Comments:U.S. House Republicans continue speaking after lights turn off

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

I would like to call for a boycott of all things California. Wine, cheese, milk, fruit, etc. Until Nancy Pelosi cares about the rest of America and allows a vote on drilling. It is not even about a yes or no vote, but the opportunity to vote. If Madame Speaker can not be bothered to work, then do not send money you work for to her state.-----------

If the oil companies want to drill some oil in the US, they can choose from the hundreds of sources they already are allowed to use in US but are not. There is no need for them to get additional resources in environmentally-sensitive areas. The Republicans are trying to come up with a way to blame the Democrats for the high prices while oil companies refuse to increase production, thus artificially reducing the supply and thus increasing their profits.
For example, opening up the restricted Arctic refuge area would, at its greatest effect and assuming the most optimistic levels of production, reduce oil prices by 2006$1.44 per barrel, or about 1% of today's price. That would reduce the price you pay at the pump, for example, from $4.20 a day $4.16 (assuming an optimistic one-to-one corrolation). It's also expected that OPEC countries would just reduce their output accordingly, causing there to be absolutely no effect at all on price US Deparment of Energy.
In my opinion, the best way to reduce energy prices in the long run, is to tax the oil companies that are making record profits, and use that income to fund research and deployment on alternative energy, particularly renewable. If so, we could probably see a return on our investment within those ten years, and probably to a far greater effect than this "drop in the bucket" would effect.
Even if all restrictions on oil sources were to be lifted, the oil companies would have no incentive to increase production significantly - why would they want to stop making record profits? 23:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! The Republican's just get more & more childish every year! Either their tank the U.S. or cease to be a viable party eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not about price it is about independence. Drilling on leases that were given, KNOWING that oil is not on the leased land isn't helpful. Drilling would produce jobs, artificial reefs, like the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. I know, I fish there. GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY. The ice caps are at a 30 year high mass. Polar Bear numbers are in excess of 20,000 up from 5,000. Red snapper, redfish and other large species of fish LOVE the oil rigs of the Gulf Coast and Hurricane Katrina DID NO DAMAGE to the rigs. Save the planet by letting people live without asking permission from Saudi Arabia. Food is brought by truck, train, and ship to grocery stores. It is just stupid to replace food crops with "ethanol" crops. Starving people is not the way to prove a point.

Personally, I think both Democrats and Republicans are out of touch. I am tired of being talked to like a four year old by democrats. I am ready to replace all of them. I am readying my pitchfork and torch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, energy independence is a good thing, however as I previously said (with a different IP address), drilling in protected regions would be a "drop in the bucket" in our supply. If we want to be energy independent, we need to decrease our energy use, and use renewable energy sources. Manufacturing solar panels, windmills, even building nuclear plants would also create jobs.
It's unclear if artificial reefs have a net benefit. While certain species of fish may like artificial reefs, not necessarily all components of our complex ecosystem do; you have to look at the entire system before you can make a judgment over the value of something. Alone, saying that certain species of fish like something is meaningless.
Food is brought by truck, train, and ship to grocery stores indeed, and all of those transportation methods require fuel. It is in fact a major part of food costs in the United States because it's a rather expansive country. It is not necessarily stupid to use ethanol as a fuel source (although personally I have no opinion on it). Advantages are that it will increase the price of corn, which would make corn syrup less popular and thus potentially benefit the health of Americans. Also an increase in the production of corn could also have potential benefits; in the case of a food shortage, corn production could be diverted from fuel to food. As for food production, the world today has no inability to produce an ample supply of food to feed everyone; we will simply not starve to death short of any major natural disasters, war, gross mismanagement, or a population boom. On the other hand, corn as a fuel source is particularly inefficient, it takes more energy to grow than it produces in the form of ethanol.
Finally, and most importantly, global warming is a fact ( That global warming is an anthropogenic (human-caused) process is the theory. Gravity is also a theory. Please don't use the word "theory" without knowing what it means. While impossible to absolutely prove the cause of global warming, in 2006, statistics indicated that there is an 84% chance that anthropogenic factors account for most observed sea-surface temperatures ( (in 2001, it was 66% , and in 2007, 90% (, To analogize, suppose NASA were to report that there were a 90% chance that an asteroid were to strike the earth in 50 years. Sure, there's a 10% chance it won't, but it would probably be a good idea to get started on solutions for blasting it into pieces or striking it off course right away. It is silly to ignore the problem, when we should be looking at it as an opportunity.
America, with its position of leadership and technology can and should definitely lead the way in both achieving energy independence and putting the world down the path of renewable energy. It would be good for our economy, too, at least in the long run. I thank you for reading my entire essay if you did. 06:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical politics, long over due for pitchforks and torches. This "green fascism" is becoming increasingly ridiculous, people will conserve on their own terms, not by the anti-corporation/pro-socialism agenda. The democrats pulled an incredibly childish move, becoming more hypocritical than ever, so much for the democrats of old and hello to socialists. 02:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


It's true... As days go by, the US looks like the Soviet Union in its end days... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait here, so these Republicans violate the very policies at their own work place and yet we are supposed to hate the people that obeyed those policies? For these Republicans we are to respect every rule they make but they aren't? What, are they aristocrats or something? That's just going to start some new anti-short-pants movements. Drilling bullshit is a talking point and the ramp up for anything even close to that where there is no repeat NO existing infrastructure is just ignorant. Give Americans something we can use. 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)