Unfair Criticsm of McCain’s Energy Policy
July 30, 2008 7 Comments
Our good friend Ames has fired a salvo at John McCain’s policy reversal on offshore drilling. He calls it, “…a feel-good answer with no substance,” and “…empty symbolism and empty ‘hope’.”
Oh where to begin…
First off, as previously stated, McCain is not suggesting we put all our hopes and dreams on offshore drilling. He has rightly said that this is one part of a more comprehensive strategy. Keep in mind that he was promoting alternative energy when Obama was still ignoring the plight of his poorest constituents back in Chicago. This has not changed as he continues to speak about alternative energy on the campaign trail as recently as June 19.
So let’s talk about some basic logic. Given that the environmental concerns over offshore drilling were effectively dispelled when our oil industry safely weathered Hurricane Katrina we are just left with the question of, “Why not?” The only arguement I can understand is that a focus on drilling could make us take our eyes off the long range goal of energy independence. But, as stated above, McCain is not ignoring other energy sources.
Ames makes an arguement I don’t understand here:
…any real scientist (don’t take my word for it) will tell you that drilling in ANWAR, or off the coast, is a money-losing proposition that won’t show any results – not even bad ones – for at least another decade.
To my knowledge oil companies are not asking the government to subsidize new drilling in the gulf. They are willing to put up huge amounts of start-up capital to get oil production moving forward. So if it costs the American taxpayer no money, I must again ask, “Why not?”
There is also a significant investment of time and money to get other forms of energy off the ground. Wind power, for example, would cost an estimated $1.2 trillion to build turbines and transmission lines. On top of this power companies have still not figured out how to efficently move the heavy load of new electric over long distances to where it is needed most. I have to wonder why Ames does not see this as, “a money-losing proposition that won’t show results…for at least another decade.”
If we look at the auto industry we see that even if they have an epiphany and decide to switch to hybrids and hydrogen-based cars overnight, there would be a significant time period before a fuel grid can be established, not to mention how many years would go by before they replace all cars in the U.S.? Would an Obama administration mandate Americans buy new cars or would they provide some sort of tax break for these purchases? Either way, this is a significant blow to our economy and a LONG TERM solution.
Obama’s energy plan is over-dependent on bio-fuels and under emphasizes wind and solar. It also relies on a market-based incentive program called a Renewable Portfolio Standard which has proven to be ineffective when not coupled with Production Tax Credits, which he does not mention.
The fact that Ames ignores is that any and all new solutions to our looming energy crisis are going to be long term projects and require billions in monetary investment. Even the best solutions will not replace oil completely, so wouldn’t it make sense to still work towards a goal of increased domestic production, while at the same time pursuing alternatives? And Ames too quickly dismisses the positive results of decreasing trade pressure from suppliers and competition from fellow consumers.
McCain is not selling false hope, as Ames puts it, but rather he has changed positions to favor one more line of attack in a multi-front war on our energy needs.
http://dummidumbwit.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/more-twin-groves-winfarm-pictures/
What would John McCain think about these?
This is as cogent and well-argued a discussion of the different energy policies as I’ve yet seen. But my problem isn’t with McCain’s actual policy: it’s what he’s saying his actual policy is, and how he’s selling it to the people, that’s disingenuous.
P.S. – I like our post-back-and-forth replies
I agree the atack on Obama was pretty dumb (though to be fair, libs have been blaiming every problem in America on one man for the last 8 years).
I don’t see the disconnect between his stated policy and his actual policy. Please elaborate.
The fact that Ames ignores is that any and all new solutions to our looming energy crisis are going to be long term projects and require billions in monetary investment.
To speak of oil, domestic or otherwise, as part of a long-term solution to the energy crisis makes no sense. Whether or not we drill (more) in the U.S., the world will be out of recoverable oil soon — likely in Didion’s lifetime. (Though there is much debate on the timing.) Even if there was plenty of oil available, drilling it and burning it is not advisable; i.e., consider what we are doing to the planet. Those billions of dollars of investment you allude to need to go toward researching and building the infrastructure to support and provide alternative energy: A.S.A.P. And I am talking about solar and wind power. (I happen to disagree with Obama’s heavy emphasis on the expansion of biofuels.)
Besides, with oil demand growing rapidly in the developing world, especially in China and India, any small increase in domestic production will have a negligible impact on worldwide supply and, therefore, price. Oil is a commodity. It doesn’t matter who drills it.
Incidentally, Canada and Mexico account for 34% of crude oil imports to the U.S. so far in 2008. (The three Middle Eastern countries among the top 15 oil exporters to the U.S. only account for 26% of crude-oil imports.) Canada’s and Mexico’s contributions to all petroleum imports to the U.S. are even higher. I think it is worthwhile to consider who our suppliers are when discussing our dependence on foreign oil. Specifically, the focus on the Middle East is somewhat disingenuous in this context.
Here’s a link to DOE stats on imports:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
And here are a few articles from several news sources discussing McCain’s June 17 speech announcing his energy plan and his support for overturning the moratorium:
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/19/energy.uselections2008
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html
Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142343
(Note the rationalization problems McCain is going to run into considering how generously W supported the ban on offshore drilling to protect Florida’s coast.)
And here is an article and an excerpt from a recent WSJ article (July 28):
The Republican presidential candidate did not mention that the most promising spots for quick offshore production are off the coast of California, where state and local officials oppose the drilling. McCain wants to lift the federal ban and leave the decision to the states.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/28/mccain-offshore-drilling-is-something-we-have-to-do/
Sounds pretty opportunistic and “feel good” to me.
By the way, no infrastructure is needed for hybrid cars. Go to a Toyota dealership, buy a Prius. That’s it. Infrastructure is needed if hydrogen-fuel cells are going to be viable, and here is where an expansion of solar and wind energy (to produce the hydrogen) can very much come into play.
Oh, and if you want to know what a Republican administration can do towards expanding hybrid technology, check out the paltry $30 million the Bush Administration earmarked for same:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/feds-scrape-tog.html
So, I’m wrestling with this:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/morris/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1217306241235280.xml&coll=1
Any thoughts?
I won’t pretend I’m very knowledgeable about biomass plants. Speaking of those types of facilities in general, it seems everyone likes the idea so long as it’s not in their backyard. I love the idea of nuclear, but I’d certainly always have a dgree of fear if one was in my community. Even with wind turbines, which I think look pretty cool, there was opposition in places like Martha’s Vineyard.
Regarding the expansion of available oil fields, the companies requesting access to ANWR and the outer continental shelf are current sitting on millions of acres of unused leases, and thousands of unused drilling permits. If the core cause of oil price increases is tightness of supply, that is not addressed by opening up additional territory to not be drilled; the oil companies have chosen not to produce more. Opening up these untapped reserved of petroleum is a red herring.
It is easy to tell angry consumers that are being gouged that we should “drill more, drill now, drill here” to win political points, but if Exxon-Mobil stands to earn record profits by sitting on its hands, that’s precisely what they’ll do. They’re a for-profit corporation, it’s what they should do in the interest of their shareholders.