Advocating the lifting of the moratorium on offshore oil drilling is the equivalent to McCain saying he doesn't think he needs California to win the presidency.

Every Californian who has walked the beautiful beaches at Santa Barbara and come home with tar on their feet, every Californian who cares about the natural beauty of the state being destroyed, every Californian who is an environmentalist, and every rich Republican with a house at the beach, all know what a McCain presidency would portend for the state.

Even though the state has has disproportionately fewer electoral votes than it deserves, it is still home to 1 in 8 Americas. Probably not a good idea to alienate them.

That's an interesting point. I'd extend it to a lot of the coastal vote, minus Texas. In exchange, all new nuclear plants have to go in the interior! :)

That may very well be but unless this country learns how to get away from NIMBY on every issue we will be totally at the mercy of other countries.

There is not one action that can solve this problem that does not involve changing someones back yard.

The sooner someone says this is not going to be resolved without putting up windmills on your mountains, Nuclear power plants in your state, solar panels on your roof tops and in your deserts, dig in areas that have gone untouched, the sooner we decide what we really want.

As it is not we and the government are doing nothing. Well some research is going on but no one is willing to lay it on the line and so many voters are willing to accept the BS. Virtually everything in our lives has petroleum as part of the process. To say OK it costs too much we are going to no longer use it is just stupid. I am not sure what any estimate is but getting to a point where we are energy independent has to be way out there.

So there has to be an acceptance that we use it and will continue to use it and that has to be addressed while at the same time focus on ways to move away from it. But doing nothing is not the answer unless you trust that OPEC has our best interests at heart and that China is willing to make sure that we get our share.

California has been very aggressive with conservation and environmental policies.

This includes policies on fuel conservation, requiring zero/near-zero emissions vehicles and an attempt to regulate gas mileage (which the feds overruled).

The state recently kicked off its solar power initiative in an attempt to reduce its energy usage profile even further.

In short, California is aggressively trying to conserve. Punishing it by dropping oil platforms off its coast is just an extension of the contempt with which the current administration has treated the state.

"an extension of the contempt with which the current administration has treated the state"

And this on top of the ass-whipping the Celtics put on the Lakers, too.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Good luck to help from OPEC, China or McCain on this isuue. I guess there is no Oil to be found anywhere but in the Sea according to the Spin. Used to be that the Sea was the a more expensive route but no one is looking elsewhere anyway. Mabye Oil is no longer about investments, just profits for now. It's not like you can take your business elsewhere in a monopoly. The verdict is in, there will not be any real short term relief before the next 4 - 10 years. Better to explore all options to avoid increased dependancy going forward. Try to break the monopoly, competition is needed.

thewolf05827:

And this on top of the ass-whipping the Celtics put on the Lakers, too.

I don't follow the NBA, sorry. What's the connection between the Lakers losing to the Celtics and California's environmental policies being overridden by the Bush administration?

Which of "California's environmental policies" has been "overridden by the Bush administration" and on what basis? Which of these actions has been settled as a matter of law with the effect you claim?

Thank you.

Since when do Republican presidential candidates ever win the votes of the Fruits and Nuts of Kalifornia? Makes no difference. BFD.

he wouldn't get CA anyway, but it's a pretty sensitive issue in FL, too

What monopoly are you talking about Neal Ballosingh? There are lots of oil companies. There are countries who manage oil directly. Who are you saying controls it all?

If you think that any business is going to be willing to make as you say "an investment" without making a profit you are out of your mind.

If someone handed you a lot of money would you put it in your checking account that does not pay any interest? They are not in the business of making sure that everyone gains at their loss. Would you work if you did not get paid or you only got paid equal to your bills. If the government said you pay can only equal your bills. What would you say?

You can buy oil leases, you can try and build a refinery, you can start an oil business. Nothing stopping you. Well other than you would need to risk a great deal of money. Other than you would have to fight to get your facility located anywhere. There may be problems with becoming a competitor with Exxon but there are not regulations against it. The price of crude is what it is on the market so go file for your business license and get started.

The EPA ruled that California did not have the right to regulate CO2 emissions, the first time the EPA refused to grant California such a waiver, a refusal that even the EPA's own lawyers said had no foundation.

TheRaven:

Since when do Republican presidential candidates ever win the votes of the Fruits and Nuts of Kalifornia? Makes no difference. BFD.

I think your rejoinder is a little out of date. 1-in-8 Americans is a Californian.