Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel: McCain v. Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling & ANWR

Thanks for this article. It is nice to see two candidates' views on a particular issue spelled out clearly, in one place. is a wonderful thing. If only newspapers did that once in a while, we'd have a much more informed electorate.

Still, none of this changes the facts of oil drilling. The only way for the US to be oil independent is to reduce our consumption to the point where domestic production can fill our demands. Better public transit and rail. Plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles, and bike infrastructure. Replacing oil burners and diesel generators with natural gas or electric. And that isn't going to happen in five years; realistically, it can only happen on the timescale of the lifetime of the durable goods that need to be replaced. Maybe a little shorter is later generation biofuels provide a significant amount of "green crude."

Face it- Obama takes whatever position he feels he needs to take in order to get his polling numbers up. That's why he was against offshore drilling before he was for it (in some cases). And that's why he was against the Iraq surge before he finally admitted that it succeeded. And Obama is all talk when it comes to energy independence- how does he plan on becoming energy independent if there is no oil drilling? So this is what you consider "solidly borne out?" That is the most biased piece of garbage I have heard yet on this blog. I don't think anyone really knows where Obama stands because he keeps qualifying/flipping his positions depending on what Nancy Pelosi tells him. Consistent with your extreme pro-Obama bias, you COMPLETELY NEGLECT to mention McCain's strong support for developing renewable energy in parallel with the exploration for more oil. Does it pain you that much to admit that McCain has a comprehensive plan whereas Obama's plan falls far short of a solution? Apparently so!

Another thing to consider is that the act of drilling itself is not going to bring prices down; rather, it's the speculation on the future demand for foreign oil. The price of oil will definitely go down due to the PROSPECT of domestic drilling due to the fear of demand destruction. The hope for OPEC is that they can keep prices low enough so that the cost of exploration/drilling in the U.S. becomes prohibitive and therefore keeps the U.S. reliant on their oil for a longer period of time. We are already seeing their fears about demand destruction as evidenced by the sharp drop in oil prices over the past couple of months. The anti-drill crowd is completely wrong on this issue.

I think it is absurd to drill off the coast of Florida even more than we already have. Not just because I live there, but because we are putting rigs in the most vulnerable positions out there. Hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming and can easily damage and put those rigs out of commission. I am so sick of this bait and switch in election years. The real issue is that we need to make more significant strides to get off of oil, not fill all our time trying to find ways to tap more. If we cannot see any real substantial relief from oil prices, then why bother. It is only prolonging the inevitable, and when we start seeing relief from oil prices we will become complacent again, forgetting all this drama and driving our SUV's. I hate paying big bucks at the pump more than anybody, but this crisis has at least opened our eyes to our unsustainable lifestyles.

I think the real question that needs to be considered is where each candidate stands on nuclear power. Riding bikes, driving hybrids, wind power, solar, etc. are all good things, but I don't see all of them combined as a genuine and meaningful way solve the problems we are beginning to face. Yes, nuclear seems scary and has drawbacks, but it also has some pretty big advantages too. I've also got to believe the technology has come a long, long way since 3 mile island,etc. There doesn't seem to be any neat, tidy and 100% perfect energy solution available. Taking a realistic and pragmatic look at all the available options seems wise.

This is overall a good post. I would ask that you choose a different picture for your representation of ANWR. Please find one that actually represents where drilling would take place (The coastal plains). Its too bad you think you need to use a picture of a part of ANWR that will not be drilled to further the argument that drilling should not take place there. Be honest in everything you post!

Fact: No matter how hard we push renewables, we are going to need lots and lots and lots and lots of oil for a long, long, time

Given this fact, do you prefer:

A: Borrowing money from China so we can buy oil from the Saudis

B: To the extent we can, use our own oil

You are foolish if you prefer A. Drilling here won't lower prices much, but it will take trillions of dollars away from the Saudis, the Venezualans, and the Russians and put it in the pockets of American workers, companies, and investers as well as state and federal coffers. Drilling on the opposite side of the earth and shipping it across is also worse the environment than drilling nearby. Why does anyone support the lose-lose proposition of leaving our oil in the ground?

Yeah! And how dare you put a picture of John McCain taken from his feet so that he actually looks taller than he really is!

The nerve of you people! Be Honest!

bridgekid77 posts that provide little or useless content is considered trolling. Its not needed here thank you.

On topic. This really says a lot about the candidates positions. What bugs me the most are the California propositions and their effects on the future. Whats good or bad?

GC