If the pro-environment Republican wasn't already dead, I think this week killed him. John McCain, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, President Bush, and many others threw overboard one of the last policy planks Republicans (at least in coastal states) used to show that they're pro-environment too by calling for a massive offshore drilling program.
As chronicled in this excellent article by Politico's Charles Mathesian and David Mark, it's a politically risky move for Republicans: although national polls show some support for more oil drilling, there's also zealous support for keeping coasts and beaches clean in many coastal states. What's Florida Republican senator Mel Martinez to do, for instance, during his next election campaign after gas price anxiety fades (most likely) and his opponent can waive around this quote to cast doubt not only on his green cred, but also his general trustworthiness and strong leadership:
"I'm trying to clarify my position," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). "In Florida today most voters probably want more drilling."
Meanwhile, although the Democratic leadership is expressing opposition to the Bush-McCain drilling plan, they're not exactly showing a lot of rhetorical backbone on it: Afraid to make the argument against offshore drilling on environmental grounds, they're instead going for the "We're for oil drilling too, but just not as much as Republicans" argument that has built them such a loyal and enthusiastic skeptical and tepid following among environmentalists.
In response to the Republican plan, House Democratic Caucus leader Rahm Emanuel proposed to increase fuel efficiency expand drilling on federal land. The idea is to fine Big Oil if they don't produce oil from leases that they already own. This is supposed to call attention to the fact that the oil industry is only producing oil from 20-30 percent of federal oil leases it currently owns and cast doubt on the prospect that selling more leases will actually increase offshore drilling.
Here's the main problem: This Democratic proposal buys into the false notion that expanded oil drilling will bring down prices in any significant way. It's buying into the Republican frame and it's hurting the Democrats' chances at stopping this proposal.
Instead, Democrats and environmentalists should do what they've always done to beat back oil drilling proposals and make them the third rail of coastal politics: Talk about the threat of oil spills -- and show pictures and video.
Talk about last December's spill of 2.7 million gallons of crude in Korea, which fouled 50 miles of coastline and ruined a significant portion of that country's sustainable aquaculture industry:
Or the spill last November in the San Francisco Bay that killed wildlife 15 miles away:
Talk about how the extensive oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Gulf Coast not only made it more vulnerable to hurricanes, but also caused 6.5 million gallons of crude to spill -- creating the massive pool of toxic sludge that inundated the city of New Orleans.
Is that what Carolinians, Floridians, Georgians, and Virginians want next time a hurricane strikes?
Energy industry sways Congress with misleading data
Not all green jobs are created equal
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 12:18 am
19 Jun 2008
It is a matter of convincing the masses.
Video can do that since most Americans spend most of their free time sitting in front of video monitors. Politicians will dance a jig wearing clown shoes if they perceive that will keep them in office.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:55 am
19 Jun 2008
Compromise
This is another area that calls for compromise. For instance, democrats could insist that if drilling resumes it go forth under the scrutiny of environmental groups and real government regulation.
And the big issue our side has to win, in return for drilling offshore, repeal the Enron loophole, that doubles the price of gas to consumers.
The enron loophole video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdRbuUQNcxw
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
setb Posted 1:04 am
19 Jun 2008
Take it local
From a policy perspective, I think we should reinforce this meme by fighting for incredibly high fines for any oil spill and increased spill standards.
That said, I fear that once oil hit 250 or 300 ANWR, and the rest, will be lost.
Permalink
justlou Posted 2:27 am
19 Jun 2008
Last Resort
When the US fleet averages over 50 mpg, and there are half the number of automobiles on the road in the US as there are now, then we can possibly discuss burning the last of it. Or we could leave it for future generations. But we probably won't since the current generation always must live like it is the last generation on earth and that we must have it to burn in 15 mpg SUVs (which sadly served ailing corporations but now represent a huge drag on the economy).
We can shape the machine or be shaped by the machine. We can live as a democracy as if people and the environment mattered or we can live as a technocracy and let the machine decide our fate.
If the oil were to be used to help us build a sustainable system that did not run on oil that would be a powerful argument to use it. But if it is being tapped to merely temporarily power an inherently unsustainable system then that is a very sad and tragically fateful use for it. When it is gone, then what?
The democrats must fight myopically insane policy with long range vision and be able to distinguish the difference between balanced policy and poll rape. Caving in to feed the endlessly growing demand side of the equation only feeds the Cheneyesk dead enders. If democrats want to repeat their sad chapter of running scared on the vote to give GW the green light on invading Iraq then they will bend over on drilling.
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:41 am
19 Jun 2008
In other words
Not to put too fine a point on it but you are proposing to lie to the American public in order to make your point.
The San Fransico fuel oil spill had nothing to do with oil production. Rather a container ship, the COSCO Busan collided with the Oakland Bay Bridge resulting in a release of some of its fuel.
The Korean accident (3 times less volume than the Valdez) resulted from a barge crane coming loose from its anchorage and colliding with a crude tanker. The captain of the barge crane ignored repeated warnings that he was moored too close to other traffic. The problem there wasn't the crude tanker it was lax enforcement of maritime rules in Korea. Not applicable here.
Besides, OCS crude production is transported by PIPELINE not tanker, so your scare tactics are laughable. In fact the industry could use your argument FOR more domestic oil exploration.
More domestic prodcution means more pipeline barrels, and LESS chance of oil spills as domestic production replaces crude that arrives from other countries on foreign tankers.
The same argument for drilling in the 1002 area. More domestic crude sailing fewer miles reduces the chances of accidents and is better for the planet. US fleets have higher standards and better safety records than ships with flags of convenience. Drill in the 1002 - save the planet!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:00 am
19 Jun 2008
'Burning the last' of 1/3rd quadrillion barrels
Justlou wrote: When the US fleet averages over 50 mpg, and there are half the number of automobiles on the road in the US as there are now, then we can possibly discuss burning the last of it.
With over a third of a quadrillion barrels of oil -- over ten thousand years' worth -- in the earth's crust, how could one burn the last of it anytime soon?
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:16 am
19 Jun 2008
Semantics, Nucbuddy
The "last of it" was not essential the main points of my arguments. But, there will be a time, sooner than most realize, when the last easily exploitable and relatively cheap reserves are gone. At that stage, while we remain heavily dependent on oil, we will be much poorer for having burned so much of it, with so little to show for it. And at that point, won't there be a much more valuable use of it than burning it?
If we do not use the descent of oil as a step to the ascent of sustainable technology and renewable energy then the descent of oil will spell our descent. The descending track is represented by this election year rant about drilling.
Ten thousand years worth? LMAO!
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 3:44 am
19 Jun 2008
Actually, tankers do transport oil from rigs
While some offshore rigs do use pipelines (which are also subject to oil spills), a huge number use tankers or Floating Storage and Offloading Units (actually converted single-hull tankers). If you doubt me, maybe you should check out the Minerals Management Service Kids Page, "Stacey Visits an Offshore Oil Rig": http://www.mms.gov/mmskids/explore/explore.htm
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 4:34 am
19 Jun 2008
Rasmussen on this subject
Martinez is a Republican politician, but he might be right in his assessment of Florida voters, if the latest Rasmussen poll is any guide.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/e ...
However, if you drill down (sorry) into the approval numbers a little, you'll see that the approval reflects a perception that drilling will have an appreciable effect on prices. This isn't true, and oil companies now aren't hurrying to drill the leases they already have. (From their perspective, what's the rush?) In the same way that the gas tax holiday at first sounded like a good idea, but proved to be basically oilco fluff, the "drill now" campaign could be dissipated with the facts...if those opposed to such drilling are able to get them in front of the public.
Permalink
Dickard Posted 6:59 am
19 Jun 2008
Wow...
I agree with Kit. The better rebuttal is the economic one: Offshore drilling is a ruse.
It's not that the enviro argument isn't compelling; it's that it's dangerous. It's susceptible to the "we'll take the risk" or the "it's worth it" rebuttals. Oil spills are compelling to environmentalists but that choir is already singing. The "average" American values environmentalism but is willing to risk the 15 mile oil-slick if it means cheaper gas.
If you want to truly win this argument you need to push on the economic aspects: show that the gas companies aren't using the land they already have, show that they receive sweetheart leases from the Government, show that any benefits from offshore drilling will be incremental and long-term.
Drilling our way to cheaper gas is an easily refutable red-herring that needs to be met head on. The magical oil-pony isn't going to be found offshore (or onshore), so the only solution are alternative fuels.
The Punk
ImperfectUnion.com.
Permalink
mcbrim1998 Posted 1:03 pm
19 Jun 2008
Senator Martinez
We Floridians WANT drilling everywhere in the Gulf and even the Everglades. Every barrel of oil we get from our own reserves is one less barrel we get from OPEC.
Senator Martinez will be voted out of office next cycle, so it doesn't matter now that he is changing his mind. He should have been a leader on this energy crisis issue, but he was not.
Drill Florida. Drill Atlantic and Pacific and Drill ANWR.
Global warming is a farce and only those most ignorant in society are green.
Kindest Regards
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:11 pm
19 Jun 2008
Hey thanks for the link
FPSOs are NOT tankers. FPSOs are permanently moored to one spot and just swivel around with the wind and waves. Other than Alaska, no crude oil in the OCS is transported by tankers.
That Stacey is pretty lucky that she got to go out onto an offshore rig. My dad was in insurance - boring. I had to wait until I was 30 to go out on my first rig.
Another practice which could be reduced by more domestic production is lightering. Ultra large crude carriers (2 million barrels or more) are too big to dock onshore. So smaller tankers come several hundred miles out and pull alongside and fill up. This manuever is completely safe, but there is always the chance of an accident.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:19 pm
19 Jun 2008
No Compromise In Defense Of Mother Earth!
Come on Amazing, the Earth has already been so compromised there's almost nothing left. Justlou offered a reasonable compromise, though it should be a lot less than half the vehicles. If I'm the environmentalist who oversees drilling in your plan, all drilling except by hand would end!
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:45 pm
19 Jun 2008
Yeah, there's nothing left.......
Right. I guess all these trees and this tropical jungle I am observing out my window are an illusion. The Mekong river flowing by with huge fish in it (which I have seen caught) isn't really there at all. There's no water, there's no wildlife....... except of course for the snake that almost bit me three days ago. Yep, the earths been destroyed. We're aren't actually living here at all........
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:58 pm
19 Jun 2008
Agreed Wolf
I think it's idiotic to drill offshore. But if they are going to, we have to get something in the deal.
Another point we could make when the inevitable spills occur, and the emergency equipment is not in place to catch it, is to ask people what they would rather see offshore. Wind power platforms or oil drilling platforms.
As with nukes, "clean" coal, and fuel farming, the lobbying, media hype, and political ignorance are most likely going to force offshore drilling.
Nuclear power seems to be dying of capital starvation. Fuel farming might be killed by the food shortage coming soon, due to the flooding. "Clean" coal still has legs. Ethanol will try to go cellulosic.
I think throwing a modest amount of dollars in R and D to make these go away politically is a good idea. New experimental safer offshore rigs, nuclear reactors, cellulosic ethanol plants, and CCS coal plants.
Demand oversight and performance, push the results out a decade or so to give renewables and conservation a chance to pull well ahead from mass production with subsidy diversion.
We could even insist that before the old technology gets R and D money, industry has to give up it's subsidies to fund renewables/conservation and the R and D.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:28 am
20 Jun 2008
Meanwhile,
there are always going to be some on the right who do not think oil drilling is at all dangerous or destructive. Note that oil company ad which runs after the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, claiming that oil drilling is done cleanly and "respectfully." Dick Cheney has for a long time been emphasizing that new techniques in oil drilling require only a very small footprint. And earlier this week, Mary Matalin was talking with Wolf Blitzer, and told him she had been to Alaska a few months ago to see how oil was drilled on the North Slope, and insisted that their operations were "cleaner than my kitchen."
So, there is a formidable array of pro-oil-drilling advocates who are already at work denying that oil spills are a problem.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:44 am
20 Jun 2008
If you can figure out how to get oil
without drilling for it, you need to market that puppy. But right now, and certainly at least for the next 20 years, oil is going to be a critical resource in the global economy. No matter how much environmentalist want it to go away, it ain't happening over night.
This isn't a question (as foolishly suggested) of investing in renewables or oil extraction. This is a question of investing in renewables AND oil extraction. Cause it has to happen.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:35 am
20 Jun 2008
Almost Nothing Left
Mad Mac,
Only 5% of the native forests and other natural ecosystems of the Earth are left intact, every bit of land, air, and water is contaminated with unnatural human pollutants, humans and their infrastructure -- including farming -- are everywhere, and we're in the sixth great extinction. Just because you happen to live in the 5% of what's left intact doesn't mean that everything's OK, as you anti-environmentalists like to claim.
And with your extreme lack of knowledge of biology or ecology, I can't even trust that the trees you see are not just that as opposed to an intact forest (i.e., trees per se don't make a forest, and a tree farm is certainly not one). But even if what you see is an intact forest, it's now rare, not the rule.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 6:11 am
20 Jun 2008
I'm not the only one
right? The reports from EIA and others that say drilling now won't effect oil or gas prices now. Did anyone notice that Mccain quoted 21 billion barrels in his speech, and the next day Bush quoted 18 billion barrels in his speech? That hopefully, by the time the oil does hit the market (10-15 years) the price should have dropped considerably due to alternative energy use and conservation, making the cost of drilling it now and selling it then unprofitable unless they sell futures and pass the bad luck to someone else? Wonder if the insane rise of oil/gas prices, spurring insane oil company profits, and ethanol/weather related global food crisis, and the massive last minute ditch effort to re-open protected areas for oil drilling happening at what most presume is the end of the oil friendly republican white house era is a coincidence?
I am just not convinced this isn't a huge 'gotcha! by the admin as they head out the door. All in all, it feels to me like the entire run has been one 'Let's see if they'll buy it!' routine after another with this the final cherry on top.
Permalink