Read Grist's interview with Nader to find out more about his campaign.
-----
As we begin to assess the damage caused by Hurricane Ike, which forced the shutdown of this country's oil industry and sent adrift two oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, our members of Congress are poised to vote on legislation this week that would undermine a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling.
Offshore drilling is severely damaging to the environment, and dangerously vulnerable to turbulent weather and hurricanes. For 27 years, beginning under an initiative signed by Ronald Reagan, our country has managed to protect sensitive parts of our ocean coastlines from the ravages of offshore drilling -- a commendable feat considering the many pristine areas of our public lands and ecosystems that have been violated by extractive activities. After initially indicating his intent to uphold the 1981 ban on offshore drilling, Barack Obama, following the example of his Republican rival John McCain, flipped on the issue. This reversal by Obama and McCain could open the door for one of the last remaining vestiges of our country's natural beauty to be trampled upon by commercial forces.
The case against offshore drilling has been made time and time again, illustrated by the numerous incidents in which oil rigs have led to ecological destruction and severe contamination of waters. In 2001, for example, an explosion on board the world's largest oil rig helped sink it to the ocean floor off the coast of Brazil, killing 11 workers and spewing 316,000 gallons of diesel into the Atlantic. These types of spills will no doubt escalate with the increased frequency of violent hurricanes, fueled by global warming.
As for rigs that do manage to stay afloat, the Rainforest Action Network estimates that a single oil rig, in its lifetime, dumps more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean, and may drill up to 100 wells, each dumping 25,000 pounds of toxic metals including lead, chromium, and mercury.
Our country's coastal wetlands, bays, and beaches -- and the many creatures that live in them -- are not just in danger from potential big spills, but under threat from the business-as-usual streams of pollution flowing from offshore rigs. If the ban on offshore drilling were reversed, the potential for harm would soon increase significantly.
The biggest strike against offshore drilling this election year is that, contrary to what some candidates would have you believe, it will not reduce gas prices anytime soon, or at all.
If we are really serious about bringing down gas prices, we should implement long-overdue increases to fuel-efficiency requirements. The Nader/Gonzalez campaign calls for increasing the average efficiency of our gas guzzlers from about 20 miles per gallon to more than 40 mpg over the next five years. That would save us 5 million barrels of oil a day -- barrels that do not have to be produced or imported.
On offshore drilling, McCain and Obama differ in a most peculiar way. Obama acknowledges the futility of drilling to reduce gas prices but supports it anyway out of political expediency, in part as a bargaining chip if needed to get a comprehensive energy deal, and in part to take a populist arrow out of McCain's quiver. McCain, who also once opposed offshore drilling and acknowledged its futility in reducing gas prices, now chooses to ignore what most analysts say concerning offshore drilling: that because of the time it would take oil companies to secure permits, obtain and set up equipment, and conduct research required to extract oil, we won't start to receive oil shipments or feel the relief of lower gas prices for 10 years. Nor does McCain mention a widely cited report from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration that predicts peak production of offshore drilling would not be reached until 2030, and would still produce too little oil to affect world oil prices.
The House Committee on Natural Resources released a telling report in June appropriately titled "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits." In it, the committee points out that there has been a sharp increase in the number of drilling permits issued to oil companies starting in the 1990s and concludes that "there is simply no correlation" between the number of drilling permits issued and the price of gas. Moreover, the report shows that of the 91.5 million acres of federal land being leased to oil companies, nearly 68 million acres are not being worked.
Rather than exposing McCain's categorical falsehoods and misrepresentations about the issue, Obama -- who has thus far in his presidential campaign accepted more than $450,000 from executives and other employees of oil and gas companies (McCain has taken $1.6 million) -- instead chooses to ride along with the Republicans and the oil companies. By capitulating to the Republicans, as he has on other matters, he surrenders moral authority on struggles concerning the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and the environment. Obama is not only selling out our environment, but displaying political behavior that does not stand its ground.
The Kerry-Boxer bill is not “more ambitious” than Waxman-Markey
How Senate Dems should lure GOP to a climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
LGT Posted 1:31 pm
15 Sep 2008
"13 things you should know!"
http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/13-things-you-should ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:07 pm
15 Sep 2008
You don't really have much of a say in this considering you helped elect one of the most devastating politicians for the environment in American history.
You'd rather feel good about your ego, than accomplish anything.
But by all means, Good luck with that "Nader Party" getting a 2/3rd's vote in the Senate.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
jterhune Posted 3:23 pm
15 Sep 2008
Blaming and name-calling is also egotistical.
The nature of this issue will not change: drilling will not lower gas prices.
Let's keep the pressure on!
Jeremy Terhune
San Joaquin Valley Rep.
Permalink
LGT Posted 10:56 pm
15 Sep 2008
Rather like a two-pony election show, shortchanging the electorate.
And probably our last chance to vote for an independent candidate, someone who could make a difference!
1. "Time We Elected an Independent Candidate for President?"
http://rtsf.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/time-we-elected-an-i ...
2. "P2. Time We Elected an Independent Candidate for President?"
http://rtsf.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/p2-time-we-elected-a ...
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:37 am
16 Sep 2008
Nader probably did not cause Florida to go for Bush (if it actually did) in 2000.
But his presence on the ballot risks splitting off a portion of the ballots that might swing an election away from the candidate who would be more likely to aid the environment.
I can't see his running as anything but shallow-thinking egotism.
He needs to find other ways to get attention.
Permalink
smuzzy Posted 2:59 am
16 Sep 2008
Please stop using Nader as the scapegoat for your loss in 2000. In 2004 as a strategy to combat 3rd party candidates the 2 party system made it more difficult for Nader and others to get on State ballots. Which, obviously didn't work out in the democrats favor. Another option might have been that democrats could have built a campaign that included the issues and values of the unrepresented 3rd party voters. Maybe another 4 years of republican rule will convince democrats that they only have themselves to blame. one last cynical point 3rd party candidates actually represent the people where as the two party system primarily represents the special interests that financially support their campaigns. So there
Permalink
nolanp Posted 3:31 am
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
betterthannader Posted 4:14 am
16 Sep 2008
betterthannader
http://betterthannader.blogspot.com
Permalink
betterthannader Posted 4:33 am
16 Sep 2008
The Dems want to do things like continue the war, destroy the constitution with things like the PATRIOT Act and FISA and torture, deregulate/have corporate welfare/support neoliberal trade agreements, and on an on--they want to do these things and keep betraying the American people (on issues conservatives and liberals agree on) and then put all the blame on the one guy who's actually trying to stand up against it. The crazy thing is a lot of people are falling for it.
betterthannader
http://betterthannader.blogspot.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:51 am
16 Sep 2008
Betterthannader,
"how 'devastating' the Bush Administration has been able to be has more to do with the complicity of the Dems than anything."
More than anything? The Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress, the executive branch, and most of the federal judiciary from 2000-2006. So what exactly do you mean?
grist.org
Permalink
nolanp Posted 12:17 pm
16 Sep 2008
I know it is hard to believe, but yeah it's true. Overall, the Clinton administration sold us out big time to corporate interests. I mean, Hillary was on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors for crying out loud!!! Harvard is really nothing more than a factory for corporate laywers.
Permalink
wreckenhavoc Posted 4:25 pm
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
racc Posted 8:39 pm
16 Sep 2008
Permalink
manzanita24 Posted 10:26 pm
16 Sep 2008
For me, it seems clear that our country needs another political party. One that is committed to social and environmental justice. Obama seems great, as far as he goes. But will gettin him elected change much? I really doubt it. Both the Donkeys and the Elephants represent the status quo structure of power. For social and environmental change to happen, we need a different economic structure. The Haves, whether Donkey or Elephant, benefit immensely from our current economic structure. The Donkey/Elephant candidates need the Haves' money in order to get elected. The Haves get their money from the current structure. A merry-go-round, if you will...that brings us closer and closer to environmental collapse.
We need a whole different approach--wholly outside the current paradigm.
Nader represents such an approach.
It takes time to change structures of power. Voting over and over for a Donkey or Elephant, hoping for different results, well...perhaps that's one of the definitions of insanity.
I vote over and over for Nader because I believe we need a deep, fundamental restructuring of our economic structure. Voting for Nader shows that. Besides, if the bad guys have rigged the voting machines,all the more reason.
my .02
Permalink
Russ Posted 12:00 am
17 Sep 2008
But he didn't want to do all that drudge work, and have that much patience for that many years, so he just started going off on these quixotic "campaigns" based only on personal charisma and reputation. These have just been ego-trips.
Permalink
smuzzy Posted 1:32 am
17 Sep 2008
And to be clear, the candidates that we hear from so often, and see on TV, and read about in newpapers, and magazines, and listen to on the radio do not have ego's?
Seems a bit reductionist
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:37 am
17 Sep 2008
Ralph Nader has the unfortunate tendancy to be right which annoys the stupid. This Washington Post article explains how stupid people actually get stupider when confronted with the truth which contradicts their previously established world view.
If Nader was serious about the environment he would be promising that solar power was going to provide free power for giant cars. It doesn't matter that it's a lie. The people you have to convince prefer lies.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
notdeadyetagain Posted 8:58 am
07 Nov 2008
Question all authority, especially your own.
Permalink
notdeadyetagain Posted 9:02 am
07 Nov 2008
Question all authority, especially your own.
Permalink