Front Page  »  

House votes for oil drilling off California coast

July 26, 2012

In an election-year swipe at President Barack Obama’s energy policies, the Republican-led House on Wednesday voted to revoke Obama’s five-year plan for offshore drilling, replacing it with its own more ambitious plan for gas development that opens up areas of the California coastline. [SFGate]

The proposal passed 253-170 with 25 Democrats supporting it. The House also voted 261-164 to reject Obama’s plan.

Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts argued that, “The Republican bill would place drill rigs right off our beaches in Southern California.”

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., countered saying the GOP plan would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new jobs.

Even so, the legislation will likely perish in the Senate and the White House has issued a veto threat.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The vast amount of toxic chemicals puts into the environment as part of most oil drilling operations is rarely mentioned. For example, currently there are millions of gallons of toxic solvents floating on top of the ground water supply because of oil drilling in the Guadalupe dunes. The amount of toxic solvents that are injected into the ground and leak into the ocean with off shore oil drilling operations is immeasurable at this point and is a closely guarded secret.


0

Election year posturing designed to go nowhere. All it takes is only one senator to put a hold on any proposed bill in the Senate to bottle it up…and they don’t even have to reveal themselves.


These Republicans in Congress are the “Do Less Than Nothing Gang”.


0

Wow! What wit you have. You must be from the department of the obvious.


0

Well, yes. Sometimes the obvious is the elephant in the room that some don’t want to admit exists.


0

Parish? in the Senate. A new religious venue?


0

Perish – : to become destroyed or ruined : cease to exist.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perish


0

original article used the word “parish” then edited it. but ty


0

Good job GOP, we need real jobs like this and a better energy policy other then no, not in my backyard.


0

Swell. Then when the inevitable big oil spills pollute the ocean and the beaches, the fishing industry is wrecked, the tourists stay away, and we lose many times the number of jobs initially gained. Better idea: focus on safer, cleaner alternative energy sources. Offshore drilling is designed to make money for a few people at the expense of the rest of us.


0

No offense, but you think green energy does not give give the same financial rewards to a few people (check out solalyndra). Check the Gevo Co (Obama contributor) that sold $59 a gallon bio-fuel to the military this past month. Also, all the government gauranteed subsudies to farmers supporting the corn crops used for this fuel which is now impacting our overhaul corn supply (along with the drought which will still give these farmers money). If we become dependent on this fuel and there is a massive drought as we are currently experiencing what do we use then as an alternative fuel. Just saying!


0

I think that you make good points, SLOBIRD, and I agree with what I understand you to be saying. Any industry can come under the control of a few people,to the detriment of the rest of us – and having just one supply source for any important commodity is not advisable.


My major point is that while offshore oil drilling in California would generate some jobs, the inevitable damage it would do would kill a lot more jobs than had been created. Creating jobs that focus on development and provision of safer alternative fuels (and the technology to use them effectively) will be far better for all of us in the long run. Offshore oil drilling would be an absolute disaster for this state, doing untold damage to existing industries; tourism and fishing in particular.


0

This is boilerplate, right-wing bugaboo nonsense.

You get all your ‘facts’ from Rush and Fox…corect ?


0