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?
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 12:18 am
19 Jun 2008
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 4:34 am
19 Jun 2008
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
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 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
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
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:45 pm
19 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:58 pm
19 Jun 2008
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
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
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
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 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