New York governor George Pataki (R) is delusional if he thinks he's going to win the Republican nomination for president. McCain might have a teeny tiny eensy beensy sliver of a chance. Giuliani, even eensier. But Pataki, no. The very things he's done to appeal to moderates in his home state will damn him irredeemably in the eyes of today's Republican base.
That said, he does seem set to run, and as peakguy on Oil Drum NYC says, his final State of the State speech may well be setting up one of the central planks of his strategy: independence from "foreign oil."
Not just here in New York, but across the nation, our reliance on foreign oil is hampering the financial freedom of our working families and their employers; it is hurting our economy, damaging our environment and enriching regimes that support, harbor and encourage the terrorists who threaten our national security.
You'll be hearing this kind of stuff from members of both parties. It will be pitched to sound tough on national security and bullish on the economy. Environmental messages will be muted at best.
I must say I'm skeptical about the electoral efficacy of energy independence, at least at present. While it is carefully calibrated to appeal across a number of demographics, I don't think anybody but environmentalists really feel fired up about it. Like most environmental issues, its appeal is broad but shallow.
We've had high gas prices this year, and that put oil on everybody's radar. And of course there's, you know, the Iraq war, which according to a new study may run this country up to $2 trillion. But most folks still don't connect that to oil.
Most people have not have their lives directly affected by our dependence on oil -- at least in ways they perceive as such. Most people are still living their comfortable, driving, suburban, middle-class lives just fine. It will take a huge, sustained price spike, I think, before "energy independence" gets any real traction as a campaign slogan.
Comments
View as Flat
Emily Gertz Posted 1:10 am
06 Jan 2006
Not affected?
Nearly everyone I know -- including a few suburban relatives -- are talking about the increased costs of their heating bills.
Here in NYC, like many other homeowners, I live in a co-op -- a housing corporation that owns the building in which I bought my apartment. My maintenance charge -- the monthly amount I pay to the co-op to cover my heat (the majority of city co-ops have either oil- or gas-powered boilers, I would guess), as well as many repairs, taxes, garbage service, etc. -- just went up 7 percent. That's the second such raise in just over a year, and while it doesn't sound like much, folks elsewhere are invited to imagine their rent or mortgage payment going up about $50 to get an idea of what it means.
My parent's maintenance just went up *35 percent ***.
If this is at all indicative of what's happening elsewhere, people are certainly being affected by our dependence on oil. My question is why politically and media savvy enviros -- and politicians who espouse environmental causes -- can't connect this very real, in the pocket impact to larger national policy issues in the minds of American voters.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:53 am
06 Jan 2006
I don't know...
"Vote for me and I will end our dependence on forein oil, making us safe from terorrists!"
God fearing red state folk put Bush in office twice and this kind of simplistic pap is just what pushes their buttons.
Now, solar and wind power can supplement our electrical grid, but they cannot supplement our liquid fuel supply. Our electricity is produced with domestic coal and nuclear, not oil. So, they really have no potential to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
That leaves only three options. One: convince Americans to drive less. Two: convince Americans to stop driving pickup trucks and SUVs. The only way to accomplish those things is to raise the price of gas to the point that it forces the issue. This of course is the last thing most Americans (including those heating their homes with oil) want to see. I really can't envision any politician getting elected using this strategy.
Option three: Tell the ignorant masses that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own clean, renewable fuel right here in America. Although this is largely untrue, it sounds very appealing and this hand is already being played every single day in the press as demonstrated in this MSNBC article picked up from Grist today. I have to say that I'm glad to see Grist getting such media attention, although that particular article makes no mention of the destruction being wrought on the Amazon to grow these fuels. You would think that since deforestation is the number two cause of global warming it would be higher on environmentalist's list of priorities than biofuels, but the lay press appears to be very reluctant to print anything of that nature and word is slow to get out. Lord knows I have tried.
Environmental concerns over the growing of biofuels aside, we cannot make a dent in our dependence on foreign fossil fuel imports with biofuels (I calculate less than 1%, our federal government estimates 5%, biofuel enthusiasts dream of 33%). Even with massive government farm subsidies and tax breaks coming from our pockets, the cost of liquid fuels are not going down.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:53 am
06 Jan 2006
BioD,
What about cars powered entirely, or primarily, by electricity? You don't think that's a realistic option?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:00 am
06 Jan 2006
Ah... good point
So, in that sense, wind and solar would help a great deal. Not the first time I have directly contradicted myself, won't be the last. Coincidentally, there is an article on a prototype recip front wheel drive/electric rear wheel drive car over on treehugger today.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:09 pm
06 Jan 2006
Emphasis On "Foreign"
I don't support anyone who talks about independence from foreign oil, because this could merely be a ruse to further destroy the environment in this country by more drilling here. What we need is independence from oil, foreign and domestic.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:49 pm
06 Jan 2006
Exactly jd.
Independence from combustion or nuclear reaction.
Except that safe nuclear reaction, 93 million miles away in the sun.
Electric cars powered by the solar panels on ones roof and the wind generator in ones backyard. Right arm dave!
Permalink
jda Posted 3:36 am
09 Jan 2006
Conservation buying is the only way to go
If you want oil independence, you have to reduce your own total fuel footprint.
Its easy to say that someone else whoud stop driving their pickup or SUV. But fuel for personal drivers really isn't that big of a consumer in the grand scheme of things.
We need to use less fuel producing and shipping the things that we buy. Do I really need to buy peppers grown in South America in January? How much fuel goes into packaging that I throw out every day?
Do you buy new, when you can buy a perfectly good (and often better) used product to save on the manufacturing and shipping energy?
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:31 pm
09 Jan 2006
Not Mutually Exclusive
Jda, you're right that those things waste a lot of fuel, but driving does, too. I don' just advocate that people give up gas guzzlers, but that they arrange their lives so that they don't drive much or at all. Suburbs should be bulldozed. Either live in cities, from which private motor vehicles should be banished, or in the country without a motor vehicle. (Hey, I can dream!)
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink