The Three Dems and Our-Shore Drilling
Cassandra posted a wonderful live blog of the debate last night between the three Democrats vying to replace Mike Castle in Congress. Indeed, debate host Alan Loudell did use some of our questions that the DL community offered in the debate and attributed us as the source of those questions.
One of my questions was whether they would support drilling or exploring for oil off the Delaware coast as part of a comprenhensive plan to solve the energy crisis.
Now, let me reveal my bias. I am against drilling off our coast. To me, it is just another boondoggle giveaway to Big Oil, and they have received enough of our hard earned money over the last eight years. Further, oil companies already possess leases to explore and drill for oil over millions of acres across the United States. Yet they aren’t using them, but they want to drill off the coast.
If drilling is the answer, and the only answer, as the GOP says, then why aren’t the oil companies drilling on the land they already have?
I do recognize, like Barack Obama has recognized, that allowing some limited offshore drilling maybe necessary in order to get some GOP senators to go along with a windfall profits tax, higher CAFE standards, requirements that all cars be hybrids or electric in 10 years, and for providing money to transition to wind and solar energy as our main sources of fuel. Now, that would be a true compromise, rather than a compromise we have gotten used to in the last eight years, where the GOP gets every they want and the Dems just capitulate.
If I get what I want in terms of an energy solution, then I will compromise on limited offshore drilling. Not before.
But even then, I plead that I will be a NIMBY. I don’t want any rigs off the Mid-Atlantic coast.
Thus, now that you know my bias, I was less than thrilled at the responses of two of our three Democratic congressional candidates last night:
The three diverged, however, on new offshore drilling, with Northington strongly opposing it both off Delaware’s coast or almost anywhere else. He said the nation’s energy efforts should be focused on renewable sources like wind and solar power.
Miller, meanwhile, strongly supported new offshore drilling, calling it a priority even if it was off the coast of Delaware, as a way to ease rising energy costs.
Hartley-Nagle, meanwhile, stressed alternative energy like the proposed wind farm off Delaware’s coast, while not completely ruling out drilling, close to the same position Castle took last week.
I agree with Jerry here. And I do give some leniency to Karen, since she recognizes a compromise may be necessary as I do. But Mike Miller is trying to win a Democratic primary by running to the right of Castle?
we don’t drill there because (sniff, sniff) it’s too hard to get the oil and too expensive (sniff, sniff)
INSERT EVIL VOICE…
besides we already have that land! we want more, more, MORE…
mwowowowowhooohaaaaahhhhh
Our coast drilling should be off the table. That is a nobrainer so KHN’s position makes no sense to me whatsoever. What is her campaign all about?
“I’m just like Mike Castle, so vote for me!”
I don’t get it. She should be creating clear distinctions between herself and Castle.
After an oil lease is in hand and subsequent geological analysis comes out negative, why drill for a dry hole?
Is there any indication that there is oil under the nearby coastal shelf? How far off shore would any wells be? Perhaps the drill rigs could serve as platforms for windmills and make everyone happy.
Exactly. It cost her nothing to say, “Unlike Mike Castle, I am dead set against oil rigs off the coast of Rehoboth. Period.”
And that would be the sound clip used by WDEL BTW.
You people know that we already drill off of our coasts, right? Actually, Arthur, that’s not a bad idea. Then we can gain two types of energy from one platform. Oil and wind…. Hell, we could put some solar panels out there too. But there’s no reason not to drill where there’s oil. Like…Alaska. And….in the ocean.
You people know that we already drill off of our coasts, right?
Link si vous plait.
I grew up in Huntington Beach, CA….You can see them from the shore. Here’s a quicky…. http://www.flickr.com/photos/scotts101/162882751/
Here’s a whole list of them http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=oil%20rig%20huntington&w=all&s=int
Vous êtes bienvenu.
Yeah, and you want to see that off Rehoboth, off Bethany, off Fenwick?
Just because Huntington Beach had oil rigs, does that mean we have to too?
Indeed, funny you should mention Huntington Beach. I read recently that they still have oil on their beaches and in the sand from oil spills there 30 to 40 years ago.
Again, that is not something I want in my state.
It didn’t HAD them…it HAS them.
NIMBY much?
I have a feeling the technology wasn’t, 40 years ago, what it is today.
So, if there’s a solution….you just don’t want it in your state? anywhere but there?
So, if there’s a solution….you just don’t want it in your state? anywhere but there?
As someone against off-shore drilling in Delaware, I am also against it everywhere. There are other solutions.
Yes there are…..drilling in Alaska. That’s nowhere near you….would that be ok? And, if not….why?
No drilling in Alaska as well.
Why not? Because we need to ween ourselves off of oil dependence.
Yes we do. But we have nothing viable at this time. Nothing so viable that we can stop or even slow oil production. We need more oil. And I think we need it HERE instead of from countries that HATE US and can pull our strings with oil. And PLEASE don’t ask me if my tires are properly full of air.
We consume about 25% of the world’s oil and have less than 5% of the world’s oil reserves. We will never be able to be independent from the countries that HATE US as long as we continue to insist on burning the stuff. The only way we get to be independent of oil is to make a very large effort to get invested in alternatives.
DJK, back in the first energy crisis, people like you said the same thing. Twenty years later we are in the same position. Thanks a lot.
And, yes, 3 to 4% better gas mileage does make a difference.
20 years ago, I was a little kid.
But, 3% doesn’t solve the problem like Obamalamadingdong says. I’m all about making a difference in my energy consumption. Again, all you liberals think you’re the only ones that care. I drive to my office two days a week as opposed to the five that I used to drive. That saves more than 3%. So, I think I’m doing a good job…..and saving a bundle.
I fully agree that we need to find and perfect alternative fuel sources. I doubt there’s anyone out there that doesn’t. But, we still need to quench or at least attempt to quench, our oil thirst until we get to something that works. It would be a exercise in foolishness to just turn off the oil spigot now. If we impede the nation’s/world’s greatest minds by not allowing growth in all sectors, how will we ever get there? The market will decide when oil is no longer necessary. When there’s something better….oil will slow and then stop.
1. Obama never said it would solve the problem. It was just something indivuduals could. Jesus, stop using two-week old talking points. Even McCain thinks it is a good idea now.
2. I said it was people like you, not you. If we look to a short-term solution again, we will be in the same position in 2030.
The market will decide when oil is no longer necessary. When there’s something better….oil will slow and then stop.
How about when the Arab states stop shipping to us. What will the market decide then?
For national security reasons, the United States needs to explore and invest in alternative energies today!
Of course it’s a good idea, but it’s not going to SOLVE anything.
Yeah, you said people like me….then you said Thanks a lot. like…to me. So, when I say fuck you very much….do you think I’m talking to you?
You want me to stup usng “two-week old” talking a points? You just used one…. That 3-4% comment is right out of here:
“So I told them something simple, I said, ‘You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we’d get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.’ So now the Republicans are going around – this is the kind of thing they do. I don’t understand it! They’re going around, they’re sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is ‘Barack Obama’s energy plan.’
“Now two points, one, they know they’re lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they’re making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. “
When he said “our” I thought he meant Delaware. What a sneaky guy.
No drilling off Delaware beaches. Yes. It is that simple.
Either way, no matter if something was said 2 weeks, two days, or two hours ago….it is still relevant and can be talked about. So, it sounds like you realize it was a fairly lame statement for him to make and think that some unspoken statute of limitations (two weeks) has lapsed so it’s not fair to talk about it anymore….
Good god, another cereal box.
When there’s something better….oil will slow and then stop.
Well, no. 30 years ago Jimmy Carter worked hard at making the point that we needed to wean ourselves from oil because imports made us too vulnerable. He was right, but too many folks with a vested interest in oil decided to keep supporting and using tax dollars to subsidizing it. And here you are still waiting for a magic wand to save us. Wonder what our lives (and pocketbooks) would look like if people hadn’t just laughed at Jimmy Carter.
No matter what happened, though we still have no way at getting enough native supply to be independent of the people who HATE US.
Jason….why just Delaware? Can we drill in every other state? Also, he didn’t just say our…he said EVERYwhere. Don’t you think there’s something hypocritical about saying…”ok, do it anywhere but in my backyard”? I call those people NIMBYs. Not In My BackYard.
But Jimmy Carter was a moron and I was too young to vote against him. Carter was all a socialist…just like Obama. If we were to break down all of his programs, don’t you think you’d see some irrational spending there? Carter wasn’t going to save the world….obviously. YOU all are the ones waiting for the magic wand. The magic Obama wand of energy resources aplenty. How is actually doing something about our oil “problem” a magic wand? Let’s use real people with real oil rigs to pull real oil out of the ground. There’s nothing magic about that. It’ll help tide us over until your solutions gome to fruition.
Some of you might find this interesting…
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-doesnt-understand-economics.html
The only moron here is you, DJK. Carter was proposing that we get ourselves off of foreign oil 30 years before you came to this blog calling for the same thing. He was calling for a combination of conservation and alternative energy strategies which may not save the world, but certainly would have gone a long way to reducing our vulnerability to foreign oil.
There is not enough oil here for us to be independent from the Saudis at out current rate of usage. The ONLY way we get independent is to get away from oil.
And John Lott is a stone idiot. But I get that you aren’t serious about this discussion, either. Perhaps John Lott would enjoy your ravings.
“And John Lott is a stone idiot. But I get that you aren’t serious about this discussion, either. Perhaps John Lott would enjoy your ravings.”
Sure, don’t address anything Lott has to say, just call him a “stone idiot.” Good job! You fit right in with the rest of the DE Liberal crowd.
You fit right in with the rest of the DE Liberal crowd.
Um, yes, I do.
You Mike (and your pal DJK) are the idiot outliers here. And the fact that as long as you’ve been beaten up here doesn’t teach you anything about that doesn’t say especially much for you.
Beaten up? By what? Ignorance, ad hominems and emotional outbursts?
I just read the John Lott post. I have now lost 5 minutes of my life I can never get back. Guess I won’t be checking the air in my tires this week.
Let’s use real people with real oil rigs to pull real oil out of the ground. There’s nothing magic about that. It’ll help tide us over until your solutions gome to fruition.
DJK, you’re missing the point here. How many energy crisises do we have to have till we stop depending on oil?
You want me to stup usng “two-week old” talking a points? You just used one…. That 3-4% comment is right out of here
To paraphrase Mike W, the difference is that I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong.
What I’ve been doing here, is agreeing that we need to get off of oil…..but that doesn’t necessarily mean pulling the plug. To start, let’s use our own oil, like using our own milk and sugar instead of getting it from the neighbor that hates our kids. You people are incredible. Here I”m agreeing with you one at least one point and you’re calling me names. So, you think yourselves are idiots. BRILLIANT I must say.
And I’ve yet to be “beaten up” on this blog. You are just like the criminals that your party so likes to protect….you gang up on people with no sense of real purpose, other than beating the opposition. You don’t care that what you seek is illogical and unattainable(right now). you don’t care if you spew drivel or vitriol….as long as the other people in the room are on your side.
If you’re absolutely right, and I’m absolutely wrong….prove it to me. You people always want links…well, Zeigen Sie mich, dass die Verbindungen gefallen….und von den glaubwürdigen Quellen, auch, bitte.
I’m right you’re wrong wahhh wahhh wahhhh I can’t prove it but I said it so it’s so….. waahn wahhh waahhh. You fucking bleeding hearts are all the same.
“If you’re absolutely right, and I’m absolutely wrong….prove it to me.”
They’re not, and they can’t. However when we are and we back up what we say the children of DE Liberal come out in full force to bitch & moan and call us names. They consider such actions valid debate tactics.
I’m right you’re wrong wahhh wahhh wahhhh I can’t prove it but I said it so it’s so….. waahn wahhh waahhh. You fucking bleeding hearts are all the same.
Tire pressure and tune-ups will help, yes or no?
Should we mandate higher MPG for all passenger cars, yes or no?
“”Tire pressure/tune ups”
They might help…but that’s like putting a band aid on a severed limb.
Should we invest more of our tax dollars into public transportation, yes or no?
Yes, but that’s common sense, not a valid energy policy.
As far as number 2. No, we should not.
No, we shouldn’t mandate shit. I should be able to drive whatever I want and spend as much or as little on fuel as I please. That’s called Liberty. IT’s also called Freedom. Someone forcing me to make my product the way they want instead of the way I want is asinine. The market should dictate how I build my product, no the government. So, car companies are trying to raise MPG…no need to mandate anything.
DJK, your post 40 is far different from your snarky post 15.
They might help…but that’s like putting a band aid on a severed limb.
And PLEASE don’t ask me if my tires are properly full of air.
No, we should invest more money in public transpo….because most of us still won’t use it. It’s too unsafe. It’s also not very conducive to freedom….my car is.
No mandates, and, yet, you guys want to magically reduce our dependence on oil. Can I have some of what your smoking? 🙂
“And PLEASE don’t ask me if my tires are properly full of air.”
Because you all seem to be so on board with Barrack Hussein Obama that you might just start throwing around his ideas and I wanted to nip that nonsense in the bud.
“Someone forcing me to make my product the way they want instead of the way I want is asinine.”
Liberals will of course ignore the other costs involved in raising CAFE standards. It’s not like we raise the standards, cars & trucks get better gas mileage and everything is cool.
“No mandates, and, yet, you guys want to magically reduce our dependence on oil. Can I have some of what your smoking? ”
I only wish I had the liberty to buy and smoke what I want without being a criminal.
It’s not nonsense to take personal responsibility for our freedom.
DJK: If Carter were a socialist that must mean you are communist or a simple fascist. Carter was right on then and now. If the oil men running this country had paid attention to his plans, we wouldnt be in this mess. Carter will go down in the history as one of the visionary, forward thinking presidents of his time.
There are no real progressives running for President. Obama is not a progressive either and he will do as the democrats are now leaning towards….drilling. The question is how progressives can force the blue dogs to put enough safeguards in place, enough environmental pressures that it will not be feasible to drill just, “anywhere”. None of us want off shore drilling, but the progressives are not in charge of anything, better start looking to 2012 for a real progressive who might solve the problems of our time with a Carter like approach.
In the meantime we have to fill the House and Senate with as many like minded candidates as possible. The situtation in Washington will be all about compromise, or nothing will get done.
Nemski…. WHY FORCE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS???
I’ve never mentioned any fucking magic. I’ve only mentioned viable solutions. To which you’ve offered nothing except, “we need other solutions”. Well, no kidding. Again…we need to use what we’ve got while we develop the other stuff….because if OPEC stops our imports…..we’re fucked. So, why not, while we develop those unnamed solutions, drill in alaska where there’s a shit ton of oil?
There’s nothing “progressive” about taking away peoples’ rights. call them liberals…that’s what they are.
“Nemski…. WHY FORCE PEOPLE TO DO THINGS???”
That’s the liberal way…… oh wait, you actually thought they were tolerant, understanding and compassionate? ha. Of course religious conservatives aren’t any better, they just apply their moral superiority to other issues……like abortion, gays, or sodomy, none of which are valid policy areas for government.
Compromise gets you nowhere fast. If you’re looking to get ten steps ahead and compromise every time, you’ll only get five steps ahead…..maybe. We need politicians that WON’T compromise. We need people that won’t rest on their laurels. We need people that believe in freedom and the ideas of the founding fathers. Those people know what they were talking about.
This country was founded on few or no mandates…other than “Live and be free!”
If you’re a sloth…..die of sloth, I’m not helping to pay for it.
“We need people that believe in freedom and the ideas of the founding fathers. Those people know what they were talking about.”
Good luck. Our schools aren’t exactly bastions of liberty, individualism and classical liberalism, they’re merely collectivist indoctrination centers (especially universities)
And DJK – At the risk of shamelessly plugging myself, you should read this. I just discussed what I quoted above.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-thoughts-on-mike-vanderboegh-hooplah.html
“This country was founded on few or no mandates…other than “Live and be free!”
If you’re a sloth…..die of sloth, I’m not helping to pay for it.”
Oh how far we’ve fallen from our founding principles.
“The policy of the American Government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining them, nor aiding them in their pursuits.”
-Thomas Jefferson
We’ve had those “uncompromising” people for the last eight years, and where has that gotten us?
Are we better off today… you know the rest.
Thomas Jefferson also wanted “all”men to be created equal, but he had to… alas… compromise.
Equality of opportunity is NOT “equality” you can attempt to force equality upon all men, it’s called communism and it doesn’t work.
What? Are you saying all men are not created equal?
Ummm… the line was “all men are created equal”. There was no: by equal we mean equality of opportunity… blah, blah, blah.
So… you’re saying Jefferson was a communist?
By the way, DJK.
You said there are no viable alternatives to drilling. That is an outright lie and you know it.
Viable renewable alternatives do exist, and if we just invested in them, we would be off oil today. Wind. Solar. Hydroelectricity. Hybrid, Hydrogen and electric cars. Yes, it will take money. But you want to give that money, and money for further research into other new forms of renewable energy, to Big Oil so that they can drill some more.
You say there are no viable alternatives. That is only because you refuse to try. And that makes you a coward. But conservatives are often cowardly.
But can they hold up to our current needs? THAT is what I mean by viable. I’m all for hydrogen or whatever…but it needs to support ALL of us. I don’t want to give them ANY money….they can drill on their own. That’s THEIR business. We just need to allow them to do it.
I actually own stock in a couple of Hydrogen fuel cell companies. I AM giving my money to the alternatives. Are you?
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry
http://oflifeandliberty.blogspot.com/2008/08/barach-obama-wants-to-fix-your-soul.html
You dems/greens will LOVE this one http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/2761109356_64f296806b_o.jpg
who said we were all dems. yet again, you guys love to assume.
And we know where assuming gets you…
Pottle kettle black… You people assume plenty.
But I haven’t assumed your political affiliation. Keep spinning your way out of this. Why not just say… sorry?
Sorry.
Feel better? Feel a little more sanctimonious now?
So, assuming one thing but not another is ok? Is that like drilling in my backyard is cool….so long as I don’t drill in yours?
So then, what are your party affiliations? If you are a Carter fan….and write about obama…..and the site is called Delaware Liberal….. what are your affiliations?
I’m a Libertarian. What are you?
Ok, it’s quiet. I’m going to go surf…
Arthur do you believe that the oil company’s bid on leases without knowing what the output would be. look they didn’t make all that money by being dumb . The only oil man that always drilled dry holes was Bush.this off shore bit now is a last chance for Bush to give his friends a land grab. Boone Pickiens knows that we can’t drill our way out of this mess that we all let happen for the past 30 years 26 of which the Keating five senator was in Washington
Make you appear to like Jefferson and so do I’ however, if i recall correctly he insisted on the bill of rights. One of which is the 4th amendment. You know the one on search yes the one that Bush and company keep tapping your phone and opening your mail without a warrant
An extended discussion on Obama’s tires by John Lott.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsObamaTires081108.html
Obama’s Call to Check Tire Pressure Falls Flat
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Politicians often seem to think they are so smart. If only they could tell everyone how to live their lives, they could make society so much more efficient. Unfortunately, Barack Obama has this conceit in abundance, and his advice on checking tire pressure is just the latest example.
Like most central planners, Obama feels that he’s so much smarter than everyone else.
Obama says that “my Republican opponents – they don’t like to talk about efficiency.” Yet, he is the one who doesn’t really understand efficiency. Looking at only the number of gallons that might be saved, he ignores the other costs that real people have to face everyday.
The news coverage has been all over Obama’s claim. A simple Google News search on noon Wednesday, less than 24 hours after Obama’s remarks on Tuesday, found over 300 news stories on Obama’s inflating tires advice to save gas. Headlines have ranged from “Check the Air in Your Tires, Save Money” to “What’s so funny about inflating tires.” Talk radio has talked about little else.
According to fueleconomy.gov, adjusting tire pressures might save “up to 3%” of gas used by cars, not 3 to 4 percent of all the United States’ oil consumption that Obama claimed. Americans use about 380 million gallons of gas a day, so up to 11.2 million gallons a day could be saved. Undoubtedly this is an overestimate because just as people have cut back on driving as gas prices have gone up, they have probably already been replacing air filters and checking tire pressures more frequently.
Still at $3.81 a gallon, 11 million gallons seems substantial, potentially a maximum saving of $42 million per day.
But look at some simple numbers. There are about 234 million passenger cars and 4-tire trucks in the United States today. Lets assume that 150 million vehicles would have their tire pressures checked during any given week and that it would take, on average, 5 minutes to check (remove the stem covers, check the pressure, fill up the tires with air when needed, put the covers back, clean your hands). Obviously, it takes more time than that — this is just a conservative estimate.
If 150 million vehicles have this done once a week, it would take 750 million minutes a week, or 12.5 million hours. The average hourly wage in the U.S. is now $18 per hour. Including workers not paid on an hourly rate, the number would be much higher. But at $18 per hour time costs on average, that comes to $225 million.
That amounts to $32.5 million per day. Not much different than the maximum that might be saved in gas costs.
But there is a simpler point. If people aren’t checking their tire pressures constantly, possibly they have a good reason for not doing it. They must believe that their time costs and discomfort from doing this are much greater the savings that they can obtain.
There are also safety issues not quantified here. If all this attention to increasing air pressure in tires causes people to more frequently overinflated their tires, there are also safety problems: you risk blowing out the tires and getting into an accident or at least stranded on the side of the road. Aren’t people’s lives, safety, and time fixing blown tires also worth something?
Of course, there are other factual problems with Obama’s claims. For example, despite his claims to the contrary, the proposed increase in oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf will likely greatly exceed any savings that one can get out of keeping perfectly inflated tires.
Obama is hardly alone in making claims about ”efficiency.” For example, T. Boone Picken’s is spending $85 million of his own money advertising for wind power in the hope of getting even larger government subsidies. If these alternative energy programs were good investments to reduce use of “foreign oil,” Pickens wouldn’t be trying to get people to sign a petition and the government wouldn’t need to subsidize him. Spending money on projects that cost more than the benefits that they produce only make us poorer.
Of course, both Obama and McCain support extensive subsidies for alternative energy, and the difference really being only a question of the size of the subsidies, with Obama clearly promising much more.
Politicians seem to think that they can micro-manage people’s lives. But people frequently know more about their own lives than central planners do. If Obama ever becomes president, it’s a lesson that he and the rest of us will probably have to learn all over again.
*John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
Yup, he’s a real dummy…
“Ummm… the line was “all men are created equal”. There was no: by equal we mean equality of opportunity… blah, blah, blah.”
Pandora – Way to take that line entirely out of context. The full line was as follows from the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”
All men are equal in that they are all endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. That doesn’t mean all men ARE functionally equal, or that government should MAKE them equal. To attempt to do so is futile and would be communism.
The “pursuit of happiness” implies that it’s something to strive for that some will not achieve. As such, the Jefferson quote I posted remains accurate and relevant, and sure as hell doesn’t make him a communist. Implicit in liberty is risk, and that includes the risk of failure.
I suggest you re-read Jefferson’s quote I posted in #58 with these comments in mind.
Also, you really need to read this, at least read paragraphs #6 and 8.
Here’s a snippet of what I wrote on the subject.
“Also, Who determines what those “needs” are and when they are satisfied? Needs and happiness are different for every individual, and create an inherent and perpetual inequality among men. To declare it someone else’s duty to provide that happiness, there must be a requisite duty to destroy the individual. Needs / wants / happiness cannot be provided by the government unless such terms are defined broadly, in a societal context, under the collectivist principle that everyone wants or needs the same things in order to be happy.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
Sorry Pandora – This was the link in question I said you really need to read and from which I provided the snippet. I forgot to post the link in my original comment.
http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/bit-about-why-some-say-im-heartless.html
There are some factual and logical errors in the commentary by Mr. Lott.
Comparing those hidden costs of checking air pressure to the savings realized (and the reduction of gasoline consumption) is not valid. People are not going to charge someone for the time they take to check their own tire pressure so you cannot say that if a person saves $XX.XX a year because they check their tire pressure, that they have $YY.00 in extra costs.
Also, the idea of over-inflation causing more blow-outs is false. In practice, it is under-pressure tires which are more likely to blow out, than one which is slightly over inflated.
When a tire is under-inflated it flexes more as it rolls. This increased flexing of the tire, produces heat which does two things. 1) decreases the strength of the rubber in the tire and 2) increases the air temperature, which increases the pressure. Now, you’ve got a weaker tire with a higher pressure — potential for a blow-out is greatly increased.
My position is that keeping tires properly inflated is not only a sensible economic move, but essential for safe operation of the vehicle too.
“People are not going to charge someone for the time they take to check their own tire pressure so you cannot say that if a person saves $XX.XX a year because they check their tire pressure, that they have $YY.00 in extra costs.”
No, but as professor lott discussed, there is a significant extra cost to the economy as a whole.
And who here is claiming over-inflation causes blowouts? You’re correct, it’s underinflation that causes that.
And….I’m pretty sure that nobody’s out there telling people to underinflate…But, it’s not going to save the world. Hyperbole intended.
I must have heard a different debate than Jason did as far as conclusions he has drawn about KHN’s position on off-shore drilling.
► Obama wants to raise gas prices higher.
Obama said on CNBC that high gas prices were
“good,” and his only concern was that the increase
in price be a “gradual adjustment.” He does not
want to drill for oil in America. He does not
support the federal “gas tax holiday” that would
help poor people afford more gas. He is aligned
with the environmental extremists and is out of
touch with average Americans, since 73% of the
American people agree that, with appropriate
safeguards to protect the environment, we should
drill for oil off America’s coasts to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. Obama and other
Democrats in Congress are blocking drilling by
America while the Communist regimes of
China and Cuba collude to exploit the oil and
gas resources off our own Gulf Coast.
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2008/08/conflict-of-interest-there-nan.html
Here’s some more on Nancy Pelosi…
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2008/08/nan-reneges-on-her-openness-to-oil.html
Fools.