Big Oil vs. Little Wind

August 12, 2008

If you listen to John McCain’s speeches, and watch some of his commercials, the senator’s support for wind power is strong. It’s his record that’s more of a problem.

In May, for example, McCain appeared at a wind power plant, insisting, “Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better.” It became a little embarrassing for the campaign, though, the Huffington Post reported that when McCain “had the chance to vote for a bill that would have included the largest expansion of financial incentives to produce clean wind energy, he didn’t.” Indeed, McCain’s speech was at an energy firm that had pushed for the legislation McCain rejected.

Today, Greg Sargent had a great item, noting that McCain also “recently opposed extending tax breaks for the wind-power industry.”

Making this more difficult for McCain, the fledgling wind-power industry is popular in key upper Midwest and central plains states — and here you have McCain protecting such tax breaks for Big Oil, but opposing them for Big Wind, or, if you prefer, Little Wind.

McCain recently voted against the big $300 billion farm bill, which itself is extremely popular throughout the upper midwest, describing the bill as “a $300 billion, bloated, pork-barrel-laden bill” because of subsidies for industries like ethanol.

But in a little-noticed development, the bill also contained a measure extending a tax break for developing wind power, which McCain specifically opposed. Obama backed it. According to Senator Tom Harkin, an Obama ally, the wind energy industry is employing close to 2,000 people [in Iowa, 50,000 people nationally]. It’s little local issues like these that can move votes in states where the voting is expected to be extremely close.

Quite right. It also helps push McCain closer to the “energy trap” we talked about last week.

To briefly recap

Buy Levitra Without Prescription

, a bi-partisan group of 10 senators has been pushing a “compromise” proposal that:

* Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.

* Dedicates $20 billion to R&D on alternative fuels for motor vehicles.

* Extends a series of tax credits and incentives, such as for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.

* Funds the above — at total cost of about $84 billion — by closing tax loopholes for petroleum companies, in conjunction with licensing fees.

McCain continues to oppose the measure, because it removes tax cuts for the oil companies.

But the legislation is moving anyway, and even has drawn some support from Speaker Pelosi.

Greg concluded:

This ups the pressure on McCain, because it forces him to keep defending his opposition to such a compromise, making it easier to tie him to Big Oil.

The slogan writes itself. McCain: Big Oil, yes, Little Wind, no.

Is this guy going to give up every position he has ever held?

Maverick no more, John Sidney McCain, branded for life.

  • The Maverick was gelded awhile back. His nuts are soaking in a quart of 10W-40 somewhere in Houston.

    But even if McCain came out against big oil, would anyone believe him?

  • Racer X – I might believe him in an eensy, teenie, smidgeonly bit IF, while coming out against big Oil, he also votes for the compromise. That’s it…thats as far as one should believe him…

  • If McCain falls into an “energy trap,” but the corporate media fail to take note of it, does it make a sound?

  • McCain also “recently opposed extending tax breaks for the wind-power industry.”

    So we’re going to pick and choose who get’s tax breaks now. It’s okay to give tax breaks to wind power, but not to oil companies. That’s doesn’t seem fair. If wind was a VIABLE source of energy, they wouldn’t need money from the government. They’d be rolling in the dough like any good entrepreneurs (sic).

  • Chad,

    If wind was a VIABLE source of energy, they wouldn’t need money from the government.

    So you are against the tax breaks that the oil companies currently get, right? And against the de facto government financial support for the civilian nuclear power industry, right?

    Right?

  • How many people still think I am wrong about oil going to $100 before it gets to $200?

  • Now that’s some Straight Talk on wind…

    …It’s a good thing he speaks the truth on every other thing or he’d risk having the Obama campaign go after the Straight Talk brand. Oh, wait… McCain has a ‘fear of the media’ exemption. Never mind…

  • One nice thing about all this is that McCain’s position on the compromise bill doesn’t really matter since he won’t show up for the vote anyway.

  • neil, the oil giants make their billions because our military goes over and fights for their access to the oil. The Iraq war, which is slated to cost about $2 trillion was (and is) fought for oil. Don’t believe me, ask Alan Greenspan.

  • Neil,

    Can anyone explain what the great tax breaks that oil companies get?

    There is this really cool Web site on the Intertubes. You can use it to find links to almost anything. Really. Its called Google. You may have heard of it. Give it a try sometime. I think you’ll reallly like it.

    In fact, I just used it to see if I could answer your question. In about 5 minutes I used links from Google and found the following:

    Gasoline companies receive a tax break of 5.4 cents for each gallon of gasohol they sell. Because gasohol is usually sold in a mixture of nine parts gasoline to one part ethanol…

    Some energy companies are now allowed “royalty relief” expected to total about $7 billion over the next five years.

    (in Colorado) …a 30-year-old, $300 million-a-year state tax break for oil and gas companies.

    $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil drillers that the Congress passed in 2004 and 2005

    investigators and Democratic lawmakers criticized the Interior Department’s response to the bungled offshore leases. The Government Accountability Office estimated that the mistake had already cost the Treasury $1 billion and could ultimately cost it $10 billion if the leases remain unchanged.

    I think you can do more research on your own now.

  • I support alternative energy technologies, of course, but I wonder when Democrats are going to get more vocal about alternative forms of transportation. Instead of finding new ways to make single-occupancy cars go, why aren’t we hearing more about high-speed rail between cities and better mass transit within cities? Our transportation system of freeways and highways was built on a foundation of cheap, abundant fossil fuels, which are becoming a thing of the past. I want to see more leadership on building a more sustainable transportation network that doesn’t rely on small passenger vehicles.

  • To Dylan @ 15 who said:

    I wonder when Democrats are going to get more vocal about alternative forms of transportation.

    I completely agree, just making energy cheaper to still use individual cars, doesn’t really solve the problem in the long run.

    However, America is known as the country of ‘personal freedom’ and being able to go where ever and when ever they want. That mentality goes squarely against public transportation, because on the surface, it sure doesn’t look like those rails go where you want to to, and the train/tram/bus doesn’t leave and/or arrive according to your personal schedule.

    Sure with some personal ‘sacrifice’ and rearranging schedules; trains, trams, light rail, subways, busses, and bikes can all be used rather easy.

    I grew up in a European country, where you didn’t ‘need’ a car because you could ride your bike to the closest bus stop (or walk), take the bus to the closest train station, then take the train to the city you wish to go to, and take the bus to the closest bus stop tat your final destination, then you walk to your final destination, and reverse the process when going home. Oh, for the nay-sayers, that actually works for shopping too.

    BUT, the big BUT the infrastructure is not available in most of America, so people who try it, will be frustrated. The frustration ‘proves’ that public transportation will ‘never’ work, in a lot of people’s minds.

    It would be pretty hard for any politician (D or R) to promote spending federal and state funds to expand exponentially the public transportation grid. Of course, using a what we have used in Iraq, would have accomplished that easily.

    The difference with Iraq is, that by playing to people’s fears, the Bush administration was able to lie us into war. Once it is started it is very hard to extract yourself. That was the entire plan from the beginning: Let’s make it happen, and then it will run itself.

    Can you imagine using fear to spend billions and billions of dollars to improve public transportation? I think not. Unless the fear is in the form of $10-15 per gallon at the pump, and rational people honestly looking at all the solutions, without paying lip service to more oil.

  • Plus, very little attention has been paid to the fact that a key plank of McCain’s energy plan is 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. I’m expecting Obama’s campaign to make sure everyone in American knows this, once the fall campaign starts.

    Meanwhile, McCain has vague, noncommittal language about alternative energy tax credits.. while Obama has (among other things) a massive, direct investment in alternative energy (=green jobs that pay well).

    As always, it astounds how the Republicans attack the Democrats on their strength while lying through their teeth & planning to do exactly the wrong thing for the country.

  • Gotta chime in again. Dylan asked: why aren’t we hearing more about high-speed rail between cities and better mass transit within cities?

    Glad you asked! I watched a couple Obama events recently (I think it was a town hall in Ohio and the NAACP speech) where he talked extensively about just this topic–specifically, how investing in high speed rail will revitalize cities, esp in the midwest, create good jobs that can’t be exported, save energy, and also be a hell of a lot more pleasant than traveling by plane. He’s on it– again, I expect plenty more ads/info coming out this fall both about Obama’s excellent ideas/plans and McCain’s lack thereof.

  • McCain was for oil tax breaks, after he was against them – and he was against wind tax breaks, after he was for them.

    McCain wore a windbreaker, after he he broke every straight talk promise to get the Republican nomination.

  • I’m sure that the answer to all John Sidney’s wind problems can be found by carefully balancing the daily dosages of Metamucil and Beano.

  • “Gasoline companies receive a tax break of 5.4 cents for each gallon of gasohol they sell. Because gasohol is usually sold in a mixture of nine parts gasoline to one part ethanol…”

    This is not a break for the oil companies. It is a subsidy for ethanol.

    “Some energy companies are now allowed “royalty relief” expected to total about $7 billion over the next five years.”

    Very detailed tax break. “Some energy companies” — Why some and not others? Please explain.

    “(in Colorado) …a 30-year-old, $300 million-a-year state tax break for oil and gas companies.”

    That is nice of Colorado, isn’t it? Exxon makes $10 billion in a single quarter and you site a $.3 billion for the industry??? So, are you saying that Texas doesn’t give tax breaks? just Colorado??

    “$7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil drillers that the Congress passed in 2004 and 2005” Wow, now you are talkin bout real money. Do you want to mention the $100 billion in tax breaks for Corporations in general that Congress passed???

    “investigators and Democratic lawmakers criticized the Interior Department’s response to the bungled offshore leases. The Government Accountability Office estimated that the mistake had already cost the Treasury $1 billion and could ultimately cost it $10 billion if the leases remain unchanged.”

    Wow, with us spending $200 billion plus each year in Iraq, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that our government could make a mistake that would help private corporations.

    So, basically, you have come up with virtually nothing to show what great tax breaks the oil companies get. I know they get various tax breaks but I don’t think they are any bigger than the tax breaks that GE or CitiGroup get. Of course, I could be wrong.

  • You know, this is a miserable week, every time I see McCain on my TV I stitch off, I go into a depression when I think about this man being president, how could we stand to listen to him for four years, I guess we are missing the sight of Obama fighting back against him, this tells me that we are right in the choice of Obama for president.
    By the way, how about those pictures of Bush at the Olympics, too drunk to stand up.
    Makes you proud to be American doesn’t it?

  • The problem isn’t with people being unwilling to use public transportation, it’s with public transportation being unusable. According to Google Maps’ estimates, it takes me 12 minutes to drive the 3.2 miles to my job, 56 via public transportation, or an hour and 6 minutes to walk. Why would I take the bus in to work? It takes only a little longer to walk, and if I’m going to loose an hour and a half each day, I might as well get the exercise and go for free.

    • Comments are closed.