"Drill, baby, drill": Fox News' environmental catastrophe
In the wake of the catastrophic oil spill currently occurring in the Gulf of Mexico, Media Matters reviews Fox News' fervent advocacy for offshore drilling. Its activism has including promoting Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill" mantra and pushing myths suggesting that drilling is environmentally safe.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Palin's "drill, baby, drill" mantra part of Fox's pro-offshore drilling endorsement
Palin: "[L]et's drill, baby, drill, not stall, baby, stall." On the April 14 edition of On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren aired footage of Fox News contributor Sarah Palin giving a speech at a tea party event, in which she repeated the "drill, baby, drill" mantra she first voiced during the 2008 presidential campaign, saying: "We can pave the way for proven conventional sources of energy, resource development with nuclear and clean coal technology and on and offshore drilling. Because remember that energy in America is security for America. So, yeah, let's drill, baby, drill, not stall, baby, stall."
Hannity: "We don't need to explore, we need to drill, baby, drill." On the April 1 edition of his show, Sean Hannity said, "We've got the oil reserves in Alaska. We've got them off the coast of Florida. We've got them off the coast in California. We've got them in the Gulf. We know where the oil is. We don't need to explore, we need to drill, baby, drill." Hannity later said, "Drilling would be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner."
Beck repeatedly touted offshore drilling
Beck: "If you really cared about the environment, you would let us drill for our own oil." On the September 2, 2008, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck said, "I got news for the greenies. If you really cared about the environment, you would let us drill for our own oil," adding: "It appears to me that the oil companies are doing a better job protecting the ocean and the fishes and the Gulf of Mexico than the local, state, and federal government are having at protecting people in our cities."
Beck applauds Bush for removing the "antiquated" "executive ban on offshore drilling." On the July 14, 2008, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck noted President Bush's removing of "the executive ban on offshore drilling," adding: "Welcome to the party, George. This is a ban that was as antiquated as it is idiotic. Unfortunately, no more oil is going to flow, from the Atlantic, at least, until Congress does the same thing and lifts their ban as well."
Beck: "Anybody with a car and a brain has been screaming about that for a long time." On June 18, 2008, Beck said that "President Bush gave a speech this afternoon urging Congress to pass legislation, lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anybody with a car and a brain has been screaming about that for a long time." On the June 17, 2008, edition of his show, Beck called the lifting of the ban "so logical the politicians have trouble even understanding it."
Beck: "We have to ramp up domestic offshore drilling." From the May 12, 2008, edition of his show, Beck said, "We have to ramp up domestic offshore drilling, even off the coast of billionaire vacation spots like South Florida, California, and my favorite, Cape Cod." Beck also said: "So tonight, America, here's what you need to know. Until we get a president and Congress with vision -- or really, I'll just settle for one with a clue -- we need temporary energy solutions, and aggressive drilling in the United States is one of them."
Beck on environmental opposition to offshore drilling: "Go make it with a tree all you want. I'm looking for oil." On the May 8, 2008, edition of his show, Beck said: "Norway, Canada, chock full of tree huggers, and they both have allowed offshore drilling for years. China, Cuba, virtually drilling in our own backyard, right off the coast of Florida. Yet, 85 percent of our own coastal waters, along with ANWR, are completely off limits, because we might hurt the bucktooth beaver or a caribou or whatever the hell they're complaining about now. What is it going to take before you are finally pissed of enough to tell these environmentalists, you know what? Go make it with a tree all you want. I'm looking for oil."
Gingrich: "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"
Gingrich literally wrote the book on oil drilling advocacy. Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich is the author of Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A handbook for slashing gas prices and solving our energy crisis (Regnery Press, 2008). In the book, Gingrich writes, "There is perhaps no better example of the disconnect between your government and you than the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. According to Gingrich, "every year that this ban remains in place is another year that Americans will needlessly pay high gas prices, with much of the profits going to foreign dictatorships." [Page 14]
Gingrich organization campaign promotes drilling. Americans Solutions for Winning the Future, of which Gingrich is General Chairman, has a "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign. The campaign features a petition calling on Congress to "act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices)* by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."
Other Fox figures also call for increased offshore drilling
Kristol: "We would like more drilling in Virginia." On the February 14 edition of Fox News Sunday, panelist William Kristol responded to Juan Williams statement that "when it comes to drilling offshore, you go talk to the people who live off the shore of Florida; do they want more drilling? Do the people in North Carolina want the Outer Banks covered in black oil? I don't think so," by saying, "People in Virginia just elected a governor running for governor on the -- on the platform of more drilling offshore in Virginia, so we would like more drilling in Virginia."
Cavuto: Offshore drilling "yields demonstrable results and fairly quickly." On the May 27, 2009, edition of Your World, host Neil Cavuto discussed "eco-entrepeneur" Howard Gould's proposal to paint roofs white as a way to save energy. Cavuto said he wanted to throw offshore drilling "in the mix" of energy proposals, adding, "It is just as nutty as painting a roof white, right?" When Gould noted that "Putting an offshore drilling platform is not necessarily low-hanging fruit. I mean, that is a pretty expensive proposition," Cavuto responded, "But it yields demonstrable results and fairly quickly."
Hosts touted myth that drilling is safe because no oil spilled during Katrina, Rita
Contrary to Fox-pushed falsehood, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita spilled nearly 17,700 barrels of petroleum products. According to a 2007 report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas, due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "124 [oil] spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products," including more than 10,000 barrels from platforms and rigs alone. The report further noted that "about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs."
Fox's O'Reilly: "[Y]ou've got technology that will prevent pollution," "when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana." While discussing offshore oil drilling with a caller on the July 9, 2008, edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "[Y]ou have to have a sane environmental policy when it's 25 miles offshore that no one'll see and you've got technology that will prevent pollution." He added, "Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana. So we have the technology."
Fox's Huckabee: "not one drop of oil was spilled" during Hurricane Katrina, offshore drilling "extraordinarily safe." During the June 27, 2008, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, contributor Mike Huckabee stated: "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. So we know that the technology to drill offshore is extraordinarily safe and environmentally friendly. And it's not something that we have to be as worried about as we do a refinery on shore or some other type of issue."
Fox's Jarrett advances claim that Katrina example indicates that drilling can be done in a way that protects the environment. On the July 30, 2008, edition of Fox News' Happening Now, co-host Gregg Jarrett asked then-Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, "[Y]ou're an engineer by background. Has technology improved so dramatically that drilling can now be done in a way that protects the environment?" He then allowed Bodman to reply, "I believe that it can. When we had Katrina and Rita, the two worst hurricanes in at least in recent memory, in '05, some three years ago, there was not one case where we had a -- a situation with oil or gas being spilled in the environment."
Fox's Cavuto allowed Bachmann to push back against dangers of oil spills with Katrina canard. During the September 1, 2008, edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto failed to counter Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim that "We didn't have any spillage whatsoever from the oil rigs during Katrina." Bachmann went on to claim: "I don't think it's luck. I think it's the fact of American ingenuity and technology. We know how to do things, and our companies have done a wonderful job making sure that we are both environmentally sound, but also able to produce the energy that America needs."
Beck: "No significant offshore spillage" during Katrina and Rita. On the September 2, 2008, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck said: "Even during Katrina and Rita in 2005, no significant offshore spillage from the 4,000 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Wow, that kind of puts a dent in the green movement's argument that offshore rigs are so dangerous for the environment."
Fox News hosts spread seepage myth
Gallagher repeated debunked seepage myth. During the September 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher repeated a debunked oil drilling myth, claiming that "more oil seeps through the ground off the coast of California than is ever spilled out there. So you're going to have much more environmental damage." In fact, a report by the County of Santa Barbara discussing the effects of natural seepage and oil spills, including a 1969 oil spill off California's Santa Barbara coast that released an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil, stated that "major spills can have far greater" environmental impact than seeps have.
On Twitter, Gingrich falsely claimed "no [oil] spill since 1969" in waters off Santa Barbara. In a March 2 Twitter post, Gingrich wrote that his wife, Callista, "pointed out flying into [S]anta [B]arbara you can see the oil rigs off shore," and asserted, "Ironically they have had no spill since 1969." In fact, there were at least two oil spills reported in or near the Santa Barbara Channel in just the last few months before Gingrich's post, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Fox report: "[D]rilling could help the environment." A report on the July 14, 2008, edition of Your World was teased by guest host Connell McShane with the claim, "Environmentalists drilling into your heads how dangerous and dirty offshore drilling is, and we're actually getting evidence that drilling could help the environment." In the report, William LaJeunesse stated that "most opposition to offshore drilling, of course, is based on fear -- fear of a spill," and claimed that according to the National Academy of Sciences, "Mother Nature spills more oil into the environment than Exxon, Shell, BP, and Chevron combined." LaJeunesse added, "In fact, we are dumping more oil out of jet airplanes as they jettison the fuel in emergency landings than come off of offshore platforms."
Beck: There's "more natural seepage on the ocean floor than there is from spills from offshore." On the June 18, 2008, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck interview musician Trace Adkins, who said that "All the six years that I worked offshore on a drilling rig, I can't recall a time whenever, you know, there was some significant spill of anything." Beck said that "I read someplace -- and you might even know this -- that there is more natural seepage on the ocean floor than there is from spills from offshore."
Cavuto hid lobbying ties of offshore drilling proponent Lott
Cavuto let Lott tout offshore drilling without disclosing he's an energy lobbyist. On the March 11, 2009, edition of Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto hosted former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to discuss energy policy, during which Lott touted offshore drilling. But Cavuto failed to disclose that Lott is now a lobbyist for major energy companies.
We should SAVE those resources until we have to have them for use. It's stupid to use up all that we can get our hands on now, especially since, like you said, there's so little to gain from using those resources now!
What dell and mmfa seem to forget is that Obama was a staunch supporter of off-shore drilling and said he will start allowing it just weeks ago. Good planning on that one, too, Mr. President. They must have forgotten that simple FACT because I didn't see Pres. Obama listed in their tirade against FOX. You were quick to denigrate a whole list of conservatives, but ignore the FACT that Obama is the one who chooses to allow that environmentally dangerous practice.
I think this goes to show that Obama isn't the great leader all the liberals would have you believe. He can't hire the people to get the job done and he doesn't know how to do the job by himself. Seems he has the 'midas touch' when it comes to hiring 'good people' to run his model train. He hires crooks and ethics violators and none of his ideas turn into anything productive. The only ones that have worked are left over from the Bush administration.
Blaming conservatives for decisions Obama makes is lame lame lame.
Obama does plenty of things that conservatives should support.
I've been saying that we shouldn't be rushing to use up all of our resources for decades. I've been saying that people should try to use less petroleum products and find alternatives for decades.
Who is "we"?
Well, we agree, then. Could be the first time, eh?
I've been saying that we shouldn't be rushing to use up all of our resources for decades. I've been saying that people should try to use less petroleum products and find alternatives for decades.
Who is "we"?" --DellDolly
Truthfully, I'm shocked that here it is 2010, and we're STILL dependent upon fossil fuels. I truly assumed that we would be driving either electric or solar powered vehicles by now ... it IS the 21st century afterall.
I guess I never counted on the 'old' moneyed folks to keep getting richer off fossil fuels. I figured they might have invested some of that money into R&D. How silly of me!!
Here are the REAL facts about CARS: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot13309.htm
Vehicles Purchased by Category
Passenger Cars: 404,046
Category 1 Truck: 231,651
Category 2 Truck: 46,836
Category 3 Truck: 2,408
If I do my math correct, then that adds up to 280,895 trucks compared to 404,046 cars. What was the mileage of those trucks? I wonder what the fuel economy increase would have been if ONLY hybrids (or fully electric) were offered as exchange vehicles? Instead of allowing trucks that get 17mpg to be offered in the program. You DID notice that 49,000 trucks were sold that are listed as needing a minimum of 15mpg?
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06/pickup-trucks-and-the-cash-for-clunkers-bill.html
So, you go ahead and cite your numbers. You probably don't mind that I cite the numbers that back up my contention, do you? I doubt you care, since my numbers are as accurate as the ones you brought. Only I'm not trying to prove YOUR point, I'm proving MINE. Which I did.
And, since you are a proponent of hybrid and all-electric vehicles, do you happen to remember who joined the Big Three to sue the state of California over it's CARB requirements for zero emission vehicle sales? It's right on the tip of my tongue. He liked to pretend he was from Texas, but he was really a Connecticut Yankee. He is famous for the phrase 'Mission Accomplished'. Oh! Well, it'll come to me in a minute. THAT guy is who you should be angry with.
And when CARB was first instituted, and the Big Three complained they didn't have enough money to do the research to develop the battery technology, who stepped forward with billions of taxpayer dollars to fund what would become a very effective, practical, efficient and recyclable battery technology? Wait, wait, I know this one, too. He was famous for cigars and blue dresses. Well, I'm sure that name will come to me, too.
Oh, and who currently owns the patents on that battery technology? We do, right? Well, no, see, because GM, who developed it using OUR money ended up selling the little R&D company and it's battery patents to Texaco.
Actually, no I don't remember. Can you provide a link to show proof of your claims? Or should we call you "dell" because you are another one who makes wild claims then won't support them?
You can find the complete timeline here.
I think you skipped this part from during the time your cigar-smoker was in control.
Also, I didn't know Mercedes is one of the Big-3. I see only one of the Big-3 listed and you claimed Bush joined ALL 3. I guess you ARE just like dell (claims of fact with no fact to support your claims).
Clinton still gave GM money to research and develop batteries for electric cars. Taxpayer money, by the way. And the patents on the batteries WE paid for were sold to Exxon. That happened under Bush's watch, not Clinton's.
Not a full time Clinton supporter. I disagreed with a number of his choices, including NAFTA and most favored nation status for China. He did at least hand a federal surplus on to Bush II, who turned it into a record breaking deficit.
I went through each of your 'I should be angry' statements and disproved each one. 1- the big three suddenly became the medium two. 2- Clinton chipped away at the Cal CARB laws for 8 years, but you only mentioned Bush as being responsible. 3- out of context use of factual phrase.
How about all these conversion companies, has Obama been giving them money to keep converting regular cars over to battery powered cars? (I did a little research, and it would run about $10-15K to convert your car over to fully electric AND have a 80-140 mile range per charge). I did see that Obama bought GM, but I haven't seen him give money to business's that are actually in the business to build electric cars. I take that back ... Tesla gained several hundred thousands to do research. Just before 3 major engineers died in a mysterious plane crash.
Maybe the NEXT president will have "connections" within the battery industry! LOL
The money was part of an $8 billion investment in high tech solutions to hybrid and all electric vehicles, and, again, this was June of 2009.
Also, a "state law" that is "chipped away at" by Clinton (for 8 years) is just a "state law" but that same law when "chipped away at" by Bush becomes an evil deed done to American taxpayers?
This is from a correction, posted here.
So, yes, Clinton spent ten times the money on battery R&D that Bush Sr. did. It was taxpayer money, and it was government in partnership with industry to replace petroleum. When Bush II was appointed, he filed suit, which was government in partnership with industry to keep us addicted to petroleum.
Too bad nothing was gained from all that money given to the auto industry. What did Clinton think would happen, the industry would dump what they've been producing for nearly a century and move on to an unpopular idea? So, in reality, Clinton paid off the people who supported his campaign and you call it justifiable.
cat-- When Bush II was appointed, he filed suit, which was government in partnership with industry to keep us addicted to petroleum.
When you say "with industry" do you mean the auto industry? The same auto industry that Clinton just gave several million to? Again, what did Clinton think would happen?
A weak mind allows you to be "addicted" to anything. If you feel like you're "addicted" to petroleum, then the shoe must fit.
Patently false, Floyd. Why else did Exxon sue Panasonic, winning a $30 million settlement over the use of NiMH battery technology for electric vehicles? It was to make it much more difficult and less efficient to build electric vehicles in this country so we would continue to burn petroleum.
As far as unpopular ideas, GM had buyers for every single electric car they leased in California. People who were willing to pay the new list price for used vehicles. GM chose to crush them instead.
Why would GM do this? Well, they had a choice: short term profit with the Hummer, or long term success with the EV-1. Being shortsighted, they built the Hummer and did everything they could to make sure the EV-1 failed. The Toyota Rav-4s that were built for lease in California were also mostly crushed, but the few that were allowed to be purchased are still running, most with over 150,000 miles on them. It's a viable technology, and people want them.
An interesting allegation. You have no proof however, so it's just one more thing you've pulled out of your backside. Try pulling your head out next time. We'll all be better off.
Yes. Yes. And, we all wondered what would happen when Dumbya was appointed President. Now we know. Won't let THAT happen again.
My mind is most definitely NOT weak, Floyd. However, I have dealt with addiction to many things throughout my lifetime and will continue to do so as, in MHO, everyone is born an addict. It's our brain chemistry that leads to addiction ... what we are addicted to varies from individual to individual.
Secondly, so what if people could/did buy trucks under the plan? The trucks being purchased were above the average mpg of the vehicles that were turned in and increasing fuel mileage standards were not the sole reason for the program either. When you get to be president, you can force Congress to provide you a bill that lives up to your criteria.
Thirdly, here is one more little tidbit from the link you supplied that was interesting:, but the plan was not perfect enough for you, so therefore it was wrong. Of course, one has to overlook that most conservatives have argued the President should not have done anything, we have to read about you complaining he supposedly hasn't done enough. I wish you guys would pick an argument, because it just looks like you complain about everything he does if it isn't perfect in your eyes.
Yeah, at least 1 mpg. That sure is a great limit to put on purchases designed to improve economy numbers that the program was designed to do. Which is the point I was making. If you don't understand that point then I would expect you to continue arguing that your numbers are correct and everyone should look at only your numbers. However, my point was different than yours so I needed different numbers (albeit they are just as factual). You don't mind that I'm not trying to prove YOUR point, do you?
ABC thinks it is the fault of British Petroleum. They are the ones who fought this regulation. http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10521078
He hosted a closed door meeting to set U.S. energy policy, and included only giant energy corporations, effectively bending the entire population of America over for their corporate pleasure.
Bush/Cheney & Co. did more damage to this country with that single meeting than al Qaeda has or ever will do.
Check oil prices during the reign of Bush/Cheney & Co. Check the price of a gallon of gas over that eight year run. Check the profits of electricity companies. Remember Enron? Remember how Ken Lay walked off with $500 million, bankrupting 50,000 employees? How about checking CAFE regulation on federally required minimum mpg for cars and trucks?
But you knew this...right kitty?
Believe me...I try to screen my links to reputable sources to the extent possible. Unlike a large contingent of lefty's on this site who don't source at all or print left-wing kook sites.
Well, if that's your method of providing facts for oil company "connections". What were the prices of gas/oil during "that nice peanut farmer" Carter's reign?
But I do not find it surprising you lacked the curiosity and intellectual capacity to research this yourself, Floyd.
There is nothing like the twisted mind of the left...
Oh, yeah, it's just peachy-keen over in the middle east right now, huh? What part of the world did the terrorists come from that started the whole 9/11 thing anyway? Hint: middle east. So, NO .. there are no correlations between this price hike and Carter's.
And, I'm sorry, what "connections" did Bush/Cheney have that Clinton did not? Oh! Bush's family drilled for oil! Why would someone whose family is in the business have connections within it?!? Who'd a thunk it!
Well, duh, Floyd. Remember 'Mission Accomplished'?
There have always been terrorists in the Middle East, just as there have always been terrorists everywhere. And as for connections, Dumbya himself was directly involved in the oil business in Texas after he got doing being AWOL during time of war. We're not talking about some distant cousin of his who once worked as a secretary for a small drilling company.
Of course Bush was involved in the business. It was a business his family controlled, so he felt like following in his family's footsteps. Is it a crime to want to do what your family does to make your living? So, of course he gained "connections" throughout the years. Duhh!!
That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now, Floyd. What mission do you think he was referring to?
But that was a nice distraction while cat licks her wounds from declaring that Cheney is the cause of all evil by simply saying so.
t-bone-- There is nothing like the twisted mind of the left...
You are so correct!
Ooooo, oooooo, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter <waving hand wildly> how about that other Bush bro (Neil, I think his name is) and that whole failed S&L thing? LOTS of folks were hurt by that one, but lots of others seem to be unfamiliar with the incident, or worse yet forgotten OR never heard of it. Talk about sweeping things under rugs!!
This oil rig accident was just that, an accident. Shut your mouth and let the exploring begin for more oil. Otherwise, don't start screaming when you are paying $8 a gallon for gas.
The costs of the oil spills are paid for by... taxpayers.
The costs of protecting the supply chain to bring oil from other nations here for refinement is paid for by... taxpayers.
The direct government subsidies paid by the federal government to oil companies that are MAKING PROFITS IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY ANYWAY are paid for by... taxpayers.
The direct and indirect health costs for the burden of pollution barfed into our environment by petroleum is paid for by... taxpayers.
You want nuclear power? Fine. Here's the deal. You vote to fund nuclear power (because it is incapable of paying for itself without subsidies just like ethanol), then you pledge the life of your family in case of accident. Spouse, kids and grandkids. Their lives are forfeit in case something goes wrong. Same applies to everyone who works at a nuclear plant. No spouse? No kids? You are ineligible to work there. That's my only condition. Fair enough?
Accidents happen. However, we can look at the probable costs and outcomes of such accidents, and determine whether the risks are worth running. In the case of petroleum? Absolutely not. There are many other sources of energy that are cleaner, safer, and sustainable, not the mention that the costs of accidents in environmental, economic, and human life terms are far less devastating.
Believe me, at $20 a gallon, life would really be unpleasant for a year or two, but once we got past that development phase, all kinds of ideas for improving efficiency and alternative energy would be taking the place of petroleum at a ridiculously rapid pace, and we could quit going to war over this crap to keep the billionaires wealthy.
Do you support the middle eastern countries so much that you would prefer we give them our money instead of having the money go towards something "American Made"? Maybe you're just against American workers and would prefer that illegal immigrants be given those jobs first? Since, I'm sure you allocate that profession as being jobs "real Americans" wouldn't do?
Also, Floyd, you are aware that most of our oil actually comes from the Western Hemisphere, and not the Middle East, as far as what we import, right?
I'm in favor of American workers, which is why I support the switch to a green energy economy. It will create many more jobs than the oil industry, none of which can easily be outsourced. Plus, it's not like sunshine will run out. The same can not be said of petroleum, can it?
There are no jobs 'real Americans' wouldn't do. There ARE jobs real Americans may turn down because the pay offered is not equal to the work required. Funny how that works, huh? Skilled labor, a group to which I happen to belong, demands to be paid a living wage for it's abilities. That's part of why we have unions, and part of why management would rather ship jobs over seas and bust American unions up whenever possible.
We should be buying NO oil from overseas, no matter from what country of origin. Why? Because it is a serious threat to our national security, that's why. We've known of this threat since the early 70s when OPEC held their first embargo. And yet, forty years later, there are still people like you clinging to the idea that we can produce enough to meet demand domestically. It's not possible, even with the proven reserves we know about. Further, exploiting those reserves will take 10 to 15 years, during which time we continue to go in hock to China to buy foreign oil. I say we break the cycle.
Which huge multinational petroleum corporate structure pays you to post these little propaganda pieces, Floyd? Why do you hate America?
She didn't say we can drill to prevent MOST accidents. She said we can drill safely. I saw a clip where she said it!
She said "We can produce it safely and responsibly." She had no caveats, no "almost all of the time" qualifiers!
Face it, you just want to whine about someone who mmfa pays you to whine about. It must be truly inspiring to be a left-wing troll.
It was much more than a leak. Many miles of coastline were ruined for decades, and the cleanup was extraordinarily expensive. That this happened along Sarah "The Quitter" Palin's own coast up in Alaska, and she still imagines that oil can be safely exploited, is just one more piece of evidence that she is in fact quite mentally challenged. She can wink, and she can read off of her hand, and that's about all.
But, what I don't understand is your absolute FEAR of someone who is as "mentally challenged" as you claim.
BTW, you didn't answer my question. I asked if shipping by boat was just as unsafe as oil rigs. You answered; yes, they changed the regulation. Does that mean "yes, it's just as unsafe" or "yes, it was just as unsafe until they changed the rules"?
I made no such claim, Floyd. What I did say was that Cheney set US energy policy to serve big oil, coal, and utilities, and to screw the American people. That claim still stands.
Fine, then feel free to drill for oil on Planet Theoretical, where the safety measures are always followed, and everyone behaves exactly as you expect them to. Meanwhile, here in the REAL world, that has been polluted far too long by this noxious technology, we will find much better and more sustainable solutions. Palin is clearly wrong. It is not possible to drill 'safely'. The spill in the Gulf is proof that Palin is wrong. Amazing that you don't get that.
I don't fear Palin herself. By herself, she's just an ignorant hick milf with too much money. However, those who think she is some shining example of what a politician should be, who treat her ghost-written book as an important work on policy? They're a mob waiting to happen. They are ruled by emotion, have no grasp of logic, and there is no way to appeal to their reason, because they have none.
I will answer your question: Everything related to the petroleum industry, whether it is exploration, drilling, transporting, refining, or burning it is all unsafe. The risks inherent in all these activities are simply too high for the illusion of cheap power. If all the hidden costs were factored in, petroleum would actually be among the most expensive.
cat-- I made no such claim, Floyd. What I did say was that Cheney set US energy policy to serve big oil, coal, and utilities, and to screw the American people.
Sounds like you just said he changed regulations to suit big oil companies. Is BP a "big oil" company? So, YES you did make that claim.
cat-- I don't fear Palin herself. By herself, she's just an ignorant hick milf with too much money. However, those who think she is some shining example of what a politician should be, who treat her ghost-written book as an important work on policy?
So you fear her and 50 other people?
cat-- They're a mob waiting to happen. They are ruled by emotion, have no grasp of logic, and there is no way to appeal to their reason, because they have none.
I don't understand why you switched your commentary to being about liberals while in mid-rant against Palin.
I made no such claim about any specific regulation, Floyd, and you know that quite well. Your argument lacks rational structure. Take a logic course. If you can get admitted as a student, your local community college can be very helpful here.
It's not true that you don't understand, Floyd. What is true is that you cling to your ignorance with a rare tenacity. It's a character flaw.
You did about generic 'big-oil' benefiting regulations. Which is the basis of your rant about what a wheeny Cheney is. And you did it when you said this:
cat-- He hosted a closed door meeting to set U.S. energy policy, and included only giant energy corporations, effectively bending the entire population of America over for their corporate pleasure.
So, don't start changing your story when we're almost done on this thread. Apparently, you can not bring actual proof and just choose to go with; 'I didn't say that'. Totally expected from liberals.
Here is my original post. Please show me the word 'regulation', and where it appears if you can.
Meanwhile, keep moving the goalposts. You have no chance of winning the argument, so changing the rules at random as you go along and hoping to win by attrition is all you've got left.
But to politicize from any angle is shameless. Limbaugh and the others are pathetic in calling it "Obama's Katrina", but to exploit it the other way by sticking it to the "drill baby" drillers is not fair either.
An oil rig is not foolproof for spills or explosions, they can happen. But that is not reason enough to abandon thoughtful and sincere discussion regarding all the aspects of their validity. I do agree with Obama on the temporarily halt.
I think everyone needs to first concentrate on minimizing the damage as much as possible, figure out exactly what happened, what is to blame and take measures and systems in place for further disasters such as this. I trust Obama to do this, the right thing. He has my support.
Those that choose to politicize this, from any perspective, are more concerned with their own political scoreboard than what's really happening in the gulf.
So, now that we have the inevitable environmental disaster, you claim people are politicizing this?
Buddy, this issue has been politicized for a long, long time.
Where have you been?
It is not correct for you to say that Media Matters is "pouncing" or "politicizing."
They are simply pointing out unpleasant, painful, FACTS. They are pointing what individuals--individuals given a very large corporate microphone--have said. We have to look at the facts.
I do applaud your call to civility, but I would suggest the sentiment is probably much better directed toward the right-wingers who are, indeed, trying to politicize this.
If the left does not combat these myths, they will become beliefs in the minds of voters. That is the job of the right-wing-noise-machine; to blame the Democrats. Quit whining about the left hitting back with the facts.
There should be a political cost for being proven wrong. I'm tired of being too polite to point out the obvious while the conservatives are busy laughably turning the incident into a supposed "Katrina II".
This collection of bad behavior on the part of rightwingers is a great resource.
This isn't obnoxious behavior on the part of MMFA. Collecting facts all in one place is not obnoxious. Behaving like Rush Limbaugh and others who are calling this Obama's Katrina IS obnoxious behavior.
You spelled "misinformation" incorrectly. Your spell check should have caught that, but just in case, I'm here for ya.
I guess that leaves republicans out of it, then.
So now we have two agencie, EPA and oil permit issuers that have for nearly a decade failed toinsist drillers comply with the law and oil companies ignored it immunity. So throw the bums out. But I expect Obama to fix this mess even though I am a moderate Republican because Obama is a smart, articulate, honest person.
Maybe we can hope it's one of the things that will make people consider speaking more responsibly in future.
Hopefully, after this disaster, we will weigh the risk to its value. The scope of this disaster remains to be seen, but is it worth the oil that we produce from the drilling?
If you ask the fisherman, resorts and everyone who is being impacted by this disaster, the answer is obvious.
My point was simply is that we should back burner the politics of this at least until the oil stops bleeding in the gulf. I don't think that is too much to wish for.
Very little from what she has shown us.
The point of this collection of quotes and publicly stated positions from people like Sarah 'The Quitter' Palin, right ON, was so that you didn't have to guess or wonder about what was or is in her mind. You can go back into the document record of what she's said, and discover that she has stated, in the past, as a fact, that we could drill safely. No qualifier, no caveat, no exception. She was clearly wrong, and it was obvious at the time she was wrong.
Additionally, collecting these quotes and positions is not politicizing the disaster. It is pointing out for the benefit of anyone who cares to do the reading that this situation, i.e. drilling for oil, has ALREADY been politicized, and apparently by people who don't know much about it. Pointing out their greed and ignorance is not making a political argument.
Looks like you guys have this all taken care of.
Interesting that RO seems to be suddenly worried about politicizing this. After all, his other posts at MMFA don't seem like he's "above the fray." And he's been racing to the bottom for a long time now.
Above the fray. What a nice thing to say. After all, the entire reason for this post is that FOX (the voice of the right wing) is NEVER above the fray - "drill, baby, drill!!!!"
Right wingers can be such whiners when they find their positions don't always work out the way god told them it would.
On a related topic: Now Bush is about to publish his book. I think it's going to be nothing more than a long whine list.
You want to back burner the political rhetoric in the wake of an environmental disaster? Pull the plug on cable crap news, hate radio, and the internet. Otherwise, keep wishing, because you're just p***ing in the wind by letting your undies get twisted over an article buried in America's 2,828th most popular website.
Or, he's a paid troll trying to push an agenda and distract us from the topic at hand in any way possible!
Do you really hate America that much?
Anyway, right ON, we can agree to disagree. Your point about politicizing a tragedy is heard and understood. I just don't think that's the case here.
Rachel Maddow pointed something out last night that is really important - she said
Maddow does exactly what I would hope all media would do. Focus on what happened and why, not the extraneous players.
Having said that, your message reminds me that, although political discussion has become sordid and sensational beyond any measure of good taste, we must always remember that behind these debates there are very real people suffering very real consequences.
Thanks for the reminder.
As for the comparison to war, I see your point. But I am also not too keen on politicizing that during conflict either. Although I respect protesters and those on the supporting side, I think the politics of it should remain above the fray as much as possible. But I know, war is very political. Your point is a good one.
Not just THESE day, but in the previous 8 years as well. I'm sick of what's going on in Washington now due to the "filabustering" Republicans and the chicken Democrats. I'm sick of the HORRIBLE smearing of a seated president. Sure, I'm disappointed in some of the things he has/has not done his 1st year, but I still have hope because I do believe that he cares in ways that his predecessor did not. Do I believe in Congress these days ... not so much.
Not just THESE day, but in the previous 8 years as well. I'm sick of what's going on in Washington now due to the "filabustering" Republicans and the chicken Democrats. I'm sick of the HORRIBLE smearing of a seated president. Sure, I'm disappointed in some of the things he has/has not done his 1st year, but I still have hope because I do believe that he cares in ways that his predecessor did not. Do I believe in Congress these days ... not so much.
"You're right, this is just more evidence of the coarsening tone our politics has taken these days"
I agree.
Just a few reminders about how coarse this has been:
"see the complete idiocy of your question."
by right ON (August 28, 2009 12:48 pm ET)
"Your assertions were ridiculous then, and they still are."
by right ON (April 15, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
"What kind of jibberish elitist nonsense is that?"
and
"You are far too simple to see how incredibly disrespectful and elitist that is, I know. Or that it really makes no sense."
by right ON (April 15, 2010 4:13 pm ET)
"You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?"
by right ON (April 15, 2010 4:51 pm ET)
"It's lunacy. It's liberalism."
by right ON (April 15, 2010 6:08 pm ET)
These are but a few examples of how coarse you've been on these posts. So, now you suddenly take the position that everyone else is coarse?
Save your crocodile tears.
Whiny conservatives are worse than the bleeding hearts.
I agree with that completely. We need to develop some level of rationality in this country. We are such knee-jerk reactionaries. We should treat catastrophes (from oil spills to terrorist attacks) more like we have learned to do with plane crashes. Wait until we can gather all the pertient information and then make the necessary decisions to attempt to prevent them in the future. To fly off the handle from either side of the aisle is childish and counter-productive.
During calamities like this I am reminded of Wally Shirra's response to the investigation into the cause of the Apollo fire that killed 3 of his comrads. "It was a failure of imagination".
The same has been said of 9/11 and of the Titanic.
If that concept were factored into the prior musings of pundits and past advocacy by politicians regarding absolute confidence in the safety of offshore drilling, then the debate about "calculated risks" would have more honesty and substance.
The possibility of even redundant safety systems failing (such as failure of relief valves to close on the BP well) pales in comparison to the sobering reality that current technology does not exist for dealing with a gushing well-head beneath a mile of ocean.
I agree with you that this catastrophe and its story continues to unfold and shrill politicization of it, from all sides, is wrong and counterproductive---and in a larger sense, just plainly tragic.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that MMFA is firing a pre-emptive warning shot in that direction by posting some facts that pertain to those who might be considered the "usual suspects".
I also expect to hear some "I told you so"s by drilling opponents and environmentalists. Let's hope they are short and sweet, and we quickly segue into serious debate on solutions. There are a lot of wells out there now.
You present a false choice between two responses. See, someone can both feel sadness and empathy for the those who are directly suffering from the Oil Rig disaster, AND feel anger that it happened, AND see the sad irony of extremest rightwing blowhards such as Rush, Hannity, Palin, and other in their corporate, oil cheer leading.
Regarding your charge and attack of MMA and others politicizing this, as another poster has accurately stated, offshore oil drilling was clearly already politicized long before this tragedy by ...... yes, Rush, Hannity, Palin and other right wing blowhards.
"I think everyone needs to first concentrate on minimizing the damage ..." Yes I can see you are now doing your best to 'minimize the damage' - to your party by asking us to ignore what is plain - for civilities sake, yeah right.
By the way, in this thread you keep repeating Rush's false claim that this is Obama's Katrina. Bush's response to Katina like much of his administration's policy was ineptly horrible, and stating this is not shameless, it is sound, albeit lively, analysis. What I would say is false and perhaps shameless is for you to claim that Obama's and Bushes handling of these two tragedies is comparable.
For you, I would not worry whether MMA or others point out how the rightwing's has expressed and continues to expresses extreme advocacy for oil drilling and how that makes them look. You see, I trust that enough Americans are smart enough to realize for themselves when they see the burning oil rig, the panic, and the destruction, AND at the same time see that rightwing republicans advocated 'drill baby drill' (implying don't worry about safeguards or the environment, just drill dam it), they will know who should not be leading this country.
Are you replying to me? If so, please show me where I "repeated" that?
For mmfA to politicize this is telling.
I would say that, because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we have proof that atomic energy is not accident proof. The people that told us this were clearly wrong, and the resultant disasters were of a magnitude that we should only allow more nuclear energy IF there is no other way to generate electricity. But that is patently false. There are many many other ways to generate electricity, where the result of accidents are very minimal in impact.
Likewise with drilling for oil. Is this the only way to power our transportation industry? No, certainly not. Are there ways that are not only safer and cleaner, but also result in much more minor tragedies when the inevitable accidents DO occur? Of course.
How about air travel and the highway system? Lots of deaths, and the results of accidents can be expensive in both life and property. We've decided as a society that the need to travel quickly in this case trumps the need to arrive safely every time. Since even walking has risks, and since there is no alternative that provides the same result in a safer manner, we've accepted that car and plane crashes will occasionally happen as part of the price of our technologically advanced society.
However, when you have a group of people united behind a slogan like 'Drill baby drill!', people who are so ignorant they are willing to claim there are completely safe ways to develop this resource, people who, when faced with a disaster stemming from the very policy they are and were unashamedly promoting who suddenly want to pin all the consequences of their policy on the other party? Then pointing out this enormous hypocrisy is not 'politicizing' the disaster. The 'politicizing' has already taken place, when they attempted to divert blame for their position to somebody else.
Got a question. How many liberals or Democrats were out there on cable news cheering for torture, and then immediately trying to distance themselves from it when Bush/Cheney & Co. started getting in hot water internationally for breaking the law? Would point out this hypocrisy have been 'politicizing' torture?
Strawman. Who has said anything is completely safe? Overall, just like your transportation example, the industry is safe. The problem with a spill is it's big news much like a jumbo jet crashing. It attracts a lot of attention and everyone with a ax to grind gets to do just that as you are doing here. To what end heaven knows. Oil drilling and consumption is not going anywhere in our lifetime.
Instead of charging windmills why not focus on how we can do it better?
The problem with drilling and transporting petroleum is the decades long impact of any accident. Accidents are inevitable. Rather than devoting the resources to further drilling, we would be much better served as a society and as a planet to research, develop, and support much cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy.
We get absolutely nothing from the petroleum industry that couldn't be had from other sources, except the environmental catastrophes and taxpayer subsidization of foreign war.
There's no such thing as zero risk in human technological endeavors folks. From the plastic keyboard you are typing on to the fuel in the cars that each of you own, petroleum is part of modern society.
It would be wonderful if we could guarantee that every modern technology was both sustainable as well as emissions free, but that is not where we are today. Similarly, as much as the Gulf spill is a catastrophe, it does not diminish the fact that without OCS exploration, we are even further in bed with Middle East regimes who help foment the hatred that longs to destroy us.
The proper response is learn what went wrong, fix it, and move forward. . . with a longer term goal of better, cleaner technology for future generations.
People we need to help MMFA and SPREAD THIS ARTICLE AND ALL OTHERS AROUND MORE!! Instead of just putting in our own opinions which 99% of people who visit this site agree on; we need to be linking this on all our social networking sites and submitting these articles to as many resources as we can to help. REACH OUT TO TO ANY RESOURCES THAT YOU THINK CAN HELP SPREAD THE TRUTH!!!! MMFA CAN and HAS been progressively making a difference, and WE CAN HELP!!!!
the term "safe" is relative, and to try to hold fox news accountable for misinformation in this case is ridiculous... if one of their pundits ever claimed that drilling is hazard-free, let me know... the mentality of media matters and the people here piling on fox news is like that of the no nukes crowd back in the 80's... we're stuck with the filth and danger of coal and oil today largely thru the help of those misguided musicians and their supporters who wet their pants after having watched the china syndrome and the subsequent meltdown at three mile island... yet you can operate an aircraft carrier for over a year with a softball sized chunk of plutonium, and while that material is dangerous, there is not exactly a rash of cancer victims having served on nuclear ship and subs... and upwards of 90% of france is operating on nuclear power, but i haven't heard bruce springsteen or jackson browne boycotting that country lately...
i mention nuclear power because it's this same irrational fear and opposing drilling at every turn that has us so dependent on foreign oil, and why we'll continue to have a military presence in the middle east, regardless of who is in the white house...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
- millions of gallons of radioactive waste
- thousands and thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel
- vast quantities of contaminated soil and water
(one known site of contamination has 31 million pounds of uranium product and two and a half billion pounds of waste with more than 2 and three-quarter million cubic yards of contaminated soil.)
... and you want to produce more.
You are correct. We have made some pretty significant advancements in containment and reduction of nuclear waste. I would just like to point out that we continue to have a HUGE clean up that is going on, from when we spent a few decades irradiating our own planet, and it is going to cost us dearly for decades to come. This "better bang for our tax dollars," doesn't exist at the moment. We are still paying for the aftermath, long after any benefits that we may have received from those programs.
Clean up the mess we already have and prove to us that future problems will not exist. Only then, should we consider letting new nuclear power programs to start.
If Europe can do it, so can we and we can do it better...but we need to get past divisive politics.
That's not true. My buddy TBoone found out that the infrastructure just isn't there yet in the US.
The nuclear industry is up and running. We have nuke power plants in many states which ARE supplying 20% of the energy used in the US. Wind power COULD supply 20% but they don't have the infrastructure and who knows when and how fast that could be implemented.
As for Europe "doing it", nuclear power is the MAJOR form of energy in France, so it looks like you have your facts upside down. We need to get past misinformation.
Personally, I am on the fence about nuclear power. I have spoken with many nuclear physicists I have met and they are all sold that we can do it safely. Events like the one offshore are a reminder that no system can be completely failsafe - no matter what we tell ourselves.
Look up the definition sometime. I did. Do you know what it says?
"Free from danger or the risk of harm."
That sure sounds like "hazard-free" to me!
And that's exactly what Sarah Palin said last month, as I've quoted her multiple times on this site. She said "We can produce it safely and responsibly." No qualifiers, nothing. Many others tried to claim that NO OIL spills happened because of Katrina, but that wasn't true either.
MMFA is NOT imagining the dishonest commentary from the right on this topic.
And it looks like there is a lot more oil available than the skeptics want us to believe.
Millions of people own dogs that never bite, but sometimes dogs attack and kill people. Should we stop owning dogs?
Millions of people drive cars and get where they are going safely, but sometimes people wreck their cars and kill innocent women and children. Should we stop driving?
There are almost 4 thousand oil rigs in the gulf that produce countless barrells of oil every day that fuel our cars and homes and have countless other uses and we barely even notice that the rigs are there, but sometimes (extremely rarely) there is a major accidental leak that has a negative ecological and economical impact. Should we stop all offshore oil drilling?
Of course Fox promoted offshore drilling. And, they should keep promoting it. I'm not sying there shouldn't be an investigation into better safety measures to prevent another similar event, but we still should be drilling.
"Beauty fades. Dumb is forever."
-- Judge Judy
loved ones,any callousness on the
part of mmfa, if there has been, pales
in comparison to the callousness and cynicism
displayed day after day year after year
by the misanthropic disdainful Fox and CNN
broadcasters whose sole purpose is to enrich
themselves at the expense if others