Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

The enthusiasts on both sides of any debate are interested in their position and the power it brings. At one time, such things as unions, political action groups, and possibly even lobbyists, all performed needed functions to promote change. Now, they are only there to further their own agenda. Unfortunately, our political system has been optimized for justify their existence. The dems and the reps both have their hand in this and it supports their existence. Neither truly want the system to change because that would change the power balance that they enjoy.

This reminds me of studies that the government and industry supports. One example is the egg debate. One study suggests that *eggs* are bad. This really fuels only one thing, for a study to support that *eggs* are good. The government or an industry group are not really going to fund another study or research that supports the first study, but someone (or the government) will fund research or a study that disputes the first studies findings. Stick almost any topic or commodity between the *'s.

The real problem in my mind with areas like the ANWR is that the industry signed off on it to get the Prudhoe Bay field. They signed a contract and should be forced to abide by their decision, as short-sighted as it may have been.

I'm not against drilling even in ANWR. I am against giving the resource away to a company who will make billions on it. The oil is the commodity of the national government, at this point. I say hire a drilling company to go in and get the oil. Or make the US a partner in the resource, allowing a company to come in and get it and as a partner, the US shares equally in the profits. If the field brings in $1 billion in gross profits, the US gets $500 million.

0 Replies