are doing is shifting the pollution and everything else to another side of the planet, we are not saving ourselves from the effects of it.

There are lots of ways to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and constantly blocking the use of American resources and shifting jobs overseas is not one of them.

And Finally - the Cubans did lease an area 50 miles offshore to China - China has not developed that field for fear of US backlash - They are currently developing a field on the opposite end of Cuba in preparation of future devlopment on the US side. Its not a myth, it just has not happened yet. The leases are executed, the fields just have not been developed as of yet for purely political reasons.

The truth of the entire situation is that Democrats are against any form of growth that is not dependent upon the government. They want everything to go through them so they continue to grow their stronghold. If they can control it all, they can control who has it all. So I will continue to drive my big truck while I play Rancher and not feel one little bit guilty about it, and you can continue thinking your better and smarter than everyone else while riding your bike or driving your hybrid so that you can play attorney.

[barracuda]

IF the liberal left actually believed that they were just saving it for later to be prudent I would agree with you, but your absolutely kidding yourself if you think that is why they are blocking drilling. The liberal left is not holding out for more renewable resources, they are simply blocking drilling because the constituents from their individual areas do not want to see an oil well in their back yard...Its more of the NIMBY mentality.

I think that's partly true (although the "liberal left" is not a monolithic entity that agrees on everything). I don't think most folks who oppose domestic drilling are doing so for the prudent reason RedScare outline. Instead, I think the opposition is based primarily on environmental concerns. Also consider the fact that we have relatively cheap imported oil, and there's little incentive, at least to an environmentally-conscience person, to desire drilling in the backyard, or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for that matter. In terms of ANWR specifically, obtaining a couple extra years worth of oil just doesn't seem worth scarring a national treasure, unless it's absolutely necessary and a good chunk of the profits go back to the taxpayers (considering we own the land in question).

If an oil well pops up where the people dont want one, that politician will get voted out for it if they allowed it or did not try to stop it. If the entire plan was to block tapping our resources to spur more growth in renewable energy and to provide energy more affordably, why not then allow clean coal plants to built? Why block that? Why continually block nuclear project after nuclear project? There are currently several different options available to provide more energy to Americans at decreased prices that are not based on petroleum products. If they would invest here in power plants that can operate on other sources of energy we already possess, we could use much less petroleum as a nation on a daily basis and become more independent on foreign oil.

There's no such thing as clean coal. It's a marketing gimmick for a vaporware product. As such, there are many reasons to block coal power plants, from destructive mining that poisons communities and destroys mountains and entire ecosystems, to the toxic burning itself, to the lingering mercury pollution, and the effect on global warming.

I hesitantly support nuclear, but they aren't economically feasible and the potential for terrorism and the handling of nuclear waste are still problems.

But they are not interested in that. They block all new power plants because that is what their constituents want. The people living in Blue States want absolutely undisturbed countryside they want to eat beef but not know how the cow was slaughtered. They pay more per KWH by purchasing Green Mountain Energy so they can feel good about themselves. They are blocking growth in general, not just clean growth. They want everything to be made somewhere else so they dont have to see the effects that it had on their undisturbed countryside. Their constant blockade of growth costs Americans tens of thousands of jobs. But by blocking literally everything all they are doing is shifting the pollution and everything else to another side of the planet, we are not saving ourselves from the effects of it.

There are lots of ways to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and constantly blocking the use of American resources and shifting jobs overseas is not one of them.

The truth of the entire situation is that Democrats are against any form of growth that is not dependent upon the government. They want everything to go through them so they continue to grow their stronghold. If they can control it all, they can control who has it all. So I will continue to drive my big truck while I play Rancher and not feel one little bit guilty about it, and you can continue thinking your better and smarter than everyone else while riding your bike or driving your hybrid so that you can play attorney.

Actually, clean renewable energy is not more expensive than conventional energy, at least in Houston and with the right provider (i.e. - not Green Mountain). But your disdain for folks who try to reduce their impact on the planet is kind of mind-blowing. We breath the same air and live by the same constraints of energy availability. You should be applauding those of us who use green energy and drive hybrids for keeping your air cleaner and your fuel prices lower, and for helping to fund technological advancements that will allow us to sustain a comfortable standard of living once we run out of fossil fuels.

[JJVilla]

But they are not interested in that. They block all new power plants because that is what their constituents want. The people living in Blue States want absolutely undisturbed countryside they want to eat beef but not know how the cow was slaughtered. They pay more per KWH by purchasing Green Mountain Energy so they can feel good about themselves. They are blocking growth in general, not just clean growth. They want everything to be made somewhere else so they dont have to see the effects that it had on their undisturbed countryside. Their constant blockade of growth costs Americans tens of thousands of jobs. But by blocking literally everything all they are doing is shifting the pollution and everything else to another side of the planet, we are not saving ourselves from the effects of it.

There are lots of ways to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and constantly blocking the use of American resources and shifting jobs overseas is not one of them.

Agreed, kind of like California--we don't pollute our state for our power just yours where we get our power from!

[RedScare]

IF the liberal left actually believed that they were just saving it for later to be prudent I would agree with you, but your absolutely kidding yourself if you think that is why they are blocking drilling.

This remarkably ignorant comment reminds me of a friend who married into the family of a well known cosmetics seller. A trust was set up for the kids, with each getting a set (and generous) allowance. The kids were always hitting up the trust for expensive new toys. My friend explained that if they did not do the same, they would lose out on trust money and fall behind the other kids (actually grown adults).

My analogy to spoiled trust fund babies is not unintentional. To suggest that we should waste our precious resources and mortgage our national security because the "liberal left" is preaching prudence for the wrong reasons is as asinine and petulent as any trust fund baby's demand for more money. It doesn't really matter (except to you) WHY the oil is conserved, only that it is. When we need it, the greens will be overruled and it will be drilled. The greens win today only because we let them. $2.50 gas is not a crisis. Neither is $4.00 gas. Someone too young to recall the gas rationing of the 1970s cannot be expected to understand what a crisis is.

Though the recession has given us a reprieve from the upward pressure on oil consumption, I am confident that it will return. If we use up our easily recovered oil first, how do you propose we pry the oil from the 90% controlled by foreign governments? For any answers that include war, please include your estimates on the cost in lives and money to secure that country's oil, so that we can come up with a per barrel cost.

[brian0123]

The truth of the entire situation is that Democrats are against any form of growth that is not dependent upon the government. They want everything to go through them so they continue to grow their stronghold. If they can control it all, they can control who has it all. So I will continue to drive my big truck while I play Rancher and not feel one little bit guilty about it, and you can continue thinking your better and smarter than everyone else while riding your bike or driving your hybrid so that you can play attorney.

Only a weenie truck? I just bought an 18-wheeler for my commuter vehicle, loaded it up with bricks to reduce gas mileage even more, and tailgate anyone in a vehicle smaller than mine because I have an inferiority complex.

In all seriousness, I drive a more fuel efficient car (or ride my bike on less polluted days), pay more money for green technology, wind power, etc... not because I think I'm smarter than you... but because I have asthma and care about air quality. I (along with everyone else... including you) has to breathe the crap that is put into the air. The difference between you and me is that I actually do something that benefits both of us... while you seem to only care about yourself.

Why not just go down to the local ER where a kid is having an asthma attack and rev your engine outside their window to put some more exhaust fumes in their room for good measure?

[Marksmu]

Actually, clean renewable energy is not more expensive than conventional energy, at least in Houston and with the right provider (i.e. - not Green Mountain). But your disdain for folks who try to reduce their impact on the planet is kind of mind-blowing. We breath the same air and live by the same constraints of energy availability. You should be applauding those of us who use green energy and drive hybrids for keeping your air cleaner and your fuel prices lower, and for helping to fund technological advancements that will allow us to sustain a comfortable standard of living once we run out of fossil fuels.

I actually do support renewable energy sources, and I do applaud those who want to drive hybrids and purchase solar panels, and everything else that those who are environmentally conscious do. What I detest is the attitude that goes with so many of those people that think they are better than someone else because of what they drive or how they believe that person lives. I drive a large truck as Red loves to point out. I use my truck to play rancher, like he uses his law license to play lawyer. I could not do the things I do with a smaller vehicle, just like he could not do the things he does without his law license...however on our ranch, in the last 2 years we have restored over 200 acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands that were previously marginal cropland. We actively manage the wetlands to prevent the invasion of foreign plant species, to repair the salt damage from hurricane Ike, and to prevent further erosion. In addittion to restoring the wetlands, we have restored native vegetation back to the area which is a huge benefit to the wildlife in the area. I may drive a truck that gets poor fuel economy but I would be incapable of doing the much greater good that I am doing without the right tools which in this case includes a large truck. Any negative effect that my truck has on the environment is more than offset by the positive attributes of the wetlands that I have created.

So Im not against clean energy alternatives, I am against destroying our own economy and shifting all of our jobs to other countries so that people can feel good about themselves. Its pointless. Most of the people who are so environmentally friendly, are still purchasing the tangibles they want that were manufactured somewhere else. The impact is being had somewhere. By not allowing our people to make those products, and preventing growth all we have done is injured our own economy . Besides American manufacturers are significantly more environmentally friendly than most other countries.

[Marksmu]

The difference between you and me is that I actually do something that benefits both of us... while you seem to only care about yourself.

Again, I dont feel bad one bit. I do more than my part for the environment. Everything you will do in your lifetime by riding your bike and paying too much for electricity will never add up to even a fraction of what I have done in just the past two years. I could not have done what I did without a truck and I dont apologize for driving one. At the end of the day I can look out at my work and see that I made a big difference. Its not an estimated number, or some politically motivated scientist estimating what I did...I can sit down in a lawn chair and actually watch my efforts improve things. If everyone did what you do, it would make a difference, so I still applaud you for your efforts, but I do not apologize for what I do, because I do more than enough to make my lifetime environmental impact negative.

[barracuda]

I actually do support renewable energy sources, and I do applaud those who want to drive hybrids and purchase solar panels, and everything else that those who are environmentally conscious do. What I detest is the attitude that goes with so many of those people that think they are better than someone else because of what they drive or how they believe that person lives. I drive a large truck as Red loves to point out. I use my truck to play rancher, like he uses his law license to play lawyer. I could not do the things I do with a smaller vehicle, just like he could not do the things he does without his law license...however on our ranch, in the last 2 years we have restored over 200 acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands that were previously marginal cropland. We actively manage the wetlands to prevent the invasion of foreign plant species, to repair the salt damage from hurricane Ike, and to prevent further erosion. In addittion to restoring the wetlands, we have restored native vegetation back to the area which is a huge benefit to the wildlife in the area. I may drive a truck that gets poor fuel economy but I would be incapable of doing the much greater good that I am doing without the right tools which in this case includes a large truck. Any negative effect that my truck has on the environment is more than offset by the positive attributes of the wetlands that I have created.

So Im not against clean energy alternatives, I am against destroying our own economy and shifting all of our jobs to other countries so that people can feel good about themselves. Its pointless. Most of the people who are so environmentally friendly, are still purchasing the tangibles they want that were manufactured somewhere else. The impact is being had somewhere. By not allowing our people to make those products, and preventing growth all we have

[EDIT] - Somehow I stupidly deleted my post...

Anyway, my point was that your choice of vehicle makes sense. I don't disagree with your use of a truck since it fits the job. It isn't really any different than a delivery service using a delivery truck. But you have to admit that there are lots of folks out there who drive over-sized vehicles just because they can, not because they need to. Most SUVs I see have only 1 or 2 people in them, and most pickup trucks I see are sparkling and likely never had any real load in their bed. I choose to drive a fuel efficient vehicle because it fits my needs, and it allows me to save money on fuel and reduce my impact on our air and health. But I don't force my choice down anyone else's throat.

I also became more conscience of the impacts of buying imported goods over the last 5-10 years. There are the environmental and economical reasons, but there's also the moral implication of buying goods from countries that lack adequate human rights. I do try to buy American-made whenever possible, and when not available, I'll try to buy products made in Canada or Mexico (although Mexico's environmental standards are not very good either).

[AtticaFlinch]

Dill here?

Dill now?

[JLWM8609]

Dill here?

Dill now?

No spicy dills?

[plumber2]

He's got to pay for gas no matter what he's driving. Now if he had a "Remember Pearl Harbor" sticker on his Toyota then yes, I would think it a little out of place. 

Good point.

Now, could someone direct me on were the edit function is, so that I can correct my grammer? I can't seem to find it now since Editor changed things up, and I don't want Niche to get sent to "time out' again.

[gto250us]

Okay, I usually don't post comments like this but today I just have to. Parked next to me in a parking lot was a Toyota 4Runner with a "Drill Here Drill Now" bumper sticker on it. What, do this person want? All of the domestic oil he wants to power his foreign made car?

What is wrong with a foreign made car? After all Detroit has had more than 100 years to figure out how to make a decent car and they still can't do it as well as Toyota. If they could GM and Chrysler would never have been in BK.

[barracuda]

What is wrong with a foreign made car? After all Detroit has had more than 100 years to figure out how to make a decent car and they still can't do it as well as Toyota. If they could GM and Chrysler would never have been in BK.

Actually they do, and sometimes better than Toyota (well, except for Chrysler). But they also still make some crappy cars, which bring down the overall rankings of their brands.