Another hypocritical Obama moment

It is Ok to drill in Brazil but not in Alaska? One will harm the global environment and the other won't?

Lawmakers, Executives Slam Obama for Boosting Brazil's Offshore Drilling - FoxNews.com

I like this quote:

"More oil that is not concentrated in the Mideast is good for the world and good for America. It would be a lot better if we had the drilling here," Petrowski told Fox News. "And it seems a double standard and it seems somewhat hypocritical to a country that desperately needs jobs ... that we're encouraging other countries to create the jobs that we need."

Yes, when it comes to offshore drilling, NIMBY. No hypocrisy about that.

Yes, when it comes to offshore drilling, NIMBY. No hypocrisy about that.

The point is, we don't have to drill deep water wells in the gulf. We have billions of barrels of oil available through land sources in the west and Alaska but the stupidity of our environmental policies do not allow the drilling or other methodologies necessary to extract it, as from shale. It is a no brainer that we need to develop alternative energy sources but until we have enough sense to realize we must use fossil fuels until such efforts can be accomplished, we are blowing in the wind and accomplishing nothing worthwhile.

The point is, we don't have to drill deep water wells in the gulf. We have billions of barrels of oil available through land sources in the west and Alaska but the stupidity of our environmental policies do not allow the drilling or other methodologies necessary to extract it, as from shale. It is a no brainer that we need to develop alternative energy sources but until we have enough sense to realize we must use fossil fuels until such efforts can be accomplished, we are blowing in the wind and accomplishing nothing worthwhile.

Exactly, and that's where a place like Brazil might come in.

Yes, when it comes to offshore drilling, NIMBY. No hypocrisy about that.

I suppose a negative environmental impact in Brazil does not effect us. Ever hear of "rain forests?" It is either bad or it isn't. Pick one, but at least be consistent.

i n n o v a t i o n

It's not hypocritical - one of his stated goals was to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

Brazil is energy independent, is the world's biggest exporter of ethanol, and is a friendly democracy NOT located in the Middle East.

Not to mention they have stricter drilling rules. Remember that bit o' machinery that would have prevented the Deepwater spill? Brazil actually requires those.

Offshore drilling in the US is a disaster - we've currently got oil leaking from a new location and still haven't been able to clean up the last massive spill.

P.S. I'm tired of hearing how we need to keep using oil until alternative technology can be developed. We've had the technology for years.

I suppose a negative environmental impact in Brazil does not effect us. Ever hear of "rain forests?" It is either bad or it isn't. Pick one, but at least be consistent.

You don't know my stance on rain forests, but I don't make a direct comparison between them and offshore drilling, I can tell you that much.

On another note, I would think Brazil would be a source of cheap oil. I don't think they use gasoline in their cars anymore.

It is Ok to drill in Brazil but not in Alaska? One will harm the global environment and the other won't?

This is just another excuse to criticize Obama. Brazil will decide whether or not to drill, and there will be no shortage of customers for the oil. All Obama is doing here is trying to get to the head of the customer line. If he didn't do this, you can be sure he would be criticized for not positioning the US to buy Brazilian oil.

This is not to say that Obama does not deserve any criticism, but what comes from the right and Faux news is nothing but knee-jerk obstructionism. In their eyes, there is literally nothing Obama can do that they would approve of. :roll:

You don't know my stance on rain forests, but I don't make a direct comparison between them and offshore drilling, I can tell you that much.

On another note, I would think Brazil would be a source of cheap oil. I don't think they use gasoline in their cars anymore.

The point is that an action with a negative environmental impact in Brazil could have an impact here. So drilling is bad everywhere or ok everywhere.
I agree that the more they produce the better for everyone. That goes for the US as well.
What the question should be is: If Brazil can wean their cars off gasoline, why can't we?

What the question should be is: If Brazil can wean their cars off gasoline, why can't we?

Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which requires a tropical or subtropical climate. We are limited in the amount of sugar cane we can grow, so we use corn, which is not an efficient fuel source. It has to have the starch converted to sugar before it can be made into ethanol, uses tons of water and fertilizer, and diverts needed crop land from food to fuel. Using food crops for fuel is not going to wean the world's cars off gasoline without starving someone somewhere. Wean to electricity? Then the question becomes, what shall we use to produce the electricity? Oil, coal, natural gas? Or something other than a fossil fuel? Nuclear, perhaps? The oil and gas industry has blocked any meaningful attempts to develop non-fossil fuel sources.

It's amazing to me to hear a conservative gripe about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil. :shock:

The point is that an action with a negative environmental impact in Brazil could have an impact here. So drilling is bad everywhere or ok everywhere.
I agree that the more they produce the better for everyone. That goes for the US as well.
What the question should be is: If Brazil can wean their cars off gasoline, why can't we?

Brazil can do this I believe because they have greater access to sugar cane. As far as the environmental impact, it's misleading to imply that all risks and impacts are equal without regard to location. If you believe that, go sky dive into Fukushima.

Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane, which requires a tropical or subtropical climate. We are limited in the amount of sugar cane we can grow, so we use corn, which is not an efficient fuel source. It has to have the starch converted to sugar before it can be made into ethanol, uses tons of water and fertilizer, and diverts needed crop land from food to fuel. Using food crops for fuel is not going to wean the world's cars off gasoline without starving someone somewhere. Wean to electricity? Then the question becomes, what shall we use to produce the electricity? Oil, coal, natural gas? Or something other than a fossil fuel? Nuclear, perhaps? The oil and gas industry has blocked any meaningful attempts to develop non-fossil fuel sources.

It's amazing to me to hear a conservative gripe about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil. :shock:

I am afraid I have been misunderstood. I am not griping about possible negative environmental effects in Brazil but am pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals who oppose it here but love it there. If it is bad in one place it is bad in all. same goes with risk.

Perhaps "liberals" oppose it here because of its lack of regulation, political hamstringing, shoddy recent track record, and its stifling of the alternative fuels movement.

It's only hypocrisy if all the variables are the same.

For example, it is not hypocritical to oppose the use of snowmobiles in Florida, but think they're okay in New Hampshire because you are comparing maple trees and oranges.

Brazil has higher standards and stricter drilling regulations, meaning the potential for environmental damage is lower.

Perhaps "liberals" oppose it here because of its lack of regulation, political hamstringing, shoddy recent track record, and its stifling of the alternative fuels movement.

It's only hypocrisy if all the variables are the same.

For example, it is not hypocritical to oppose the use of snowmobiles in Florida, but think they're okay in New Hampshire because you are comparing maple trees and oranges.

Brazil has higher standards and stricter drilling regulations, meaning the potential for environmental damage is lower.

Then why is Obama not implementing higher standards and stricter drilling regulations here instead of simply trying to ban drilling and shipping it (and the jobs that go with it) overseas? Last time I checked he was President of the USA, not Brazil.

Last I checked, he was trying and getting opposition at every turn.

Apparently oil companies have a lot of money for lobbyists and campaign contributions. Who'd a thunk it? ;-)

Not to mention that the number of actual human jobs produced by oil drilling is constantly shrinking..................and the number promised is always quite different from the number realized.

Last I checked, he was trying and getting opposition at every turn.

Apparently oil companies have a lot of money for lobbyists and campaign contributions. Who'd a thunk it? ;-)

Not to mention that the number of actual human jobs produced by oil drilling is constantly shrinking..................and the number promised is always quite different from the number realized.

One job means one more family off relief and paying taxes. I will take every job we can get. And all I have seen out of the administration is instituting bans and ignoring court stays on his bans.
Maybe he should change the tax code so lobbyists and campaign contributions are taxed at a higher rate than regular income. That might fix that problem.😀