Following up on this and this: The Democrats need an effective response to the drill-and-burn message coming out of the GOP. It's a fight the right thinks it's winning and Dems think they're losing.
Problem is, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; Dems get intimidated into hedging and equivocating, while the right pounds home a consistent, clear message: drill here, drill now, pay less.
First off, Dems need to remember that the public trusts them over Republicans on energy -- by 42 percent to 22 percent in a new WSJ/NBC poll -- and they aren't buying the Republican spin. Dems still have credibility and authority on this issue. Now is the time to repay the trust of the American people by telling some difficult truths. Americans are ready to be treated like adults.
The counter-message will have to be packaged with some catchy slogans, of course, but substantively it should convey four things:
- Gas prices aren't coming down.
They may fluctuate in the short-term, but over the long term they're going nowhere but up, no matter what any politician does. If a politician tells you they can lower gas prices, they're lying to you, treating you like a child. Once this basic truth sinks in, however uncomfortable it may be, we'll be on a whole new political battlefield. - Congress can offer immediate relief.
There are plenty of ways to offset the pain of higher gas prices by lowering other costs, particularly for the hardest hit -- everything from direct tax rebates to bumps in the EITC to expansions of healthcare coverage. If Republicans would allow Dems to pass a cap-and-trade system with auctioned permits, there would be revenue available to manage an equitable transition away from gas and other fossil fuels, for everyone, forever. - The way to reduce the cost of gas to American families is to help them use less gas.
This must be pitched not as something politicians do to voters, but something we, as a country, do together. The American people are already cutting back on gas consumption; let's put our heads together and figure out ways public policy can help make it easier. The House Energy Committee held a hearing on Wednesday about just this subject, where tons of great ideas were thrown around (I particularly recommend Skip Laitner's testimony) -- policies to encourage telecommuting, carpooling, and four-day work weeks; funding on-hold regional public transit projects; crusher credits for old cars; mileage-based car insurance; feebates; educational programs to encourage better auto maintenance. These are policies that can provide relief now, unlike, say, offshore drilling. - Freedom from fossil fuels means security and stability.
The general public equates the price of gas with energy prices generally, largely because it's one of the few price signals they see several times a day. Dems need to make that point that it's not just gas -- fossil fuel prices, which are almost completely outside our control, are fluctuating in the short term and rising in the long term, across the board. Our overreliance on fossil fuels is unstable, unpredictable, and unsustainable. Meanwhile, American sun, wind, tides, and heat are 100 percent domestic, free in perpetuity, predictable, and inexhaustible. While fossil fuel prices rise, renewable energy prices are falling.
That's a big mouthful, so here's how I see, say, Nancy Pelosi using this message the next time she's asked about Republicans' drilling bills:
We prefer to treat Americans like adults and tell them the truth. Gas prices, like all fossil fuel prices, are only going to keep rising, drilling or no drilling. We will offer immediate financial relief for working and middle class Americans, but most of all we must accelerate the transition to clean, reliable, domestic sources of renewable energy. With more choices -- in how we get around, how we heat and cool our homes, how we power our factories -- we free Americans from their dependence on expensive gasoline and free America from its addiction to expensive fossil fuels. That is how we rescue and revive our economy.
Or if you need something pithier: "More choices for a healthier economy."
Republicans would go ballistic. They would accuse Democrats of trying to enforce a horrific, Stalinist program of forced privation on the American people. They would keep right on lying about drilling and gas prices.
But voters are uniquely open to a new message right now. They're sick of fossil fuel anxiety, sick of being stuck on the fossil roller coaster, and in that situation, choice is an immensely appealing pitch. Dems don't need to concede the need for drilling and mining; they don't need to concede the need for more fossil supply. The green path is better for the American economy, American security, and American quality of life. It's time for Dems to get out of their defensive crouch and deliver that message from a position of strength and confidence.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Wind: still enough to save the world
Next on climate: Improve Waxman-Markey innovation provisions in Senate
Comments View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 6:22 am
28 Jul 2008
Electrify now, electrify here, pay less
We need something very clear and focused, and twisting around the drilling mantra to an electrify mantra might be one way to do it.
Drilling is, at best, a medium-term solution -- electrifying would take time, but not necessarily that much time. By electrifying I mean electric and plug-in cars, electric trains and high-speed trains, and transit. The government could pay for lots of plug-in/electric car development, if that's what it will take, which it might, could promise to buy fleets of electrics, etc., give tax breaks on buying electrics, and could certainly help out all the transit agencies that might have to cut service in the face of greater ridership.
I'm not sure how much all of the short-term ideas Dave mentions are going to do enough. They're sort of wonky, and they're scattered, allowing the "drill" perspective to dominate.
Permalink
setb Posted 7:52 am
28 Jul 2008
Oil is like an anchor
This is close David- but I think it needs to be evn more simple-- Oil is bad.
Oil is like an anchor On our economy and foriegn policy-- we need to break the chain and find real solutions.
It's time for enviro groups (and Presidential candidates) to repeat this over and over. There is a side benefit that this will force McCain to appear as the "Oil Man" connecting him even more closely to Bush.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:07 am
28 Jul 2008
But people think oil is good, setb...
...which is why I think they need to see some kind of alternative, even if it's a bit medium or long-term. I mean, they don't like oil, per se, but they link oil to cars and suburbs, which they do like, so if someone seems to be threatening cars or suburbs -- then threatening is bad.
Permalink
JMG Posted 9:24 am
28 Jul 2008
Cash for Clunkers
Outstanding op-ed in NYT today recommending a big cash-for-clunkers program --- figure out which old cars are the worst mileage and most polluting (normally one and the same) and figure out the income limits and then give people a big bonus for turning those vehicles in to be destroyed (since clunkers are the cars overwhelmingly in the hands of the poor).
A laundry list of benefits ---
* overall US fleet mileage goes up
* number of cars goes down
* worst polluting cars go away
* a boost in scrap steel supply, lowering price
* Some of those people will probably adopt transit or use the money to buy bikes
* even if they buy cars, they are replacing a polluting low-mpg junker with a much cleaner, higher-mileage car
* it puts the cash in the hands of people who are likely to spend it all, fast.
If the Dems want to stop looking like palookas in lead boots, this is a great way to go.
The 5% Project
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:51 am
28 Jul 2008
Hi JMG
Yeah, I noticed this among other things. While there is not A LOT we can do the reduce oil use immediately, there are some thing that can reduce some oil use immediately, and that is not even the cheapest.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:55 am
29 Jul 2008
Can the peak oil dragon be slayed?
DR wrote:
I thought this was excellent framing! The latest stats show demand in May down almost a million bpd. This is huge, and likely why crude is plunging. So we can keep the Oil Dragon from breathing down our necks if we can continue to reduce demand for gasoline (faster than it is rising elsewhere). And this is where good gov't policy can come in -- innovative ways to reduce oil consumption. We just need to keep excess oil on the markets!
Targets could help here, eg. supporting a 3-4% annual decline. Cities and public planners can promotr densification and build more transit. (Portland OR already has ambitous targets.) And if prices start rising again, a new federal policy could be unveiled (speed limits, etc.).
Not only that. If the dems can figure out how to do this, and keep oil prices manageable, they can make the reps "drill now" strategy impotent.
Here's the latest oil reporting from MSNBC.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 7:31 am
29 Jul 2008
Staying one step ahead of the markets...
Permit me some more speculation here...
Perhaps now that the Saudi's (the old swing producer) are essentially maxed out on oil production, the U.S. has become the swing conserver? The ball is now in our court to determine the world price of oil. (So long as we can conserve and stay ahead of world oil depletion!)
I wonder if the same reasoning could apply to the energy markets in general (given we are the world's energy hog!). If, say, the next President appointed an energy czar to direct a federal policy of the "Great Renewable Energy Transition", could we not only keep oil prices manageable, but those of natural gas and electricity. So, for example, the gov't could "direct" more conservation/efficiency/wind/solar/geothermal to come online in such a manner to keep all energy prices manageable. (They would of course want to keep the prices high enough to encourage conservation but not high enough to bankrupt ordinary people.)
I wonder if a new TVA/BPA type project (wind, solar, geothermal) would serve to moderate electricity prices as the private markets switch to renewables. Sort of as a parallel to an expanded Strategic Petroleum Reserves, though of course electricity cannot be stored for a rainy day. (You could also make a case for a Strategic Natural Gas Reserve -- I don't think we have one, or do we?)
I guess what I'm getting at is using gov't policy to act as a price buffer, as well as a market regulator/innovator.
Permalink