This Sunday’s On the Record will feature a discussion about offshore drilling. Joining host Joel Rubin will be Virginia Beach State Senator Frank Wagner, who favors lifting the moratorium, and two environmentalists, Hampton University professor Benjamin Cuker and local Sierra Club conservation coordinator Eileen Levandoski.
Catch OTR at 11:30am on WVEC. If you miss the airing, it will be available on the website on Monday.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Right, NND. FYI — I have an MS in Physics. The professor was forced to admit that the structures are beneficial to marine life. He had nothing else besides to Global Warming BS and fear of oil spills. From his erroneous belief in anthropogenic global warming, he will oppose drilling anywhere it is proposed, and as the congressman pointed out, tankers are much more prone to spills than platforms are. No, the professor merely wants us to wean ourselves off of fossile fuels, no matter what the economic cost.
Oops, “fossil” not “fossile.” Nwever learned to spell potatoe, either. 🙂
I have to say, even as someone who seeths at the false simplicity of the crowd that thinks we can drill our way out of our current energy problems, I wish environmental activisits didn’t feel compelled to be unilaterally responsible for all sides in the debate except Frank Wagner’s.
There are many, many good reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels–geopolitical reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, and, yes, environmental reasons. And there are plenty of conservative experts from the Bush administration who are pro-dirlling and yet also candid about saying that it’s not a solution that will have any significant impact in the near-to-medium term. Taking steps to develop a comprehensive energy strategy that includes energy source diversification and conservation isn’t only sensible–for a variety of reasons, it’s a necessity.
At the same time, there are plenty of geopolitical reasons that describe why we should make sure we develop and secure our own domestic production capacity if we’re going to continue using any oil at all–and even if we do reduce our commercial and personal consumption, we’re still giong to be using oil (correct me if I’m wrong, but jet fighters do still run on jet fuel, yes?). So I’m not ideologically opposed to any and all exploration and drilling. I just don’t think we should take our eye of the ball and forego a sensible, comprehensive energy strategy in favor of a feel-good, slogan-driven “solution” that won’t, by itself, solve anything.
And that’s why I’m voting for Mark Warner. 🙂
Hmmm, sounds like McCain’s energy plan, too.
As for Warner, I’m in a bit of a quandary. First, he was a reasonably conservative governor. If he’ll swear on his mother’s grave that he will not vote against our rights as Robb did in supporting the Assault Weapons Ban, I’ll probably vote for him, too. His opponent ran on his father’s good name and his own bad idea.
That said, I sure don’t like the idea of the Democrats’ getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Does it sound like McCain’s energy plan? I don’t remember saying anything about an ineffectual and ill-concieved gasoline tax holiday….
I kid because I love. I have more faith in Obama than I do in McCain because while one candidate’s embracing the Jim Gilmore model of sound-bite driven policy proposals, the other candidate realizes that while drilling may have merits, treating it as a simplistic solution unto itself distracts from the necessary conversation we need to be having about our future. And given the choice between a candidate who wants to talk about Paris Hilton and the candidate who wants to talk about America’s future, I vote for the latter 10 times out of 10.
The gas tax holiday was not part of McCain’s Energy Plan, but a separate way of relieving the consumer of some of the burden of the high gas prices. It sure beats putting more taxes on the oil companies, which would just drive up the prices even further. (I’m sure the professor would be happy with that, since that would reduce consumption.)
Relevant parts highlighted for emphasis….
How droll. C’mon, that is what Democrats do — pander. The whole idea of taking from the few and giving to the many so the many will vote for you is the epitome of pandering.