Private Oil Bad, Government Oil Good
Rivero Caro's column deals with the reaction in those sectors to the decisions of John McCain and Governor Charlie Crist to support oil drilling well off Florida's Gulf coast. Rivero Caro employs the logical arguments to support drilling, while at the same time calling out environmentalists, liberals and everyone else who is adamantly opposed to drilling.
The premise for calling those folks "anti-capitalists"? Simple. Rivero Caro cites the observations of the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady who noted that it's not necessarily oil that bothers environmentalists and their friends, but private oil:
Something that's worth observing is the attitude of the radical environmentalists and their representatives in the face of certain ecological "dangers". Mary Anastasia O'Grady, the brilliant journalist of the Wall Street Journal, recently observed that when the oil companies are state-owned, ecologists ignore the ecological disasters caused by said companies. Their socialist and statist sympathies trump any other consideration. No one protests the formidable inefficiency of Pemex. And we've seen the reaction to the discovery of the Tupi oilfield by Petrobras off the Brazilian coast. The examples are plenty and are easy to see.For those of you who read Spanish, the entire column can be found here.
On another note, according to O'Grady, when oil companies are state-owned, politicians can utilize revenues for their particular projects and interests. When oil production is private, however, they can't do this. Profits go to shareholders. As a result, politicians prefer to ingratiate themselves with powerful environmental lobbyists and convert themselves into ultra-jealous environmental guardians and fierce critics of private oil companies. This makes them appear to be defenders of the public cause. The Democrat Party's opposition to increasing U.S. oil and gas production is totally unjustified. It is a strategical problem. Although the results of a change in politics may take a while to materialize, the alternatives could take even longer and, at any rate, the market would respond favorably to a new American policy. Opposing this change is contrary to the interests of the nation.