No Drilling on California's Coastline

Rep. Richard Pombo, the Republican Chairman of the House Resources Committee is devising a plan to allow oil drilling up and down California's coastline.

If Pombo's bill (HR 4761) passes it will mean the end of a 25-year moratorium on drilling off of the California coast - opening all 1,100 miles of coastline to the possibility of oil drilling.

Congress will vote on Pombo's plan soon.

Tell your Congressional representative to vote against Pombo's bill and oil drilling on California's coastline!

Sign the petition...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/824553213
</FONT></FONT>

 

Ah, excuse me. Have you not heard of the sky-high gasoline prices?

Do you have a car?

Would you like to buy my gasoline for me?

Shall we export more jobs to foreign countries?

DOES NOT COMPUTE ERROR

 

I signed it.

 

so what do you suppose we do kep drilling for more and more oil until it's all gone and we're really screwed.

i called my congress men

 

California doesn't seem to have an issue with using water from neighboring states or electricity generated here in the midwest...I don't like opening new oil fields or destroying more of the environment but maybe California needs to get rid of the NIMBY syndrom and think how it can better take care of its own citizens without polluting everyone else's environments.

 

Yes, of course. The world increasingly has so many people, that we need to be developing all economically viable energy, drill more more oil, develop ethanol if it could be cheaper, etc.

The growing cities needed to accomodate the increasingly populous masses, need CHEAP ENERGY! Or is oppressing the working poor, now the new "sport" of enviro wackos?

But probably not keep drilling for more and more oil, "forever." Just until the better energy sources of the future, can be developed, which obviously is going to take some time yet. In the meantime, even "environmental" extremists seem to expect for something to power their SUVs?

Somebody called into Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show, with the view, that even if they had a car that would run on water, tomorrow, most people can't afford a new car until their old car wears out, so we will need oil for at least the next 10 or 15 years, until the current fleet of cars wears out.

 

That's just plain not factual. Look at our freeways, the majority of the cars on the road are new cars either leased or bought through payment plans. I know I am driving a 30 year old Ford Ranger. I have to compete with these new SUVs everyday.

I live in California and I value our coastline. I don't want it's health and security put in the hands of the large oil interests. Will these companies be paying their taxes or will they be asking for a pass and subsidy like they have in the gulf coast. I say go ahead and raise the cost of gas, you will anyway, but you aren't going to pollute my coastline.

Something for you promoters to read:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Oil_Tax_Breaks.html

The commercialization of ethanol has been held down for years by the petroleum industry. Farmers have recieved subisidies towards it's development since the seventies, but they haven't been able to fully market it or develop it due to the petroleum lobby.

 

So because some morons out there are drowning in debt, or because some people get paid 10 times what I do, for working their jobs, I can just magically come up with the money for a newer car?

The working poor can't reasonably finance a car, because it's financially irresponsible to tie up future income to paying current bills, such that there is no longer enough income left in the budget to cover expected bills, say like buying sky-high priced gasoline, or carrying insurance on the car.

I have never had a new car, nor a car payment. I have always paid "cash" for my cars, and paying "cash" for cars, tends to run in my family too.

And of course, buying some overpriced new hybrid, doesn't address the problem, because the battery technology isn't where it needs to be to make hybrids practical for consumer use, they are too complicated and expensive, the economics of paying more for almost as good of performance doesn't make any sense, and hybrids still use gasoline. What good is better fuel economy, if the oil monopoly is out-of-control and can just jack up prices to any level they want? Going twice as far on a gallon of gasoline, on one of those donor-cycle motorcycles, would still cost more, when gasoline prices are gouged to 10 times the amount. Motor cycles aren't safe, so people call them "donor cycles," because that's what you drive if you want to be an organ donor. And then there's no air conditioning, and these days, people are spoiled rotten by all the rampant air conditioning and make smug remarks if somebody dares show up to work, smelling of sweat, having rode their bicycle to work.

Actually, I think they should allow bicycles on the freeways, since gasoline prices are no longer reasonable. To make bicyclists take "round about" routes, is discriminatory, now that bicycle riding isn't merely a "sport" anymore, but may be necessary for some people to have decent transportation at an affordable price.

Phooey on your "coastline." Some guy at work worries about the beach view being cluttered by oil drilling 5 miles out from shore. I try to tell him, the earth is curved. You won't even see them, if they are very far out. They will disappear below the water line of the horizon. And so what if you do see a few faraway oil rigs? How will that spoil people's time at the beach? You don't trust the oil interests? Okay, let's bring in more competitors then. With all the money in gasoline price gouging, surely there's much room for competitors to squeeze in, if only we had reasonable "laws" allowing free enterprise anymore.

And this rampant "corporate welfare" of politicians pretending to create jobs, while on the other hand eliminating more jobs than they ever "create," has got to stop! Eliminate the unjust income and property taxes, especially for the common man and the working poor, because we could better use that time to start our businesses, than in doing complicated, unjust taxes, but maybe it's time we clamp down more on these out-of-control, immoral, greedy corporations. I never suggested giving the greedy oil monopolies any tax breaks, but rather to allow them to develop and stop constraining supply when world population is growing bigger and bigger (which I strongly advocate people having large families worldwide of course, to benefit all the more people), and people in India and China are now getting cars too. That's insane. Demand is growing, and we allow supply to be constrained, and then we dare pretend to wonder why the prices rise unreasonably? What kind of exploit-the-poor game is this? Why should only greedy oil corporations profit?

I am much in favor of developing ethanol and flex-fuel cars that can use it. But some oil company CEO, making bogus excuses on TV for the high gasoline prices, claimed that ethanol doesn't provide as good of gasoline milage. Is this true, or just lies to protect their oil monopoly? That could be bad. If ethanol turns out to be cheaper per mile, I probably would buy it, just to spite the price gouging oil corporations, but I would rather like to go as far as possible on a tank of gas, as I have better things to do than buy gas all the time.

I have even tried driving a little bit "slow" on the freeway, late at night when there isn't too much traffic trying to run me over. High speed on the freeways, hurts gasoline milage by increasing wind drag. I think the cruise control helps too, by helping to keep a consistant, steady load on the engine, compared to the "jerky" speed adjustments humans are prone to do. It may not seem much different, but I think it adds up in the gasoline milage tally.

Turning off the car's air conditioner, really doesn't help gasoline milage, because the wind drag of the turbulence induced by opened windows, is probably nearly as bad at hurting gasoline milage. So if a car has air conditioning, might as well run it, as closed windows reduces wind noise too, good for the ears and better hearing my music. And the awareness sounds of sirens, probably penetrate the windows just as easily, without all the wind noise to drown it out.

 

California provides 13% of the total gross nation product of the United States. If California was an independent nation, it would have about the 6th largest economy in the world compared to other nations. Its share of U.S. exports regularly exceeds its share of the national economy. Tourism was an 88.1 billion dollar industry in 2005 in California. The beaches and ocean are one of the main attractions. People don't visit there to look at oil platforms. Do you really think that if they drill there that oil companies will actually lower gas prices? Exxon-Mobile, the worlds largest oil company, has had record high profits last year. Or do you charging more for gas had no effect on there having more profits?
California is already the fourth largest oil producing state in the union and the biggest refiner on the west coast. It is already suffering more then its share of enviroment impacts from these operations. California also does far more then its fair share for the U.S. economy, others states should be doing more.

Also isn't only rich people living near the coast. In case you haven't looked at a map, all of California's biggest cities are on/or near the coast (Los Angeles, San Fransisco, San Diego). The majority of the population of the state lives within 30 miles of the ocean. It is not in the economic or public interest of California to start offshore drilling.

 

You don't have to suggest it, it's already the way the industry is coddled. The biggest thing restricting the major oil companies from expanding production, is their greed. They closed many refineries in the eighties and nineties in order to have the control of the market they needed. They have been restricting production for years in order to raise prices.

http://www.ucan.org/press/advisegas5-23-06.html