Posted by Brad @ 2:26 pm on April 30th 2010

Drill, Baby, Drill

Does the fact that 5,000 barrels of crude a day will be washing up on Louisiana’s coastline fundamentally change the lazy easiness of “drill, baby, drill” as the go-to Republican talking point for energy independence?

I think it does. The New York Times hosts a forum on the subject that is worth a read.

1 Comment »

  1. Does the existence of an offshore oil drilling disaster invalidate the necessity of the expansion of fossil fuel resources in the present economic situation? I think it doesn’t, and I’m damned well right.

    There is no viable alternative to petroleum as a trnasportation fuel in the immediate future. Let us put that into bold caps. THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO PETROLEUM AS A TRANSPORTATION FUEL IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. Ethanol is an inefficient boondoggle that creates environmental catastrophe which dwarfs the Louisiana spill–check out the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi river created by pesticide runoff. Hydrogen requires fossil fuels and is at least a decade away from being a fuel for commerically viable automobile engines. Hybrid cars are only a means of slowing the growth of oil demand. Wind, geothermal, and solar mean nothing where transportation is concerned.

    When the Republicans chant “Drill, Baby, Drill,” they are entirely right. The problem with the chant is that it is only a portion of the overall energy solution–we need to exploit fossil fuels in the short term in order to facilitate any possible transition to alternatives. But for God’s sake, yes, by all means, drill offshore.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/1/2010 @ 11:30 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.