RSS Feed MenuSome of us in attendance at the 2008 Republican Convention had a terrible sinking feeling when Michael Steele shouted out his “drill, baby, drill” slogan for the first time. We knew that his simplistic and cavalier answer to our nation’s energy woes was ill advised— and since the U.S. sits atop only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, not even based in geologic reality.
More unfortunate than the slogan itself, is the fact that “drill, baby, drill” accurately sums up the extent of the GOP energy plan to date. That has left Republicans in poor position to take advantage of President Obama’s missteps related to the Gulf oil spill—in fact, environmental groups have modified Steele’s slogan to fit the occasion: “spill, baby, spill.”
Republicans and right-wing talk radio personalities are trying to pound Obama over the oil spill, but since their energy stance has been so pro-drilling and opposed to environmental safeguards, their attacks lack credibility and fail to present a coherent message.
One minute Republicans are lamenting the fact that spill containment and clean-up capabilities are woefully inadequate and criticizing Obama for allowing deepwater drilling without adequate safeguards. The next minute they are complaining about his temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling.
Essentially, they are saying let’s move forward with deepwater drilling even though we do not have adequate safeguards to prevent or contain an accident. Isn’t that exactly what they are trying to criticize Obama for?
The wackiness doesn’t stop there.
While many Republicans attack Obama for his inept spill response, Joe Barton (R-TX), the GOP’s ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is singing a different tune.
At the Texas GOP Convention earlier this month Barton, flanked by several oil industry executives, proclaimed that “fortunately, much of the BP spill had been contained.” Shortly thereafter he, along with 15 other GOP congressmen, called for expanding offshore drilling.
Then, Congressman Barton infamously apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for White House pressure, which Barton dubbed a “shakedown,” to have BP establish a $20 billion dollar escrow account to pay claims for those economically damaged by the spill. Barton was forced to later retract his statement, but the same “shakedown” language has been used by Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Tom Price (R-GA) to decry the escrow account.
Republican attacks on Obama for the Minerals Management Service’s (MMS) too-cozy relationship with the oil companies are missing the mark because much of this coziness became entrenched during the Bush Administration. Republicans in Congress have a history of running interference for the agency.
At a 2008 House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Interior Department Inspector General’s investigation that found MMS employees literally in bed with oil company officials, Republicans dismissed the investigation as overblown. Just a few bad apples, they argued, turning a blind eye to the systemic rot within MMS.
The same year, Republicans aggressively (and successfully) agitated to end the Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratoriums that had been in effect since the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989. The slogan then was Newt Gingrich’s “drill here, drill now, pay less.”
The GOP’s failure to gain traction in seeking the moral high ground of oil spill politics is also due to the party’s long-running assault on 1970’s era environmental laws—laws that were passed with huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by President Nixon.
At least since the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, Republicans in Congress have launched effort after effort to weaken laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires environmental reviews before projects such as oil drilling can move forward. Often, these efforts seek to exempt projects from environmental review or reduce the amount of time an agency has to complete a review—which fit right in with MMS’ go-along, get-along approach to oversight that led to the spill.
The sad truth is that there is nothing in recent GOP policy positions related to energy and the environment that provides Republicans a solid foothold from which to attack the Obama administration for the oil spill and its impacts.
Perfectly legitimate attacks come off as hypocritical.
If we own “drill, baby, drill,” then we cannot help but be tarred with “spill, baby, spill.”
Future attacks would be more successfully launched from high ground—but until the GOP makes a clear break from the fossil fuel-centric policies of the past, renews its commitment to the responsible stewardship of our natural resources, and probably springs for a few dozen muzzles, that moral high ground will remain out of reach.
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“Or a non-Christian and a Republican….”
Apart from few exceptions a realist and a Republican.
busboy33 // Jun 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@buddyglass:
I recognize the distinction you are drawing between local area impact issues like acid rain and global impact issues like carbon caps. It’s a fair distinction, but I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusions from it.
“The U.S. could cut its carbon footprint in half and still not ’solve’ the issue on a global scale.”
Certainly true. Heck, the US could cut ALL of its carbon footprint and still not “solve” the problem. But for this to be a rationale for avoiding carbon caps, we’d have to assume that if the plan isn’t going to “solve” the problem then we shouldn’t do it.
I smoke, and I make sure to put my butts in ashtrays or trashcans. Do my efforts “solve” the problem of butts laying about on the sidewalk or in the street? No — there are plenty of other people still throwing them everywhere. By your rationale, I should also just flick my butts wherever I like. I’m not comfortable with that conclusion. Maybe my actions are going to “solve” the problem . . . but they certainly minimize it for the extent that I have control over. I know I’m doing what I can, I feel I’m doing the “right” thing. I’m comfortable with the extra annoyance and effort this puts on me because usually doing the “right” thing is a bigger pain-in-the-a$$ than doing the “wrong” thing. Between doing my share and minimizing my effort, I’m more comfortable doing the right thing (within reason, of course).
“If that’s the case, then imposing cap and trade on ourselves may not be a wise way of approaching the problem. Especially since it would (at least to some degree- the severity is debatable) hamstring U.S. economic competitiveness.”
Again, this might be true, but it seems the logical conclusion to this idea is that we should peg our industry to the worst competitor. If anybody is cutting corners more than we are, they have some advantage over us. China has an advantage making babyfood because they bulk it up with cheap poisons rather than with actual food. Does that put our own babyfood industry at a disadvantage? Sure. Should we start adding poison to our babyfood to level the competitive playing field? Hell no.
Should we continue to work toward global rules that benefit everybody and the environment? Yes, a thousand times yes. Should we wait to do the “right” thing until everybody else does it first (or we all do it at the exact same time)? Frankly, I’d rather think America holds itself to a higher standard than that.
anniemargret // Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I get tired of hearing all the naysayers with the ‘can’t do’ option for getting off oil as a primary energy source. They put together the Manhattan Project in less then three years so that we wouldn’t end up at the back of the line against Russia in nuclear capability. What that says is that when America is up against the wall, we don’t sit back and whine. We do something about it.
I understand the problems associated with getting off oil. There is such a thing as peak oil and there is such a thing as being beholden to the petro-dictators. If we want to see this country in endless warfare then we can stick our heads in the oil and stay there.
It has to start with a mindset…a can-do attitude….and getting our most brilliant and creative minds in this country to focus on what is becoming more and more….a curse than a blessing (oil).
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I guess Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour screwed up. After complaining the Government was not providing enough manpower it turns out they have thousands of nation guard troops sitting on their asses while at the same time whining about a lack of resources!
You cant make this crap up. Small government, no big government help, no sit on your ass government help.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/eveningnews/main6615414.shtml
Gov. Bobby Jindal’s message has been loud and clear, using language such as “We will only be winning this war when we’re actually deploying every resource,” “They (the federal government) can provide more resources” and “It’s clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here.”
But nearly two months after the governor requested – and the Department of Defense approved the use of 6,000 Louisiana National Guard troops – only a fraction – 1,053 – have actually been deployed by Jindal to fight the spill.
“If you ask any Louisianan, if you said ‘If you had those troops, do you think they could be put to good use? Is there anything they can do in your parish?’ I think they’d all tell you ‘Absolutely,’” Louisiana state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, said.
As of today, the federal government has authorized a total of 17,500 National Guard troops across four Gulf states, all to be paid for by BP.
But CBS News has learned that in addition to Louisiana’s 1,053 troops of 6,000, Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available. Even fewer have been deployed in Florida – 97 troops out of 2,500 – and Mississippi – 58 troops out of 6,000.
Those figures prompted President Obama to weigh in.
“I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible,” Mr. Obama said.
Diomedes // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:26 pm
“I understand the problems associated with getting off oil”
The problem of getting off oil are two-fold:
1) The Oil Lobby – A very powerful force that has many in Congress in its back pocket. It is very difficult to get any in-roads into alternative fuels when you have such a powerful entity helping line the pockets of puppet politicians that are elected to maintain the status quo.
2) Un-realistic Environmentalists – Sorry, but the environmental lobby has been equally as bad when it comes to pushing its own agenda onto the public. With their staunch anti-nuclear stance and consistent predilections towards pipe-dream ideas like ethanol, how can one possibly hope to move forward with a real forward looking energy policy when you are being blocked at every turn?
If we TRULY want to move forward as a country with some fiscal sanity and a doable energy policy, we need to shun both the extreme left wing and right wing parts of our country and get the large center mass to begin to mobilize forward. And no, I don’t mean the Tea Party. They are about as ‘grass roots’ as the ganja smoking locals in the Santa Cruz hills near where I live.
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I really don’t know why we just don’t buy an off the shelf nuke plant plan from the French, yes I said the French. They have a terrific track record in nuclear plants.
Call that design the national nuclear plant and build a shedload of them. Voila electricity problem solved. If that means some sort of crisis way of approving them to get round delay then fine. As long as they are safe and secure go for it.
Then set a goal of bringing the brightest minds to gather to solve the transportation of goods and people by another means than oil. Do that NOW we really do not have decades more to put this off.
We should have been sorting this 10 years ago at least.
My pipe dream, the reality oil lobby and eco warriors will kill any advances.
buddyglass // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:53 pm
@busboy33:
I agree that there are things we should forbid in the U.S. that our competitors do not. The baby food is a good example. One could argue that jacking up the price of energy is a much “bigger deal” than regulating toxins in baby food, since it affects…everything…but your overall principle still applies.
My point was more…if we’re going to do this, maybe we should make a bigger deal about getting “everybody else” to go down this path with us.
@Diomedes:
The reality is that we’re probably never going to stop using petro-energy in some form or fashion. It’s just too efficient an energy source from an “energy per unit weight” point of view. Our strike fighters will probably be using jet fuel for the forseeable future, regardless what happens to the price of oil.
That said, as oil (or coal) becomes more scarce its price will increase, which will eventually significantly impact demand. When it becomes dramatically cheaper to run your car on electricity than gasoline, the demand for gasoline (for the purpose of powering civilian commuter automobiles) will drastically decrease. Given there is a finite amount of oil (or coal) to be had, as we continue to exhaust the “low hanging fruit” its cost will continue to increase. I’m not sure at what point in time the “big change” will happen, but I’m reasonably sure it will happen (eventually) due to market forces with or without govt. intervention.
The question is: how important is it that we hasten the arrival of this moment by artificially jacking up the cost of oil in order to move the market to alternate energy sources.
Claude // Jun 25, 2010 at 6:01 pm
One reason our country is so dependent on fossil fuels is that the federal government badly overreacted to Three Mile Island 30 years ago, adopting regulations that effectively prevented the building of any new nuclear plants. So no one should depict BP’s spill as a great victory for government over deregulation.
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 6:05 pm
The problem is Buddy, that by the time it’s running out and gas is becoming too expensive it’s already too late to cure the problem.
If we allow the situation to get to that stage before we act then we face anarchy in energy supply and demand. It takes so long to design and build nuclear power stations that you have to start NOW in order to give enough electricity to power cars when the price rockets. And nuclear is the only real way to go. Wind and Solar will help but will never supply the bulk of demand.
There are still huge amounts of coal in the ground to tide us over till the nuclear plants come on line.
We need forward thinking and planning not sticking plasters.
sdspringy // Jun 25, 2010 at 6:20 pm
We can all agree that a “Back to the Future” cold fusion engine, where a banana peel, Coke can and a dirty diaper gets you 250 miles would be fantastic.
But that is all it is now, movie magic.
Combustion, for personnal transportation and energy production, will not diminish by making it more expensive in the near term.
Increasing the cost of transportation and energy to every American household to spur some mythical evolution in energy is in itself fantasy.
You would be foolish to assume that no one is currently working feverishly to discover alternate methods of producing energy. Depriving American of income would not cause this to occur any sooner.
You would also be foolish to assume that money raised via a cap & tax, Carbon tax, would some how flow to developing science for producing energy. It would instead be used to feather nests and pockets of the politicians who would dole out carbon credits to be traded for cash on a new and inventive carbon market
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 6:24 pm
sdspingy I agree with 99% of your post which is of itself a miracle.
easton // Jun 25, 2010 at 6:50 pm
The problem of getting off oil are two-fold: actually three fold, OPEC always ramps up production to make sure oil costs stay below alternative energy.
“I really don’t know why we just don’t buy an off the shelf nuke plant plan from the French, yes I said the French. They have a terrific track record in nuclear plants.” I agree the French are great, but so is Westinghouse. They are building a bunch of reactors for the Chinese. The problem is not our industry, it is our every NIMBY person out there.
Beyond this, we have other options, like the solid oxide fuel cell like those made by Bloom energy or Proton exchange membrane fuel cells, also known as polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells (PEMFC), are a type of fuel cell being developed for transport applications as well as for stationary fuel cell applications and portable fuel cell applications.
1stworld // Jun 25, 2010 at 7:52 pm
It’s not about the G-O-P, O-B-A-M-A, O-I-L or slogan comebacks; rather the need for intelligent leadership, true statesmen (-women), and the vision to protect resources for the coming generations. Let’s get real! This past year, China purchased one of Canada’s largest oil companies and Palin’s trans-continental pipeline deal went to TransCanada. Didn’t a former TransCanada executive serve as an outside consultant to the Chinese? How’s that for national security? My concern is the rush for the gulf’s oil leases and their potential to be sold to other nations is just like flipping real estate. The Chinese government is environmentally dirty. Remember what it took for them to clean up for the Olympics? Does the sludge removal efforts from their bays and a temporary moratorium on automobiles sound familiar? I don’t want to compete with a 2nd or 3rd World nation or on China’s terms. I want to see 1st World technological competition with the U.S. setting the pace. Booms go bust… look at the our markets and our dying gulf. The Tea Partiers are not revolutionaries. To threaten the status-quo with revolution, all Americans need to do is turn off the televisions, read and think. Now that’s power… baby!
anniemargret // Jun 25, 2010 at 9:03 pm
To terryf98, diomedes, and buddyglass:
Thanks for the reasoned input, very well articulated. Yes, the extremists on both sides of the aisle, along with the powerful oil lobby would rather we stay imprisoned by oil as our main energy source.
Question: what about artificially jacking up gasoline prices? To force the hand, so to speak. Human nature being what it is, we tend to wait until our backs are against the wall before we collectively believe something should be done. Unless and until John and Susie Q citizen understands that this situation is not just an efficiency problem for the U.S., but a national security problem as well, will Americans rise up and demand a change in direction. Or….
When the next war occurs – perhaps when the draft is reinstated and everyone’s child is off to war to fight for rights to oil, then we will wake up. Only till then, I’m afraid.
Then again too….a pact and mindset to get us off oil would require full cooperation from both political parties to galvanize Americans. I must be dreaming.
anniemargret // Jun 25, 2010 at 9:07 pm
What about T. Boone Pickens plan? Any good?
buddyglass // Jun 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm
@TerryF98:
“The problem is Buddy, that by the time it’s running out and gas is becoming too expensive it’s already too late to cure the problem.”
Wait, which problem are we talking about? If we’re talking about anthropogenic global warming, then yeah, maybe allowing market dynamics to dictate our shift to non-fossil-fuel energy sources is a bad idea.
But if you’re just talking about the general transition off fossil fuels then I wouldn’t be too concerned. Unless nuclear hell breaks loose in the middle east, prices will rise gradually as we’re forced to extract from less and less convenient sources. As this happens the value proposition of alternate energy sources will become more attractive, as will speculative research efforts designed to refine these technologies.
“If we allow the situation to get to that stage before we act then we face anarchy in energy supply and demand.”
I’m still not convinced this wouldn’t play out gradually in the absence of govt. intervention. As people gradually shift from gasoline to non-gas cars, our electrical production capacity will be built out to support the additional demand.
I can’t help thinking that, at least in certain geographies, solar will play a bigger part than people think. Not large scale solar power stations, but small cells installed at peoples’ houses. As the cost of electricity starts to go up, it becomes that much more attractive to mount some solar cells on my roof.
JonF // Jun 25, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Re: But if you’re just talking about the general transition off fossil fuels then I wouldn’t be too concerned.
A too-little-known fact to support your point: American demand for oil has been falling since 2005 . Note that that is pre-recession, but just about the time gas prices started climbing.
Another fact that some people seem unclear on: very little electricity is generated by burning oil in this country (around 2%-4% I think).
TerryF98 // Jun 25, 2010 at 10:00 pm
I am still not sure Buddy.
Take the current position with minerals. China is buying into countries with heavy mineral deposits right now as they anticipate shortages later.
As supplies of oil dwindle and start to actually effect production. What I mean is exploration and current well volume is not sufficient to continue the growth in demand. Don’t forget America is now the prime consumer of Oil. In ten years India and China will demand more and more oil as their citizens become wealthier and purchase more vehicles.
So the future worldwide demand which is currently driven in large part by us will expand not contract.
I see a point in the not too distant future when OPEC decides it’s time to start rationing because they have reached that threshold of demand finally outstripping supply. If we wait till then it really is too late as it will become a bidding war for the remaining oil and if we are still in our present position of owing the Chinese a great deal of money then who is in the driving seat!
I agree it’s possible that things will taper gradually, however my experience tells me that when a valuable commodity becomes scarcer then either the prices rises significantly or instability can be caused.
The nation which fully embraces an early drive to energy independence and does not just talk about it will own the future. I just hope it’s us.
Can I just say I have enjoyed this thread. I want to thank David Jenkins for such a well written and superbly thought through piece. I think it’s probably the best thing to appear on this forum since it’s inception. I notice too that the quality of the discussion has been of an equally high standard. I think the two are interlinked. The lack of partisanship within the thread I believe is also a mark of the quality of the piece.
buddyglass // Jun 26, 2010 at 12:37 am
Below are some numbers on various things. Maybe this is more worrisome than I imagined.
Approximate total miles driven in the U.S. yearly: 3 trillion
Approximate total electricity consumption in the U.S. yearly: 4.2 TWh
Power needed per mile for electric vehicles: 0.17 – 0.37 KWh/mile
So if we assume the same amount of miles traveled, and suppose an average efficiency of 0.25 kWh/mile, we’re looking 750 TWh to keep those vehicles charged up over the course of a year.
That’s 150X current U.S. electricity consumption. I’m thinking “more nuclear power plants” doesn’t solve this issue.
Did I goof the math somewhere or get bad stats? Those are all from google searches.
Another stat I found is that the average U.S. household uses about 11,000 KWh per year of electricity. If you suppose the average household has two cars, each of which drives 12,000 miles per year, then replacing those with electric cars would only increase their electricity usage by approximately 50%.
Rabiner // Jun 26, 2010 at 1:20 am
Buddyglass:
I commend your effort but you just produced two figures: one that is 50% more electricity required, and one that is 150 Time more electricity required. So you’re range of numbers is 50% and 150000%? Seems a bit too much of a range. Granted I’m not including business vehicles or trucks in these figures but I can’t imagine it would make of the difference in this range of two figures.
JonF // Jun 26, 2010 at 10:30 am
Re: In ten years India and China will demand more and more oil as their citizens become wealthier and purchase more vehicles.
If the price of oil does go up China and India will not be demanding more oil– oil is not perfectly inelastic in price. So either their citizens will just have to make do without automobiles (as many of them somehow manage to do right now) or they will have to leapfrog the internal combustion engine to some other tranpsortation technology.
buddyglass // Jun 26, 2010 at 11:13 am
@Rabiner:
Yeah, I know the two are vastly divergent, but I can’t figure out why. Either my math is wrong, or one or more of the underlying stats are wrong.
Rabiner // Jun 26, 2010 at 12:32 pm
JonF:
“If the price of oil does go up China and India will not be demanding more oil– oil is not perfectly inelastic in price”
While it is true that nothing is perfectly price inelastic oil is one of the most inelastic goods in the world.
rbottoms // Jun 26, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I guess Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour screwed up. After complaining the Government was not providing enough manpower it turns out they have thousands of nation guard troops sitting on their asses while at the same time whining about a lack of resources!
We already knew that if you looked up “doucebag” you’d see Haley Barbour’s bloated face, but Jindal seemed to gotten past his days as an exorcist to semi-sane governance.
Guess not.
Why not bash Obama for not stepping up to protect your people while simultaneously failing to the same. It’s a political freebie and keeps the teabagger morons happy.
CAPryde // Jun 26, 2010 at 1:22 pm
For a nice historical precedent on this issue, try consulting the Energy Information Agency records on energy prices and consumption in the period from 1975-1985. The short version is that rising prices prompt rapid increases in efficiency–we buy more efficient cars, carpool, etc.–and migrations to new technology, i.e. electric utilities replacing oil-burning plants with furnaces fired by natural gas.
When we allow the price of oil to rise enough to reflect its true cost (i.e. the environmental costs, the military cost of our activities in oil-producing regions, etc.), or when the price eventually goes up enough in response to increases in world demand and decreases in output, we will quit using it with far greater speed and far less economic dislocation than the naysayers in the GOP believe, beginning with rapid and relatively cheap increases in efficiency. The only real question is how long we have to wait for the price to reach its triggering point. As some have already pointed out, the tipping point may well be closer than many of the oil-promoters think.