For as long as I can remember, Democratic leaders in the California Assembly and Senate have blocked efforts by oil companies to drill off that state's central coast. Oil company researchers estimate approximately 18 billion barrels of oil reside just off California's coast. Yet for years, Democrats in The Golden State have continued to demonize the industry and discourage offshore exploration. This coalition of extreme environmentalists and Democrat party allies exist not only in California but elsewhere around the country.
Like their cronies in Sacramento, Democrats in the U.S. Senate have also consistently blocked oil exploration -- most notably in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They suggest that exploration there will damage the so-called pristine coastal habitat in the 19-million-acre-plus refuge. Environmentalists have exploited the issue by falsely describing the area as if it were an untouched Yosemite National Park. In reality, the zone the oil industry wants to explore -- a whole two square miles -- is solid ice tundra. And polls show that more than 77 percent of Alaskans favor development of ANWR.
This same scenario has been played out in other states as well. Since the BP oil disaster off the Louisiana coast last year, the Obama administration has yet to allow other rigs around the Gulf and East coasts to re-start their operations -- affecting in excess of 36,000 jobs. Why?
The Democratic Party poses as the party that represents the little guy -- but in fact, their policies are negatively impacting the little guy. High gas costs hurt middle- and lower-income earners the most. In California, federal and state governments combined make more money (18 and 34 cents, respectively) off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than do oil producers.
Last December a retired Shell Oil executive predicted $5.00/gallon gas prices by sometime next year. Along with the growing uncertainty in the Middle East comes the strong possibility that oil prices will continue to skyrocket. Already in some parts of California, gasoline prices are $4.00/gallon. Still, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) demonizes the industry, calling it "dirty."
Most Americans in their right mind know that finding other sources of energy is a worthy, long-term goal. But the process of developing "green" energy will take decades to fully implement -- and even then, it might only serve one-quarter of our energy needs. So why not develop the reserves our country already has? I cannot understand why President Obama and his Democratic associates on Capitol Hill continue to stonewall other sources of energy such as coal, gas, shale, and nuclear power. We need these domestic sources of energy to eliminate our dependency on oil from potentially unfriendly regimes in the Middle East and Venezuela.
Why send three-quarters of a trillion dollars overseas in the form of oil exports each year when we could use and develop a variety of energy sources here? Instead of spending billions in public money on high-speed rail transportation -- an endeavor with the promise of dubious success at best -- why doesn't the president spend those funds on constructing a dozen new nuclear plants?
The direction of President Obama's energy policies makes absolutely no sense. That's why I encourage American consumers -- that's you -- to contact your elected representatives, both federal and state, and urge them to pressure the White House to open up our energy reserves and all other types of home-grown energy resources so we become less dependent on foreign oil.
I am convinced that if Barack Obama continues to stall domestic exploration of oil and other types of energy development, there will again be a huge backlash from U.S. voters in November 2012 -- just as there was two years earlier.
Written by Robert Jackson A.Press
|
