Republicans find a policy they can sink their drills into

Up until fairly recently, Republicans had absolutely no idea what to do, or even say, about rising oil prices. They knew Americans were worried about it, and they recognized the impact on the economy, but they came up short on the solutions part of the equation.

There was some half-hearted talk about ANWR, but everyone knows that’s a temporary fix that wouldn’t affect prices for over a decade, if ever. John McCain started rambling about a “gas-tax holiday,” but even conservatives realize this would only be a massive giveaway to oil companies.

The GOP wants to be proactive, and have something concrete to offer, but policy ideas have never been the party’s strength. At a recent White House press conference, pressed on rising energy costs, Bush said, “[T]here is no magic wand to wave right now.” In fact, the president repeated the line three times, as if to say, “Don’t ask me; I just work here.”

But that was before this week. Now, Republicans finally have a real proposal: coastal driling. It’s not a good proposal, but it’s slightly more compelling than the search for Bush’s elusive wand.

President Bush, reversing a longstanding position, will call on Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, according to White House officials who say Mr. Bush now wants to work with states to determine where drilling should occur.

The move underscores how $4-a-gallon gas has become a major issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, and it comes as a growing number of Republicans are lining up in opposition to the federal ban. […]

In Washington, the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said Mr. Bush would urge Congress to “pass legislation lifting the Congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling,” adding, “The president believes Congress shouldn’t waste any more time.”

Republicans seem thrilled to have something specific to add to their talking points. This is, however, a slight problem for all of the leading GOP officials who have opposed coastal drilling, some as recently as last week.

The ban on coastal drilling was first enacted in 1982, and has been widely accepted by both parties ever since. This has been especially true of Republican presidential candidates, in large part because coastal drilling has been wildly unpopular in Florida and California, which combine for about a fourth of the electoral votes needed to win the White House.

But that was before gas hit $4 per gallon. Now, Bush has flip-flopped. And so has John McCain. And so has Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, rumored to be a leading VP possibility, who was asked just last week about whether he’s dropping his opposition to drilling for oil off of Florida’s coast. “I am not,” Crist said. “No, I don’t like it.” Yesterday, he reversed course and embraced ending the ban.

It’s certainly possible a lot of voters will fall for this. Many will likely conclude that the way to lower prices is to increase supply, and if that means coastal drilling, so be it. There are, however, a few problems with this.

Most notably, for those struggling to afford filling their tanks, coastal drilling won’t offer much of a break for a very long time.

McCain’s speech today estimates that there 21 billion barrels in the moratorium areas. That seems a touch high. The Energy Department put it at 18 billion a few years ago. Popular Mechanics reports an estimate of 19 billion. Regardless, it’s about double of what’s estimated in ANWR.

So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that’s only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it’s $2.25.

Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow. Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil.

As for McCain specifically, his sudden interest in energy policy is exposing his incoherence on the issue. On Monday, he didn’t know what was entailed in his own cap-and-trade policy. Yesterday, he didn’t realize that he was willing to support a windfall-profits tax on oil companies as recently as last month.

One of these days, these guys will get serious about energy alternatives. Today, however, is not that day.

I’m sure McCain will also be able to show how increasing oil production squares with his alleged concerns about global warming. Or not.

This issue will probably be the horse they’ll try to ride all the way to November, because it sounds like a solution to the uneducated and the refutation can only be understood if you accept “empirical” evidence from “so-called experts”, who of course are regularly thrown under the bus by the GOP. But Floridians will not like the idea, and without Florida McCain doesn’t have much of a chance, so it’ll be interesting to see him talk about it there.

What I want to know is why the GOP only decides to push for all this drilling in an election year. Do they think Americans are that stupid?

Don’t answer that.

  • Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) claims drilling on the coasts and in ANWR will bring the price of gas back to $2/gallon.
    http://www.twincities.com/ci_9606388

    “Moving quickly to open up reserves would send a signal to markets that the United States is serious about increasing supplies, prompting prices to start going down, according to Bachmann. In four years, when newly available supplies hit the market, she said prices would decline further and again could approach $2 a gallon.

    Bachmann said the United States also could supplement new drilling offshore, in western oil-shale fields and in the Arctic by building more refineries and nuclear power plants and by extending tax incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind. “

  • Wait till the riches figure out that it will destroy in part the pristine coast their summer homes are on.

    They didn’t like wind generators around to spoil the view so why are they going to like oil rigs?

  • Arre we to believe that if we created new supply, that the Saudi’s would keep running at current capacity as prices dropped by half? Hint: The OPEC is called a cartel for a reason. A strong dollar would bring instant results, but you can’t get there by increasing deficits and keeping interest rates so low. But right now, I think the best place to target for immediate results is the commodities markets. In the long run we need to end dependence on carbon fuels.

  • I’m not convinced that anything that President Jimmy Carter did or did not do thirty plus years ago is “familiar” to a great many people today, but the fact that Hon. Sen. McCain seems intent on bringing it up, I wonder if we had in fact started on the policy proscriptions that Mr. Cater had then advocated, such as increased efficiency, investment in alternative sources, windfall taxes on certain oil companies’ profits not spent on searching for and developing news sources of oil (and other R&D), we might have been much better off than following the “great communicator.”

  • jhm (6): I’m not convinced that anything that President Jimmy Carter did or did not do thirty plus years ago is “familiar” to a great many people today

    Right now McCain’s target demographic is old people. They will remember the Carter years. From there McCain needs to hope that people respect the wisdom of the elderly in order to spread the fear. The problem is that while Carter was frequently seen as somewhat inept, it was nothing compared to Bush. Not even close!

  • Jeb! no longer needs protection on the environmental flank, so they dusted off this issue. Good luck in Florida and California, Mr. McBush. I hope you spend a lot of time and money here in Cali explaining the benefits of offshore oil drilling. We love it! Those 52 electoral votes are ripe for the picking.

  • MSNBC First Read: “McCain’s call for lifting the ban could be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan”

    This is what I hate about traditional media – instead of pointing out offshore drilling is neither pragmatic, nor short-term, nor even a solution, they choose to highlight that it could “play well” in Michigan.

    It won’t play well, you bobbleheads – IF you choose to report analysis based on truth, instead of just parroting what McCain says.

  • Seven-and-a-half years ago, our crack-addled excuse for a president—and his malfeasant administration—brought forth on this Republic a new concept of governance, conceived in malice, and based on the totally asinine belief that immediate gratification is good, but only for the occupants of the Bushylvanian Bubble.

    Over the course of that seven-and-a-half years, no effort whatsoever has been made to confront the very real issue of “peak oil.” During that same time-frame, however, every effort imaginable has been deployed, invested, and spun to conceal the notion that this planet affectionately referred to as “home” by every single sentient being on its surface—is gradually running out of oil.

    Recently, the Bush administration began to embrace its concept of “green” energy: the production of corn-based ethanol. It has hidden from public knowledge that “85-grade blend fuels” manufactured with this product effectively reduce mileage of an internal combustion engine by 20-to-25%—which merely increases the amount of petroleum-distilled fuel necessary to go the same distance as compared to the current “87 octane” unleaded gasoline.

    Now, the Bush administration and its unholy alliance with the oil corporations are faced with a new dilemma. Their “corn ethanol plants” no longer have a contractually-guaranteed supply of corn, because that corn was supposed to come from the fields of Iowa, Missouri, and Western Illinois—and those fields now lie flooded, their crops substantially damaged, if not entirely ruined. “85 blend” fuels will eventually become more difficult to produce, which in turn will cause physical shortages in the supply of internal combustion fuels.

    This, if explored in depth, should explain why Republicans are now changing their tune on offshore drilling and ANWR. It is their “Pearl harbor” issue, and they will seek to exploit it in two ways—to explain rapidly-increasing fuel costs at the pump, and to blame those “evil Dems” for allowing this to happen the the US.

    With unwavering diligence, and with a concentrated effort to shine the spotlight of Truth on the Bush administration’s overt blocking of alternative energy technologies, this “issue” will bring them nothing but catastrophic blowback in November’s elections.

    Show me a state that doesn’t feel the negative effects of the Republican agenda, and I will show you a state that will support McBush-Clone at the ballot box. Otherwise, Dean’s 50-state strategy just became the GOP’s worst nightmare….

  • Hasn’t George Bush sold us down the river enough, in 8 yrs?
    Now, instead of using his head, he wants to drill, drill, drill, and remove
    all our resources, so that we are forced to continue dependency on
    Foreign Oil!
    If anyone was “connecting the dots” they would realize we are buying an
    expendable commodity, with weak dollars. How sweet is THAT?
    Leave our oil in the ground, until the rest of the World runs out, and then we
    become THE Super Power, to every other Nation on Earth.

    Wake up, America, prevent Sunamis and Dependency, by voting the Candidate
    who will protect all our natural resources for the future..

  • One of the arguments that the Republicans have is that IF we had listened to them 10 years ago and started drilling in the 1990’s then we would have more supply and prices would be lower today.

    Obama needs to come up with a reasonable argument to defend himself against that attack.

    Unfortunately, Obama and all the Democrats don’t have the guts to do the right thing and INCREASE the taxes on gasoline right now.

    We should gas taxes by 10 cents a month for the next five years.

  • If BGII had pushed fuel efficiency in cars in 2001 (maybe after 9/11 when he could have argued it was a matter of National Security) we’d not have $4.00 gasoline today.

    But no, the goal is to keep America dependent on imports of oil from other countries so we HAVE to pay the same amount for American Oil as we do for Foreign Oil. If America was 100% self-sufficient in oil production how long would it be before we were like other major oil producers who subsidize their gas prices for their populace?

    50 cents a gallon anyone?

    The sad thing is, if we had practiced conservation and actually drilled our oil, we would be self sufficient.

  • Speaking of Carter, it’s all because of that damned sweater

    Just ask CNBC’s stock market commentator appearing on Morning Joe…

    Cramer further complained that “we don’t do anything to go against the local communities. … We’ve got local mayors who can stop nuclear power. … We are like just little fiefdoms all over the country blocking this.”

    Cramer blamed President Carter for Americans’ unwillingness to conserve. “If Jimmy Carter had never been president, may he rest in peace …” he began, before suddenly realized that Carter is still alive. “Oops, sorry,” he gulped, explaining that “people make errors all the time on TV.”

    “He created a legacy,” Cramer continued smoothly. “The legacy was, if we conserve, we’re wimps. If we’re wimps, we can’t get elected. … The darn cardigan sweater has cost us more energy independence. … There is a legacy in this country that we should burn fuel.”

  • Since he completely went against everything GHWB went for, it’s a no-brainer ( apt for GWB )

    Jim Cramer is an ass- just another hawkster. Sure we can drill….but what do we do after we pull the black blood out of the earth? We still have to refine it and our refineries aren’t at peak levels- there is also the matter of supply manipulation and market speculation adding in to the mix.

    #11- Steve – yes but with a populace cowed into submission with fear and propaganda, they have established a benchmark for keeping the wool over our eyes.

  • With all due respect, I don’t think Obama and the Democrats are being gutless about raising the gas tax (which would normally be the right thing to do). Yeah, it could be raised a little without hurting the little people TOO much, but the gas tax really needs to be raised significantly to make a real difference to our consumption. And in this economy, I would try not to further punish people.

    But when the economy gets better, yeah, go for it.

  • I have a right-winger that I work with and we were on a business trip 2 weeks ago. He brought up that we should have been drilling in ANWR 10 years ago. I reminded him that 10 years ago, oil was around $20.00 a barrel, and that no oil companies would have wanted to invest in more drilling when it was that low. He had to acknowledge that I had a point, and it shut him up.

  • That’s right people – let’s not lift the ban on off-shore oil drilling and let other countries (i.e., Cuba and China) drill away off the coast of Florida and I’m sure there’s a country out there that is more than willing to drill off the coast of California or even in the Gulf of Mexico. That way we not only pay a higher dollar for that barrel of oil four years from now but we also get to reap the benefits of these countries being so environmentally concerned about our coast line (NOT). Let’s get real here folks! I vote for lifting the federal ban.

  • #6 jhm, you nailed it. Had Jimmy Carter’s ideas been put into place and followed, we would not be in our current enegry crisis. As a soluton the Repugs have given us Enron.

  • That’s right people – let’s not lift the ban on off-shore oil drilling and let other countries (i.e., Cuba and China) drill away off the coast of Florida

    You’re a little out of date on the wingnut lies du jour, sweet thing–not to mention you can’t even repeat the old lie correctly.

    Quite a talent bench the GOP has this year. We could have another writers’ strike and do fine just letting the wingers talk.

  • Ah, I see. Thanks Tammy. Now I know why the frightwing has been lying about China drilling off Cuba’s coast. It’s to scare lemmings like you into lifting the ban. Excellent use of the word ‘not,’ by the way. I had to check my calendar and make sure it wasn’t 1987, Wayne.

  • “……safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling,'”

    If you believe that, then I have a carton of “healthy, clean-burning” cigarettes I can sell you.

  • What everyone is missing here is the fact tht 60% of our oil comes from the Middle East. The Mid East has and will be a powder keg for years. Our entire economy exists because of foreign oil. If there is a disruption in that foreign oil, by terriost’s or whatever, you deffinately will not like our gasoline prices then. We need to be self sufficient as far as our economy and not dependent on our (FRIENDS?) in the Mid East.

  • First off, there is no “ban” on offshore drilling. There is a moratorium on new leases. We need to get away from this terminology.

    Second, there are over 6000 leases that are currently undeveloped. They say drill, drill, drill. OK, drill the available leases. But that is not what they want. Its just a smokescreen to keep the markets tight by NOT drilling.

  • What I don’t understand is if President Bush is so determined to permit offshore oil drilling, he has the authority to take one bold measure himself. He can rescind the Presidential Moratorium on offshore drilling that his father first established in 1990 and President Clinton renewed in 1998. But he’s not really interested in doing that – he’d rather blame Congress for not lifting its moratorium. This clearly isn’t about policy. It’s about election-year politics.

    And where is the press in all of this? Why don’t they point this out? And why doesn’t someone in the media actually fact-check the claims that offshore oil drilling will be an energy panacea for the U.S. economy?

  • I think this is a great idea. We need to lower gas prices enough to relieve the economy while in the mean time renewable fuels are created. Right now the renewable fuels are not plentiful enough and the tech. can’t produce the right types that will completely allow us to come off of oil. And everyone says it will take so long before we see this oil, well I think opening up the area for drilling will have an immediate effect because the oil market is a futures market. Speculators will see a vast amount of new supply that will come on the market and that can help bring prices down and we will be able to meet demand in the future. Thats why the price is high now, speculators see that in the future we will have less supply and more demand, offer up more supply and prices should fall. Maybe not to $40 a barrel but maybe 80 or 90.

  • Another short term fix for a long term problem. Looks like some special interests finally have a pass to get around the environmentalist.

    Dark days are ahead for this nation but it will be good times for a small group of powerful and smart sociopaths.

  • There is another angle here. Eventually – eventually – this oil will be drilled.

    If we followed the whims of politicians 30, 40, 50 years ago, this oil would have been pumped and sold at $10/barrel or so. Now it’s worth $130. So, in a sense, we can thank environmentalists for increasing our national wealth by (19 billion * $120) = 2.3 Trillion dollars. And I’m serious, not sarcastic. Conservatives would have had us strip the country dry and live with dirty air and water for the past 150 years in the name of “no government regulation.” It’s a selfish short-sighted policy.

    It was worth waiting. And 40 years from now, it will REALLY be a good thing that we waited. There will always be a place for oil and petrol, even in a solar-powered or nuclear-powered world.

  • Shawn,

    There are leases for vast amounts of land already in the name of oil companies, yes. But the problem is the permits to actually get approval to drill on those land is what is being held up by the federal govt. same thing with shale oil in the midwest, the technology is starting to work but congress refuses to allow the creation of regulations which would set the rules for how the drilling would happen and rules on environment concerns. By not allowing regulations to get made permits can not be approved. Stop thinking this is all a big conspiricy and realize that congress does hold things back for their own personal gain.

    Peter
    27. On June 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am, Shawn said:
    First off, there is no “ban” on offshore drilling. There is a moratorium on new leases. We need to get away from this terminology.

    Second, there are over 6000 leases that are currently undeveloped. They say drill, drill, drill. OK, drill the available leases. But that is not what they want. Its just a smokescreen to keep the markets tight by NOT drilling.

  • One thing that does keep bugging me about these GOPer half-truths: What economic/monetary/supply-and-demand model are they using to promote the idea that they can spend all that time in exploration and recovery, for a minuscule amount of petroleum, and have it bring the price down?

    If I go the the “official” sites (EIA, DOE, etc.), I can retrieve numbers indicating that US oil consumption was at 20,687,000 barrels/day. The McFool and his Hench-fools boast that we could retrieve 18 billion barrels of oil by lifting the ban—but it would take until 2025 to get the stuff out of the ground.

    18 billion barrels of oil—and we don’t even know if it’s there or not— divided by our 2006 domestic consumption rate of 20,687,000 per day = an 870-day supply of oil. That’s 27-and-a-half months’ worth of oil—at 2006 consumption rates.

    Oh, wait—I suppose that The McFool really didn’t want me to mention that little gem—now did he? How treasonously un-American of me. My lack of kool-aid sucking patriotism must be showing again….

  • Steve,

    The govt isnt the one that would be spending any money to explore and drill. That would be up to the private buisnesses. If it ends up that it would not be profitable to drill then it wouldnt happen, but research shows that there is lots of oil. I will leave it up to the companies to make the decision to drill or not for profit but why should the govt say no you can’t even look to see if there is oil when there could be tons that would give more supply to the market while we work on better renewable fuels that don’t rely on food crops?

    34. On June 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am, Steve said:
    One thing that does keep bugging me about these GOPer half-truths: What economic/monetary/supply-and-demand model are they using to promote the idea that they can spend all that time in exploration and recovery, for a minuscule amount of petroleum, and have it bring the price down? etc.

  • Oil in 4 or 5 years, nuke power in 15 to 20 years, wind energy probably 25% of max, solar inefficient and expensive- maybe decades off, ethanol will max out at 15% of use. 7 million barrels equals a billion dollars a day off our trade deficit, and 100 million dollars a day in income taxes.What does that do for our sagging economy and budget deficit? What will gas cost when Obama’s long term solutions start turning the price downward? Will our economy have collapsed before then? How big a pay a benefit cut will American unions have to accept to avoid extinction?

  • I just heard the biggest load of BS again from Pres Bush. I guess he likes to prey on the ignorant in the US. Anyone who can think for themselves & look at the big picture knows lifting the ban is an incredibly bad idea. It was put into place for a reason. As usual, just before election time, gas comes into play. In the past it went down to show “look how wonderful the economy is” but now this time, gas prices have been allowed to soar & oil companies to get even richer at the expense of the public to show how desperately we need to drill. Good for rich oil companies in Bush’s pocket but bad for us and our future environment. How about we look at good solutions for energy conservation, etc instead of the extreme and ridiculous “solutions.”

  • McCain’s speech today estimates that there 21 billion barrels in the moratorium areas.

    Oh, and by the way the US exports over a million barrels a day now. What’s up with that?

  • In 5-10 years, Middle East oil will be superfluous. Putin is drilling oil and storing it as we speak. Russia, the Ukraine, and Kazahkstan, have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. He will, at some point, flood the world market with cheap oil.

    Watch for Bush to take an outside board seat on one of the big three Russian oil companies after his term ends.

    Being a Floridian, I have to say, you give the dipshits down here waaaay too much credit, if you think they will wisely vote Democrat in November. Remember, this is the state that worshipped Jeb. Hell, they voted in Amendment 1 in January that cut the average household taxes by just $300. $300. Now they’re howling because of all the services that are being cut. Seeing the big picture is not a strong suit of Florida voters. There are too many old Repubs down here. And old Repubs are easy to scare.

    That won’t see the issues with drilling off our coasts until we have to scrub black oil off of pelicans, and they have to institute a state income tax, because there are no tourism dollars due to destroyed beaches.

  • Wow, so how many oil spills from drilling have we seen in the Gulf of Mexico. Due to regulations and laws the drilling that occurs does not pollute the environment. Oil producers are able to safely pump oil at no expense the environment around them. Even when Katrina hit, not one oil spill as a hurricane moved through these oil pumping rigs. So before you go spouting that there is going to be pollution and oil spills go find some facts.

    Responding to:
    39. On June 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am, In-Fl said:

  • Um, Prince William Sound?

    Accidents occur mainly in the transporting of the oil.

    My guess, Peter is you live nowhere near Florida, as do most of the people who thinks this is a good idea.

  • In-Fl

    Exactly in the transporting of oil, we have transportation of oil all around the coasts as it is and unfortunatly that wont change. Our country is dependent on oil unfortunatly and it will take some time before we can produce reliable affordable renewable fuels to replace the oil. But the actual drilling of oil is very safe. Also if the govt wants to put extra precautions in place to make it even safer then so be it but banning exploring for oil and drilling is helping no one. I live in CT and thats on the coast. I am not sure exactly where on the coasts that the oil is but if it happens to be off of CT I am all for letting companies drill it if it is profitable for them.

    And not sure if you heard this but they tried putting wind turbines off of cape cod in Mass. but the Kennedy family killed the bill because they didnt want to ruin their view from the beach estate. That would have been renewable energy and a great plan but it was a no go because it would look bad.

    I agree we need to move to renewable energy but between now and that time are we going to kill the economy by having outrageous energy costs?

  • I’m not sure how to break this to you all, but in Venezuela, democratically-elected President and excellent socialist Hugo Chavez presides over a nation whose state-run oil monopoly that charges consumers 12 AMERICAN CENTS for a GALLON of high-octane gasoline.

    Even in Iran, and Iraq before we plowed it under and stuck our flag in it, drivers pay under 25-cents for a gallon of gas.

    I love Capitalism, don’t get me wrong – it is in the top five social systems along with Democracy, Evangelical Christianity, and Christian Theocracy. Come now, how is it so expensive for me, a proud Republican-American, to fill my 07 Escalade? What on earth did we invade Iraq for, if not for relief at the pump?

  • Interestingly, according to a Repuboican expert on oil production interviewed on NPR, if Congress did this tomorrow, it would take SIX YEARS to have any effect.

    Simple answers to simple questions:

    Q: How do you tell if a Republican is lying?

    A: Look and see if his lips are moving.

  • Better Republican trolls, please!!! Can we institute a policy that Republicans have to demonstrate a minimum 2-digit positive-number IQ to post here???

  • Dr. Ted Baehr,

    All those countries you just mentioned subsidze the gasoline to their citizens heavily. The govt takes hit and give it to their citizens at a very cheap price so to keep favor with them. Basically they sell their oil to the world, buy gasoline and probably use the profits from the sale to keep their operations going and to heavily subsidize the gas. Just a guess though. And believe me their state run oil monopoly is most likely not efficient at all.

  • Tom Cleaver,

    Yes we would not see actual production for 6 years but the oil prices are on futures prices which are made from market data in the future. The fact that more oil supply would be coming online then prices in the futures market which determine the price of oil would be effected today. Its a speculation market which means they look to the future.

    I don’t see any other ideas from you bright Democrats. Other then renewable fuels which are not at the point of taking over the demand from oil. So in the mean time we need something to bridge the gap. I am all for renewable energy but not if it costs the people and businesses more money today. When the technology makes it, renewable energy will be cheaper then conventional.

  • “But that was before gas hit $4 per gallon. Now, Bush has flip-flopped.”

    Can we please stop using the term “flip flop” like this? First, it lends credibility to the stupid attacks against Kerry in the 2004 campaign. Second, it presumes that inflexibility is the highest virtue of an elected official. Personally, I want my government officials to be open to revising their positions in response to changing circumstances. You can disagree with the merits of Bush’s proposal, but I just don’t see how the fact that evolving economic conditions have persuaded him to favor a measure he previously opposed is in any way a legitimate criticism.

  • All this talk of “flip-flopping” is disingenuous.

    Our elected officials are SUPPOSED to do what we tell them to do. They are our representatives. If, in the last week, the overall public concern switched from environment to energy then so to should our officials.

  • Tom Cleaver-

    So what if it takes 6 years before off-shore drilling provides any benefits! Do you see hydrogen power coming into power to fully replace our oil dependency in 6 years? How about wind power? Geo-thermal perhaps? Hydro-dynamic?

    Just think hard for a moment and tell me what alternative power source we can switch over to right now?

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for a response.

  • Right on JRD and Keith, seems like the media is always trying to make the poloticians look like they are disingenuous, think its for their own plan of what they want to happen.

  • “I don’t see any other ideas from you bright Democrats. Other then renewable fuels which are not at the point of taking over the demand from oil. So in the mean time we need something to bridge the gap. I am all for renewable energy but not if it costs the people and businesses more money today. When the technology makes it, renewable energy will be cheaper then conventional.”

    I get a funny feeling when so called “Free market” Republicans mention the fact that they won’t pay more for something tomorrow that costs less today. Especially because our whole economic system of capitalism runs upon the premise that aspiration and up ward mobility are derived from the accumulation and spending of capital… Let me guess you still drive the Chrysler Aires K because you didn’t want to(or couldn’ t afford to) pay more for the newer Intrepid when it came out.

    I’ve got a bright idea, how about conservation? Not one damn GOP proposal mentions it. How about using conservation to reduce demand in non essential areas. The effects would be immediate and would help save oil until we can get to all that oil you want to drill for and get it online in 2025…

    but I guess that the GOP like Peter are just interested in keeping the economy going from bubble to bubble

  • Hmm. Suppose new US offshore drilling started TOMORROW could reap, say, a million barrels of US oil a day in 3 years.

    But wait — the USA EXPORTS almost 1 million barrels of oil a day RIGHT NOW.

    Hmmm.

  • JRD, Keith and Peter.

    Why not conserve to reduce demand? Wouldn’t conservation work immediately? Wouldn’t conservation reduce futures speculation just as much as increasing supply?

    correct me if i am wrong but increasing supply does not reduce demand, nor would not reduce the futures market on oil and nor would it reduce the price until 2025…

  • Ted Baehr said: “I’m not sure how to break this to you all, but in Venezuela, democratically-elected President and excellent socialist Hugo Chavez presides over a nation whose state-run oil monopoly that charges consumers 12 AMERICAN CENTS for a GALLON of high-octane gasoline.”

    If America were self-sufficient in Oil Production we’d do that too. That’s why the Oil Companies fight to prevent conservation and to limit oil production in this country. As long as we have to import ANY of our oil, they get to charge us the going world rate for ALL of it.

    That’s the joy of living in a Capitalist economy rather than a Market one. Capitalists control it, not the Market.

  • The govt isn’t the one that would be spending any money to explore and drill.

    The private businesses, Peter, are not promoting the idea of drilling off the coasts. They are not promoting the idea that it is profitable to do so, and they are not promoting the belief that the price of gasoline would drop significantly if they did drill the offshore leases.

    The Bush administration is.

    My question was—and continues to be—what nonsensical blather does the Bush administration cite to back up their silly claims?

    Also, your understanding of oil futures is—to be kind—flawed. Oil commodities futures are currently based on projected costs and prices a few months into the future—not years and years down the road.

  • INSTANT SOLUTIONS-drive less and when you do, drive an efficient vehicle! CARPOOL as much as possible.

  • Just more Disaster Capitalism preying on the fears of the voting dolts for heavy financial gain. Open up the moratorium areas now and we’ll see oil from them just in time to line the pockets of the next generation of oil men.

    Bush says there’s “no excuse” for the drilling moratorium. What about the moratorium on oil industry regulation? What about the moratorium on the Kyoto Treaty? What about the moratorium on habeas corpus to insure that we control the oil fields of Iraq [and soon Iran]?

    How is it that a nation that can build a battleship a day when it has to, finds moving to alternate fuels, better mass transit, and good old regulations on industry to be simply inconceivable.

    The only possible benefit I can see to even talking about lifting the moratorium is that it might encourage OPEC to produce more now to stop it. But that still doesn’t solve any longterm problem. Just the one about getting the old white guy elected.

  • The reason the oil and gas prices are so high is because the Bush/Cheney good old boys in the oil industry are pushing the price per barrel up . They know this is their last hurrah and they want to get the off shore and ANWR oil drilling. We are being blackmailed by these criminals. Why can’t anyone with 1/2 a brain see this.

  • Surly,

    Take another look at what I said. Am I *in any way* defending Bush’s plan? No. Did I say anything whatsoever about the merits of coastal drilling? Not at all. What I said was that the fact that the president has come to endorse a proposal that he previously opposed as a reaction to changing circumstances is not a legitimate criticism– that’s what government officials are supposed to do. It may well be the case that Bush’s new position is substantively wrong– his positions usually are– but not because he took a different view under different circumstances and subsequently reassessed his view in light of new information.

  • A blind dog sees farther ahead than McCain. He’s obviously looking only as far ahead as November and will try to make the case for putting him into office by pandering to any and all as nearsighted as him. Personally, I think he would be better suited commanding the shuffleboard courts in St. Petersburg.

  • Surly,

    I am all for conservation and the free market is making that hppen, the higher the cost of gas the more people conserve, if people want to cut back they will and should. I am not saying we deserve cheap gas but if we conserve as other contries expand and use more prices will stay as they are. We should open up the option of drilling and conserve as we work towards renewable energy. It’s called a comprehensive plan, I was not just promoting one thing that would fix all.

  • Surly, you comment about my car, were you trying to say I am poor? what was the point of that?

    Also where is your solution, all you did was attempt to say mine would not work. Still waiting.

  • Honda has just released its new hydrogen fuel cell car in Southern California. We should be investing in hydrogen fueling stations and alternative energies NOW…not putting our coasts at risk for oil spills. It is clear that oil is not the energy source of the future. I welcome higher oil prices so that our nation gets motivated to make a change.

    I’m looking at getting a scooter that gets 100 mpg.

  • Hilary,

    I agree oil is not the future but hydrogen is just getting started. No one knows what matience you would need and how often, and what happens if the fuel cells fail in 3 years how much to replace. These options need to be tested and used before so they need to be reliable before they will be accepted into the mass public. Also we have a variety of environments cold, hot, dry, wet. While I am excited about Honda’s hydrogen car and they even have a hydrogen home generation system that could fuel your house. The technology needs to be reliable. That will take some years but i hope it works. In the short term if we allow drilling to be an option then at least if it is profitable then we can get more supply even if it isnt for years knowing it will come into the supply will help push futures prices down. Speculators don’t think we will have a problem in the next couple of years in oil its they think we will have issues with supply in 25 or 50 years.

  • Our elected officials are SUPPOSED to do what we tell them to do. -Keith

    Bzzz. Our say in the matter ends when they are elected until they are up for election again, unless they personally choose to put stock into their constiuency.

    What they are supposed to represent is our best interests.

    Can we please stop using the term “flip flop” like this? -JRD

    There is a difference between evolving views, such as Obama on the gas tax, and flip-flopping, such as McCain on off shore drilling, which he spoke out against as recently as May.

    I think we should be open to officials with evolving views, but call it like we see it otherwise. Overnight policy changes that are politically motivated are flip-flops.

  • Hilary, also god forbid the hydrogen thing doesnt work we shouldn’t force the govt to spend our money incentivizing hydrogen stations all around the US. Wait till we get a reliable solid fuel source and car that can run it then jump in when we know it will work. I’m excited for the Chevy Volt because that will reduce our consumption and its it more realistic in the short term. It’s a bridge between full on plug in battery and gas engines. If you aren’t familier which you must be since you were talking about the less known honda hydrogen car. But for everyone else, you plug in and the battery which can take you 40 miles, most peoples daily commute on nothing but the battery. For long range trips after 40 miles a gas generator recharges the batterys which then propel the car, so no gas engine moving the car just a generator. Then you get an extension to 300 miles.

  • Just googlin’ the tubes when I came across this report:

    From the US Government’s Energy Information Administration

    “Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf”

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

    “The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

  • peter, i understand what you are saying about hydrogen fuel cell technology being new and unproven, but if you haven’t seen the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car,” you really should.

    we have the technology — more accurately, had it over a decade ago and destroyed it — to eliminate one of the main drivers of oil consumption not sometime in the future but right now.

    various Republican politicians, appointees, and their friends in Big Business and Big Oil intentionally wiped it out.

  • Peter, thanks for your reply. I guess electric cars do not excite me as much since most electricity is currenlty created from coal, but they are promising nonetheless since electicity can be created many ways.

    I think we could accomplish a great deal in 2-5 years if the government invested money in smart technologies. Is is an uphill battle though, as the oil money is very lucrative to powerful people. It has been the same story for a long time (Just look how the oilmen in LA dismantled the trolly system there when cars were first getting popular). The only way our country will think about alternatives is if oil gets expensive, which is occuring now. I just hope that the nation takes the opportunity to invest in new technologies rather than plunder our enviroment for the last drops of oil.

    I have lived up and down the western coast, and an oil spill would be devastating, environmentally and economically. Just look at what happened in Santa Barbara in the 60’s which prompted the federal ban on coastal drilling. I know we have better methods od extraction now, but there are still oil spills. To me, it is not worth the risk or time.

    This proposal is not going to go over well in coastal areas, and will not pass the Senate. McCain may have a more difficult time in Florida.

  • wednesdaze, i understand they bought up the tech but they definitly did not destroy it, and what they had then no where comes close to what advances we have now, just takes some time to make those new sources and technology reliable.

    Hilary, i got excited about the chevy volt because you could feasibly do it very soon, then yes you still use gas in long trips but commuting would use battery only and then we would just have to get our electricity to move to clean fuel which would be easier then getting every car and infrastructure moved to a different source, nuclear or clean coal would do well for electricity

    i agree an oil spill would not be good and not worth it, I would encourage the epa to put high safety restrictions on drilling on our coasts even if it adds a couple of dollars to a barrel i don’t think it would be much of a cost. But no one knows exactly how much fuel is out there, or in the shale oil out in the mid-west, and eventually we will need the oil, ships, trucks, planes, and plants will be hard to move off of oil, dependency, cars which make up a fair amount, im not sure of the number, of oil use will take off some demand when we switch them but not all of it. also oil is used in almost everything we use, but transportation does use the majority. even if we conserve though other countries like india and china will use more and more, so prices will stay high, even if drilling is only a bandaid it may be a bandaid needed to control the price of oil until we get to new fuels.

    just because I promote more supply by drilling doesnt mean i dont believe in lowering demand. just to put that out there.

    also I think it would be good to let oil companies explore first in depth and get a real number for what supply is out there, then come back and debate where the best places to allow drilling would be. just a thought

  • “There is a difference between evolving views, such as Obama on the gas tax, and flip-flopping, such as McCain on off shore drilling, which he spoke out against as recently as May.”

    First of all, I was talking about Bush, not McCain; second, the post stipulated that Bush’s shift in position was prompted by present gas prices. When a shift in policy, even a sudden one, is prompted by a change in the relevant circumstances, it just isn’t a “flip flop” in any pejorative sense.

  • Bush said, “[T]here is no magic wand to wave right now.”

    I can just picture McCain saying this in 2011 when the economy has not recovered despite permanent passage of the Bush tax cuts.

    Hoover II

  • and another thing…

    Steve @34 nails it.

    This reminds me of the loggers who didn’t care that harvesting a few more months worth of lumber would permanently wipe out the spotted owl.
    Hello! Guys, in three months, you’re STILL out of work and the owl is gone FOREVER.

    Is America so incapable of long term planning not to realize that three years (max) worth of 2 dollar gas is NOT an energy policy? It just isn’t.
    You have the same stupid problem just three months/three years later.

    It’s the same “the rapture is coming, so screw it!” attitude of the extreme conservatives that have been given keys to the asylum, back for another swipe at finite, increasingly rare irreplaceable natural treasures.

  • Comments are closed.