This article by the AP's Tina Lam is generally awful in terms of contrasting the candidates on energy. There is exactly one paragraph about what Obama is for, and the rest is a recitation of McCain proposals Obama has opposed. It's designed, on purpose or by tacit acceptance of right-wing conventional wisdom, to make Obama look like the guy who opposes everything and McCain look like the guy with ideas (as if drilling for oil is a brilliant new policy proposal). It also gives McCain an absurdly free ride on his weak cap-and-trade system, which he may or may not actually plan to implement.
But a thought struck me as I was reading this:
Environmental issues cover a broad spectrum, from global warming to protecting the Great Lakes. In most national voter polls, those issues have been low on the scale throughout the campaign. The economy and the war in Iraq had been the top concerns. But as oil prices hit $4 per gallon this summer, before its recent retreat, attention from the public and the campaigns shifted to focus on oil and energy. [Note: why "oil and energy"? Why not "solar power and energy"? It's only Republicans who want this to be purely about oil.]
In a Quinnipiac University poll July 14-22, voters in four key swing states including Michigan said energy policy was now more important to them than the war. Voters in each state said they support offshore drilling and drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but they're even more supportive of developing more renewable energy, such as solar and wind power and biofuels.
A confident movement would view this as an historic opportunity. All eyes are focused on their issue! Public attention could be the catapult that pushes good energy policy forward.
Yet somehow -- in part thanks to lazy reporting like Lam's -- this has become about being for or against drilling for oil. Surreal.
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 4:40 am
12 Aug 2008
I'm not disagreeing with you per se - just flagging that there is a politically rational reason to conflate oil policy and energy policy, even if it doesn't actually make any other logical sense.
And yes, I'm still waiting for a politician to remind us that we need to think bigger...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:32 am
12 Aug 2008
However, DR is correct that this still is a great opportunity to bring up real issues. What about encouraging electric cars? public transit? high-speed rail? And then add electricity costs, which are also shooting through the roof as Sean points out, then use that to push for solar/wind as a way to decrease the price of electricity.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 7:55 am
12 Aug 2008
One problem with pushing solar/wind (or new Nuclear -or even coal for that matter), is that practically any new generation will be more expensive than what it replaces. This is largely a function of Malthusian market forces applied to commodities (including steel, concrete, copper etc.). The best way to constrain future price rises is conservation. But this is still presumed to be a radioactive word, so it is rarely used by those seeking elective office. And it is clear that even with the best energy policy, energy will be getting more expensive during the near and midterm, so any programs that are conflated with a promise of price reductions can be painted as failures.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:15 am
12 Aug 2008
Since frankly a large problem with understanding Framing, is understanding a clear grasp of what Frame actually means.
Only other simple way I could think to describe it is "Spin" or "Angle".
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:19 am
12 Aug 2008
Since I associate Conservation with Behavioral Demand Destruction.
Where as I associate Efficiency with Technological Demand Destruction.
_
And frankly, I'm not a big fan of Behavioral Demand Destruction.
People are lazy, disengaged, and uninformed.
It's far easier to change equipment than it is to change behavior. Especially when it's so culturally ingrained.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:04 am
13 Aug 2008
Permalink