During my visit to the US over the past three weeks, the GOP Party line of "Drill Baby Drill" has again and again reached media headlines and put Republican supporters into a frenzy. Yes, there is oil off the US coastlines and in the protected wilderness range of Alaska.
But is the time, money, and known risks to the aquatic, the atmospheric, and the untouched land environments really worth it?
There are many energy alternatives to further oil extraction from high risk ecological zones.
Renewable energy technologies and overall energy conservation measures are but two now cost effective avenues that need to be considered for a large scale implementation.
What will the "drill baby drill" approach give US citizens? At the very best, 4 and a half years of energy supply. Just over one presidential term.
Consider the facts:
The US currently consumes over 20,730,000 barrels of oil per day (7.57 Billion barrels per year)
The Interior Department estimates that there is still 18 Billion barrels of oil offshore and the US Geological Survey estimates 5.7 to 16 Billion barrels is buried in the Alaskan wilderness.
Best case scenario (assuming US oil consumption remains stable): Four years six months.
Worst case scenario (same stable consumption rate): Three years and six weeks.
The United States needs a real solution to energy security issues and "drill baby drill" is not it.
Friday 19 September 2008
Ethnic Cleansing not US Troop Surge real cause of reduced violence in Iraq
A new study published from the University of California gives evidence of the real reason peace has begun to settle in many parts of Iraq. And much to George Bush and John McCain's dismay, it has nothing to do with the US troop surge in 2007.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence.
"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor and study lead John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles.
http://news.yahoo.com/story//nm/20080919/sc_nm/iraq_lights_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence.
"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor and study lead John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles.
Thursday 11 September 2008
The World is 4 to 1 Behind Obama
I saw this BBC post yesterday,
"People outside the US would prefer Barack Obama to become US president ahead of John McCain, a BBC World Service poll suggests.
Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries"
22,500 people polled may not completely represent the entire world; however, it should be given some credence. After all, US national polls are often conducted with only 1000-2000 participants and considered accurate.
With a number of US polls now showing McCain and Obama virtually tied, why is it that us global citizens are so much more in favour of Obama than McCain? Is it because as outsiders we can take a more unemotional view of the US electoral candidates? Or perhaps it is because our own national media stations are not so completely controlled by one party; we don't get constantly subjected to fear and smear campaigns.
I'm not saying the Democrat party is perfect in their campaign approach or policy, but 4 out of every 5 of us world citizens would gladly choose Obama over the alternative. For the benefit of everyone, US voters please listen to the pleas of the global public. Vote baby vote.
"People outside the US would prefer Barack Obama to become US president ahead of John McCain, a BBC World Service poll suggests.
Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries"
22,500 people polled may not completely represent the entire world; however, it should be given some credence. After all, US national polls are often conducted with only 1000-2000 participants and considered accurate.
With a number of US polls now showing McCain and Obama virtually tied, why is it that us global citizens are so much more in favour of Obama than McCain? Is it because as outsiders we can take a more unemotional view of the US electoral candidates? Or perhaps it is because our own national media stations are not so completely controlled by one party; we don't get constantly subjected to fear and smear campaigns.
I'm not saying the Democrat party is perfect in their campaign approach or policy, but 4 out of every 5 of us world citizens would gladly choose Obama over the alternative. For the benefit of everyone, US voters please listen to the pleas of the global public. Vote baby vote.
Sunday 7 September 2008
Canadian Election Call. Harper's not so level playing field.
To kick off the end to summer vacation, Stephen Harper and the Conservative government announced today that Canadians will be heading back to the polling stations on October 14th, 2008. The third election in Canada in 4 years.
Harper's election call comes in striking contrast to his previous election stance and the legislation he supported fixing our election dates (our next election was supposed to October 19, 2009).
"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."
But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage." Stephen Harper May 26, 2006
It feels good to set rules that even the playing field, now why doesn't Harper want to play by his own rules?
Harper's election call comes in striking contrast to his previous election stance and the legislation he supported fixing our election dates (our next election was supposed to October 19, 2009).
"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."
But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage." Stephen Harper May 26, 2006
It feels good to set rules that even the playing field, now why doesn't Harper want to play by his own rules?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
