High-gas-price blues? Blame the greens

As gasoline prices continue to climb, finger pointing is becoming a national pastime. Led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, of all people, Senate Democrats say they are "outraged that the administration is not doing everything in its power to alleviate the strain on drivers, consumers and businesses."

This same Ted Kennedy, and Tom Daschle, have led Senate Democrats to block the administration's energy bill. They have done everything in their power to increase the strain on drivers, consumers and businesses by blocking every attempt to increase domestic oil production.

Americans have every right to be angry, as they watch the rising price of gasoline take a bigger bite out of their paychecks. But their anger should be directed toward the real cause of the unnecessary price increases: irresponsible reverence for the environment.

Anger should be focused on the League of Conservation Voters and the senator they have endorsed for president. Anger should be focused on the Sierra club, the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife and the horde of environmental organizations that go ballistic whenever anyone proposes to drill a new oil well or build a new refinery.

Had these organizations and their well-funded congressional puppets not blocked exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when it was first proposed, oil from that abundant supply would soon be coming on line to relieve supply pressure that forces prices upward.

But no. In every Congress for a decade, efforts to open ANWR have been met by massive, misleading anti-oil campaigns. The League of Conservation Voters claims that the oil there would last only six months. But the U.S. Energy Information Agency says that ANWR would increase domestic production by 20 percent.

Environmental organizations raise millions of dollars from mail campaigns that claim drilling in ANWR will destroy the last masterpiece of God's creation. The truth is that drilling in ANWR will affect only .1 percent – that's right, one-tenth of one percent – of the 19 million-acre refuge.

ANWR is the symbol for the greens' war on fossil fuel. Any use of fossil fuels is bad, according to the green gospel, and government should force society to turn to "alternative" fuels. This idiotic belief has resulted in regulations that add to the upward pressure on gas prices.

For example, fuel producers now have to formulate as many as 18 different blends to accommodate EPA requirements in different markets.

These same environmental organizations and Senate Democrats bashed the Bush administration unmercifully for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. John Kerry, in particular, wants the U.S. to submit to the Protocol, which would give a U.N. agency the power to not only regulate fossil fuel consumption in America, but to impose an arbitrary tax as well.

Anger about high gasoline prices should be directed at these green organizations and toward the congressmen who continue to do their bidding by blocking expansion of domestic oil production. Environmental organizations are quick to point a finger at the "big oil companies" for price gouging, and Senate Democrats take pleasure in blaming the Bush administration.

The Internet is full of schemes to force "big oil" to lower prices by boycotting selected suppliers.

The cause of escalating prices is simple: The demand for oil is outstripping supply. Far too much of our supply comes from foreign sources, over which the United States has little or no control.

The solution is equally simple: Increase domestic oil production. And the best place to start is in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, followed by further exploration and production from federal lands and from domestic offshore reserves.

Increasing domestic oil production will not destroy the environment, as the green organizations contend. Modern technology offers increased production with hardly any adverse environmental impacts. Increased domestic production will not only reduce the price of gasoline, it will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs needed to further stimulate the American economy.

Americans should by now be weary of the environmentalists' claim that we can significantly reduce the demand for energy if we only "conserve." We have conserved by improving the efficiency of fuel use. But, there is a limit on the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Further calls for conservation measures to solve the energy problem are like suggesting fasting as a cure for starvation.

The solution to the energy problem lies in ignoring the environmental organizations and getting a handful of senators to do the same.

I just realized something based on a couple of articles I read here several months ago. One involved reviving oil exploration in Tennessee, and the other involved a plan to preserve a small area on the Tennessee-Alabama border. It seems that the greenies had the ultimate goal of placing some 3 million acres of the region around the area to be preserved under protected status, including areas which were in the oil article. Imagine placing an area larger than Death Valley National Monument over middle Tennessee and northeast Alabama and make it off limits to oil exploration, or coal mining, or any other development. Do that all over the United States, and you take away any chance to develop oil or coal or any other type of energy because you can't even take it out of the ground. The reason the greenies want to create a 3 million acre preserve to protect an area of a few thousand acres is to prevent development of our resources and further their leftist agenda.

You were complaining about people's lack of foresight. I simply pointed out that if you had such good foresight about energy prices you should be filthy rich by now. Given that you aren't, I see that you are simply wallowing around in the pit of hindsight all the while wondering why everyone else isn't in there with you.

Oh, get over yourself already. Who gives a rat's @ss about being filthy rich.

That hits the nail on the head. Refining capacity in the U.S. is way down.

If there was an instant doubling of the refining capacity tomorrow would that drop the price of crude per barrell that is charged by the producers such as the Middle East? Or would we just have double the amount of gasoline at the current price levels?

Who gives a rat's @ss about being filthy rich.

Boy, a thread like this sure does flush the socialists.

Wealth is wonderful. Greed and envy are evil. People who constantly belittle wealth are greedy and/or envious.

And as far as the gas price going up, it doesn't have to. There is plenty of oil, but production has been curtailed and refining capacity is being kept low.

Until people realize that the green and the democrats are dishonest and hate America and vote them out of power, they will periodically engineer crises to sabotage the economy.

Wouldn't drop the price of crude, but it would drop the price of the various end products.

Also getting rid of the various mandated "blendings" would both drop the price and improve the environment as the by additive's products would not leach into the ground water as they do now.

Do people really need so many gas guzzlers?
Is it really any of your business?

A little defensive, aren't we?

It's got nothing to do with being defensive and everything to do with you being a busybody. You really should focus on yourself and those close to you instead of making judgements about what people choose to drive. As long as gasoline is freely available, people can buy as much as they want as often as they want and do with it whatever they choose.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.