By Rich Kozlovich
We all know that the environmentalists are against drilling for oil. They are also against refining it. We haven’t built a refinery in this country since the mid 70’s. Why? Because the greenies have been tying up these efforts in the courts with environmental lawsuits of all kind. As the contractor passes one hurdle they find another law that throws more hurdles in their path. This is costly ….prohibitively costly. In the 70’s we had over 300 refineries in this country and now we have just over 150.
Recently Daryl Hannah was arrested for protesting a oil pipeline that would bring Canadian crude oil to this country. A pipeline “which would eventually deliver over 800,000 barrels of crude per day to refineries in Texas. To put that in context, the United States currently consumes about 18,000,000 barrels per day of petroleum products, so 800,000 barrels is a substantial number.”
Since they are against any drilling and any refining what are we supposed to do? What we need to do is stop using so much stuff made with oil….right? OK….let’s start out with film production. Of course that probably wouldn’t hurt Hannah too much since she is just another one of those “stars” that doesn’t seem to work very much; and quite frankly, when she does she doesn’t seem to do it very well. So we listen to her...Why?
There is one good thing that we can glean from this. When we are confused about rightness of some action all we have to see if the watermelons of Hollywood are for or against it. If they are against it; then being for it is clearly the intelligent thing to do.
This oil will be consumed by someone somewhere so the green house gas rationale is irrational and in point of fact CO2 does not cause global warming. The argument that this oil is "dirty oil" and will cause more pollution during the refining process than refining "sweet" crude.... is a lie. The standard for emissions is set by law, and the standard is the standard; the quality of the oil is immaterial! This is a lie they have to be aware of, but since when has these people ever had a deep abiding attachment to the truth.
I probably shouldn’t just tell you that Hannah is a whack job without some kind of corroborating evidence. Here is the view she and her Hollywood friends have about property rights. Think about this. They could have bought this land and turned the title over to….well who? OK, since these people are squatters that would clearly have been impossible; however, they could have bought the land and let these people continue to squat there for all eternity while paying the taxes, fees and any other costs that might come up over time themselves.
True, the owner wanted 16 million for this land, but why would that be a deterrent to “doing good” to the Hollywood people? They say that they couldn’t round up that much money from their friends. Does that mean the financial burden was too great for the outcome? How can “activism” have a price that is too burdensome? Well, did they attempt to find land that would be more suitable financially? I don't see any evidence of that at all. No, the real issue isn’t really the cost; it is to whom that cost burden would be attached. The real issue is that all of this would have to be paid for with their money! While they chose not to place that economic burden on their backs, Hanna and her friends have never seen an economic burden so great that they were unwilling to place it on someone else’s back.
And after it was all over they could all go back to their own personal digs (which they did not offer to turn over to the squatters, and where no squatters would ever be allowed to live) and feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves.
I want to thank Hannah for clarifying this issue for people. This is a free service the Hollywood crowd provides to society; providing the answer to all questions. Anything the Hollywood crowd is against is worth being for and vice versa.