Quatin, I"m having a new roof put on my small home next week. Cost: $4500. Last year it would have been much less, but the price of asphalt shingles has gone up 60% due to the increased price of oil. Asphalt is made from oil, which means that road repairs are also costing more, which costs taxpayers more.
Milwaukee's hometown airline, Midwest Express, has had to ground its fleet of MD-80 airliners because they consume the most fuel. They're also the airliners that were used for direct flights from Milwaukee to cities on the east and west coasts, so those direct flights have been eliminated. So have many jobs that went with the flights, such as the mechanics (like my neighbor) who worked on the planes.
The stock market has been having a terrible year because the price of oil has driven up the cost of just about every product, resulting in higher costs and either lower profits and/or reduced sales. That doesn't just affect the companies, it affects the employees as well as those who have stock in those companies directly or through mutual funds. What's been the net loss to those with IRA's, 401(k)'s and other stock-related savings plans this year? We're not talking about just "the rich" here, we're talking about a huge slice of the middle class who have lost money.
The demand isn't going to go away, as China and India increase their already accelerated consumption. We're not likely to see oil below $100 a barrel again. That means that we're going to be suffering this economic pain until we can increase our own production.
From what I've read, we could be pumping oil five years from the time the government gives the green light. Because of bureaucratic red tape, a new nuclear reactor will take ten years. How long will it take to make various alternative fuels mainstream to reduce oil consumption? It won't be in five years, that's for sure.
Aside from economic issues, our strategic interests are affected by the increased demand and our diminished supply. (We've gone from 9 million barrels a day of domestic production thirty years ago to five million today, while demand has tripled). As we remain dependent upon foreign oil, we become hamstrung in the ways that we can deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and even the new Iraqi government. Ironically, the "no war for oil" crowd (which has among its ranks many opponents of domestic drilling) doesn't realize that dependence on foreign oil makes war more likely, not less.
The hypocrisy of those who oppose drilling for environmental reasons would be laughable if it weren't so serious. They don't want us drilling on US land for environmental reasons, but seem to have no problem with paying other countries to do the dirty work on their land. (Assuming that there's any environmental affect, which I don't believe).
We should be drilling in North and South Dakota, off the coast of California, off the Florida coast, in the Great Lakes, and anywhere else where there's oil. Opponents of shale oil production say the cost is too great, but the Canadians seem to have found a way to get shale oil at a reasonable price, so let's put that on the table, too.
What I do no understand is why ANWAR is such a big issue. We're talking about a huge area that few people see or ever will see, and a small part of that area to be used for drilling. Can someone please explain why ANWAR is such a hot-button issue?
