It’s campaign season again, and voters have a hard time picking out fact from fiction among all of the different ads, articles, talking heads, and political supporters, not to mention a who’s who of lobbyists and industry insiders the public never sees directly (though we’ll often see the effects of their string pulling).
This article is another follow-up on the issues surrounding energy costs, oil supply, and alternative forms of energy, with a focus on how that may affect the environment as well as the economy. The main focus the public has is on the economy and how $4.00 per gallon gas is impacting their pocketbooks. But the focus is also on the political implications and the fact that we are also facing a broader problem in global warming. To follow along, you may want to read back on this past article, as well.
Luckily, the two don’t have to be exclusive, and policies abound that can help these two issues. We can reduce consumption through conservation measures, find plenty of clean alternative energy sources (looking at you, wind and solar), and reduce our need for fossil fuels altogether in the process. These measures will help reduce the cost of energy as well as help reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change.
False Debates, and One Healthy Debate to Have
- Whether or not we should drill is not a good debate. We should not drill because it would not impact prices for a long time, nor add oil to market. The impact would be insignificant and after that impact, we would still be dependent.
- Whether or not we should give more tracts to oil companies who aren’t using all of the current tracts available is a ridiculous debate. Let them use the available oil fields first and we’ll see how that impacts the market.
- Whether or not drilling is going to fix our problems is a false debate. It will not impact oil and gas prices this year (though oil companies and mostly, OPEC, can manipulate prices to make it look as if it did) it would not bring more oil to market for about a decade and would not impact prices for at least as long, and then, just barely. Meanwhile, we have to worry about global warming’s massive impacts worldwide, if we fail to give up our carbon spewing ways.
- There are better alternatives than oil in wind and solar power, and that is the debate we should be having: how much money should we invest in such projects?
Obama Giving Credibility to False Debate
Let’s start out with Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama’s, recent swaying on this issue in saying that he would consider allowing environmentally safe oil drilling if it were part of a compromise to pass a bill for more alternative fuels. We’ll talk more about why that position is bad public policy soon, but first, let’s discuss how this pander is harmful. And Senator Obama, “Environmentally safe”? Like safe nuclear power plants and clean coal, these oxymorons do not exist.
Is it a pander? Well, maybe he’s trying to give some room for the idea to fall apart (the offshore drilling proposal is flimsy at best). Maybe he’s calling the bluff of his rival. But this position seems to be an attempt to garner more votes or to help standing in the polls, because public opinion is currently in favor of drilling for oil. So give some ground with out going back on the original position. Some say he’s calling McCain’s bluff, but more on that later.
McCain, following in the disastrous footsteps of Bush, Cheney, and Co., is all out supporting more drilling, so his position is worse, but Obama lends their position some credibility by saying he might accept it as part of compromise, even though his position still is that he is against it.
Playing Politics with Oil
Sure, I realize he’s in a presidential race here, but Obama also needs to stand his ground on this issue. The fact is that the oil companies already have leases on land that have predicted amounts of undiscovered oil in the neighborhood of 34 billion barrels of oil. This is nothing more than a last frantic grasp for tracts of oil before the Bush boys leave office and while this situation is ripe for public opinion to be behind. If Obama is calling McCain’s bluff and sees this as a way to let the idea be aired and to break, well then he has even greater political skill than is evident. But I’m suspicious that he’s giving too much ground, giving too much credibility to what amounts to a stupid debate, all facts considered.
That Shame Blame Game
While I’m blaming and shaming, I’ll go ahead and blame the mainstream media for not questioning McCain’s parroting of the oil industry’s lines (manufactured to get their hands on public lands). For not informing people of the caveats related to drilling, for not digging into the numbers and disseminating it. For paying more attention to ridiculous political ads designed to distract from the issues, than they do on the actual issues themselves. Blame and shame! Shame for not seeing that these debates don’t stand up to the basic numbers and facts.
Shame on the American people who are not doing their reading on the subject and are weighing in on an issue they think they know about just because they know how much gas costs now and because they heard that more drilling will decrease the cost of gas. Obviously, they want to believe that because of the mess their bank accounts are in. The politicians and mainstream media won’t want to point their finger at you — you’re the customer, and you’re always right. Wrong. Get it together and do some analysis. The public is smart enough to deal with the cold facts, and you deserve to have them.
The housing crisis, the inequality gap that has steadily increased under Bush, the cost of energy, commodities, and food, all increasing in price has put the economy on the brain. However much the state of the economy is hurting your situation, if you’re going to cast your vote in a public opinion poll, you should make it an informed decision.
The False Debate of Offshore Oil Drilling
McCain wants to help the oil industry get their land for future drilling, handing out tax breaks, easy leases on land that they don’t intend to drill on anyway. Obama may put strong restrictions on it and allow it if it can garner a bill that includes large support for renewable energy sources.
But why would the oil companies drill? If they already have land and ocean tracts that they could drill on, they have been given the a-okay to drill, why would they not? I really don’t have an answer on that one, but I can say that it does not look promising for them drilling in other offshore areas, when they have land-based oil fields (again, looking at around 34 billion barrels here) where drilling is easier and cheaper and less hazardous.
It’s a false premise, folks! They’ll say they’re going to drill, and then get the ocean rights, and then maybe they drill on some of it, maybe they hedge and say they didn’t find oil then later, when they want to drill, by golly, there’s oil down theyahh!
We Simply Should Not Drill. Yes, Simply.
Even if, and it’s a big “if” here, they were to actually go and drill on the new offshore spots some want to open up, should we not demand that they drill in those places where there is no holdup to drilling at the current time? No. Yes, the fact that they have land they could drill on but are not drilling on it renders this a false debate, but no, they still should not drill on even that land, because it continues the use of oil (and the dependency that comes with it) and pushes the world closer to the brink regarding global warming.
We should not drill at all. Simple point is that it would take about a decade, according to experts, to actually get any of that new oil to market. And, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), it would take until about 2017 for it to make even a small dent in the price of oil and gas, if at all, because it is such a small amount of oil, when compared to consumption. And they’re saying (the EIA) that it may not make a dent until closer to 2030.
To paraphrase a great commentary on this issue: Obama has come out and said that if Americans inflated their tires to appropriate amounts, we could each save about as much on gas as if we drilled. It actually would save about 12 cents per gallon on gas (for those who have not already done it), which is more than the six cents it is estimated the new offshore drilling would save per gallon (perhaps) ten years down the road.
Yes, Obama said this and people jumped his case, as if this were his energy plan. Conservatives handed out tire guages at an Obama event, as a jab at his oh-so novel idea. That the current president’s EPA and Energy Department both list this supposedly wild haired idea as one way to increase fuel economy, and is supported by many McCain supporters, as well as the fact that it is a real way consumers can help themselves immediately with the most basic of elements, known as “air” seems beyond those making fun of the idea.
Pundits acted all dismayed, even though Obama’s plan, which calls for 10% renewables by 2012, one-million plug-ins by 2015, and efficiency right now, when compared to McCain’s, “more dirty oil, more dirty nukes,” his plan is far ahead regarding reason and environmental and economic security. Investing $150 billion over ten years into these measures will help spurn public investment as well.
Still, at least one writer believes Obama’s position is calling Bush and McCain’s bluff on drilling, saying that the oil companies don’t really want to drill, esepcially if tax breaks they had been banking on are removed, if it has to be done in an environmentally friendly manner (hello, more costly!). They already have offshore tracts and on land that they could drill on but are not. Bluffing… Maybe Obama isn’t pandering so much as giving the other idea room to fall through the floor.
What’s the Plan, Then?
Obviously, some efficiency would help in both the transportation and building sectors. But for energy? I gotta hit back on the Gore plan to shoot for 100% renewable energy in ten years. Lofty goal, we’ve discussed it here before, but it’s the type of big thinking the country needs.
People start seeing cheap, clean electricity, more available and able to be dispersed than ever before, you think that more and more stuff (like cars and light trucks) are not going to start taking advantage? Of course they would use it! And unlike with oil and coal, the more renewable clean energy comes onto the grid, the cleaner our economy becomes, the less dependent we become on foreign oil and fossil fuels, the more secure our energy infrastructure becomes.
Public and private investment is needed, as well as efficiency spending. The jobs that could be created by this would also help put people back to work, and make for a stronger economy.
A Call to Action
The most important aspect here is an informed public. If the public can get up to speed on this issue, if they can share what they know with one another, if they can demand that the mass media disseminate the information and that candidates state real facts that are not just industry talking points, we can have an informed debate about how to solve these major issues. Share this article and others you come across with your friends and other contacts, using the email and other functions found below.
So you’re making a quick dinner of it with a pot of pasta and a jar of your favourite prepared sauce. Great!
I just read an article about new software, made available for free through Microsoft, the nonprofit Climate Savers Computing Initiative, and Verdiem, a startup. It sounds great, especially when you look at some of the statistics they provide.
