John McCain is making sense with his new energy policy, opting for off-shore drilling (I’m pretty sure this means way off shore, i. e., out of sight) over ANWR. Some of this is symbolic, of course, but those symbols are necessary, especially during an election season when the public is repeatedly being spoken to as if they were idiots. Here’s a great example from Obama porte parole Hari SEvugan: “John McCain’s plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies.”
Failed our families, failed our families, failed our families… Does Sevugan have that turgid clich&eacue; tattooed to his skull from a million focus groups? Forget the environment, the English language is under assault.
Meanwhile, it would seem to me that an adult would take a multi-lateral approach to the energy crisis, acknowledging that we are going to be on oil for a long time, while simultaneously looking for alternatives. Too complicated? Evidently for Hari Sevugan. But that’s his job. Keep the people dumb and the media dumber. Anything to win.
Failed our families, failed our families, failed our families…
Hey Roger, save some of that for tonight’s game…. you are going to need it
McCain’s come half-way home, but his deference to federalism in this case is odd: I’m a federalist, too, but, in a situation like the current one, the interest of the nation as a whole overrides local prerogatives. Hopefully, he’ll come around.
(And, for the record, I favor drilling in ANWR, too.)
What is the current state of law and precedent regarding states and the surrounding ocean waters?…is anyone familiar with this topic?
For example, would a state be able to ban oceangoing ships from passing within 2 miles of their shoreline, or to edict that only wind-powered ships would be able to do so? I’m betting not…why would oil/gas drilling fall within their domain if shipping does not?
Dem Electoral Strategy for Dummies:
Bushitlermccain
The Arab Oil Countries have made between $650 and $850 Billion Dolllars just from the United States in the last 12 months. Its well known the bribery is part of business in the Arab world and venality is prevalent in our Congress, just how much money has been passed to secure the results Roy Blunt points out below? We don’t have an energy problem, we have a Democrat problem, they are not working for the American People, they are working for the Arabs.
Taken from Powerline.com:
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
When the Democrats took control of the Congress the price of oil was about $60 a barrel. The price of gas was about $2.25 a gallon. Who is failing who? It seems to me they have not been a resounding success at dealing with this problem themselves.
photoncourier:
This answer assumes that by “state,” you mean one of the 50 United States, not a state in the sovereign, international sense. Either way, the answer is the same.
Simply put, no, a state cannot ban certain vessels and allow others. International law takes precedence on that one. While the United States has not ratified the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, it is U.S. policy to abide by the treaty’s principles, with limited exceptions which mostly involve continental shelf resource rights.
As a result, the United States recognizes innocent passage rights through territorial waters, defined by the LOS Convention as extending 12 nautical miles from the low water line.
Now, within territorial waters, and out to 24 NM (the contiguous zone), vessels can be stopped and inspected for the enforcement of customs and other laws, but in the absence of a violation of U.S. law, vessels exercising innocent passage rights can proceed on their way.
Individual U.S. states have jurisdiction up to 3 NM from shore, so long as the exercise of that jurisdiction does not conflict with federal law. Innocent passage is recognized under federal law.
So in short, no coastal state could restrict innocent passage through territorial waters without running afoul of long-established and customary tenets of federal and international law.
BD…thanks. So, under existing law, can states (in the meaning of the 50 US states) restrict oil/gas drilling within 3 miles? I guess this isn’t considered “innocent passage” since the sites are fixed..
I’ve heard nothing about any proposals/suggestions concerning drilling within 3 miles of shore. A House subcommittee just rejected a proposal to allow drilling fifty miles offshore, out to the 200 mile limit of the US Exclusive Economic Zone. Nobody’s talking about anything close to 3 miles, or even anything that would be visible from shore.
As for Roger’s “please no spilling,” how many hurricanes have swept through the gulf oil fields without a spill? Not even Katrina resulted in a spill, so I wouldn’t worry about it much.
June 12:
“McCain must show himself to be the “younger” man by thinking more creatively. He should lead the way on innovation and dismiss Obama’s “change” for the silly rhetoric that it is. One possibility is to challenge America with a solid and detailed “Manhattan Project” for energy independence.”
June 17:
“John McCain is making sense with his new energy policy, opting for off-shore drilling (I’m pretty sure this means way off shore, i. e., out of sight) over ANWR.”
Who’s shopworn now?
We have so much energy encapsulated in coal we could never use it all. In a story read in Frontline it tells how coal can be turned into other products.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=481B8538-A92A-47FC-81FB-D56217D4F6B4
With oil over $55 per barrel, this process become feasable and makes the United States energy self sufficent. The process was developed in the 1920′s and was used by the Germans in WW 2 to fuel their war machine because Germany had no oil. Now if we just had politicians that were not in the bag for the Arabs so that we could use our own resources.
Our main problem is that we have people in Congress that are looking for the demise of the United States so that it can morph into the world government scenero that they envision but first it must be broken; energy costs will do that. If the Democrats continue with the obstructionism of energy development we will soon be a historical footnote. Listen to what Obama is saying, he’s not running for just President, he’s running for a position in the World Government which the political elitists have planned.
I don’t get your meaning Greenie. If McCain favors changing policy in the face of changing facts and os now supporting drilling, while the typically stuck in the past Obama continues to oppose it, I’d say Obama’s shopworn.
But given your screen name, I’m thinking you mean something else.
Tim,
You might be surprised to learn I make my living in the oil and gas industry. So from a personal point of view, I’m happy to see Bush and McCain suggest to the American people that we can drill our way out of this crisis. Drilling the reserves described above won’t have an impact until 2030 and even then, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the impact on wellhead prices will be “insignificant.” So go ahead and drill. Hell, drill ANWAR, too. That’ll take about 2 CENTS off a gallon of gas.
As a solution to our energy crisis, this proposal is a joke — and I’m laughing all the way to the bank.