Denver Post Slams Romney’s ‘Drill-At-All-Costs’ Energy Policy

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Denver Post Slams Romney’s ‘Drill-At-All-Costs’ Energy Policy
By Stephen Lacey on Oct 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Colorado’s flagship newspaper, the Denver Post, is criticizing GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for promoting an energy policy that focuses almost exclusively on drilling for fossil fuels.
On Sunday, the Post published an endorsement of President Obama and lamented Romney’s “drill-at-all-costs” energy policy that treats public lands only as areas for resource extraction:


Romney notes correctly that North America is poised to become an energy exporter. But the drill-at-all-costs mantra he is pushing runs counter to the predominant view in Colorado, which is one that balances energy and environment — particularly when it comes to public land. And, unlike the Republican nominee, we believe our nation’s energy portfolio must include government investment in renewable sources such as wind and solar — both of which can become sources of more power and more jobs in the future.

The endorsement comes as Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan campaign in Colorado this week. Polls show that the race is a dead heat in the important swing state.



Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/22/1058211/denver-post-slams-romneys-drill-at-all-costs-energy-policy/

[Panasonic]

1. And with that, Obama secures Colorado much more....

This is coming from a right-wing rag we like to call a bird cage liner....

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[nichomachus]

3. "We" don't drill for oil

The minute someone says "we" in the same sentence with drilling for oil, someone should smack them up alongside the head.

In some countries, oil is drilled by a government consortium. However, that would be the dreaded "socialism." What people mean by "drilling" in the US is giving giant multi-national oil corporations the rights to drill, if they want.

Often, they want the rights, but they don't want to drill. If they flood the market with oil, the price goes down -- and their profits go down.

What these companies want is the "right" to drill -- and the right to keep anyone else from drilling.

Remember all those people who said the invasion of Iraq was about drilling for oil. They were wrong. It was about giving the companies the right to not drill for oil and keep the price high.

And even when these companies do drill, they extract just enough to keep the price steady or slightly higher and they do so at the lower cost possible, leading to things like well explosions, etc. Then, no matter where they drill the oil -- Iraq, Alaska, the Grand Canyon -- it gets sold on the world market to the highest bidder.

So, we could give the giant oil companies the right to drill all over the US, but it would not increase our supply of oil or lower the price.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either woefully ignorant or in on the scam -- or both.

[rgbecker]

5. Laid out there beautifully for all the world to see...Thanks.

[mac56]

6. reposting with attribution

[Voice for Peace]

4. good!!

that's what stood out for me in the last debate:
Mitt so passionate about oil gas and coal.

The dark oily one vs the bright windy sunny one.

It seems to me it's the timeless battle between
the darkness and the light. Or the darkness and
the sun. Speaking of which, there was a story,
that Darkness had complained about the sun
to the Almighty Dog, saying wherever he (darkness)
went, Sun came and chased him off -- giving him
no rest, no chance to relax and enjoy his dark
pursuits.

When Dog called the sun to hear his side
of the story, Sun responded with puzzlement:
"what is darkness? I've never seen or met him."