I'm not sure what's more astonishing, the current political drama around energy or the utter and complete failure of the media to portray it accurately.
Let's recall what's happened over this past session. Congress had some 13 chances to support renewable energy, as bill after bill was put forward by Democrats. Republicans blocked them all.
Now Republicans have gotten the idea in their head that drilling for oil in protected areas in the U.S. is a political winner, so they are camping out in D.C., throwing a hissy fit, demanding that Pelosi bring Congress back into session and allow them and up-or-down vote on drilling.
They are packaging this fiasco as an "all of the above" energy strategy -- as in, they support renewables and efficiency, but they also want drilling. Sounds so reasonable, right?
So a group of 10 legislators, five from each party, has put together a compromise bill, which would do exactly what they Republicans say they want: it would open up protected areas to drilling, while also boosting efficiency and renewables.
Obama and Pelosi have both signaled in the last week that they would be willing to support the bill. They will give a little ground on drilling, which they don't favor, in order to put in place measures that support renewables, which they do favor. For their efforts, the media has now said they've "flip-flopped" on drilling.
Meanwhile, McCain has refused to support the compromise. House Republicans have refused to support the compromise. Rush Limbaugh and his band of dittoheads are going absolutely ballistic on the compromise, flooding the legislators responsible with angry phone calls and claiming that it's going to sink McCain's presidential campaign.
To summarize: Democratic leaders have signaled that they are willing to meet Republicans halfway in order to pass a comprehensive energy policy. Republicans have refused, demanding a vote that would do nothing but serve the interests of their oil company donors.
In other words, Republicans are avoiding anything that might move legislation forward, quite deliberately. They see this as a political winner and they don't want it to get resolved.
Those are the facts -- all publicly available. Now go out and read a few stories about this in national newspapers. Watch a little cable news. Is this what you hear? Is this what the public's being told?
No. Republicans are being rewarded for their foot-stomping intransigence by having their "all of the above" line passed along uncritically. Democrats are being rewarded for their willingness to compromise by being tagged "flip-floppers." Sometimes I wonder how Nancy Pelosi avoids pulling her hair out.
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Comments
View as Flat
carfree Posted 9:05 am
13 Aug 2008
Exxon and Chevron get access to our OCS and public lands, we get nothing.
"While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN032564092008070 ...
Permalink
ML Posted 12:40 pm
13 Aug 2008
Americans need to know that getting off of fossil fuels is the only true solution to our energy problems. This "compromise" just plays into GOP talking points.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:47 pm
13 Aug 2008
There's no way that any drilling is going to happen for many, many years. The equipment just isn't available. Additionally there is going to be a lot of resistance in most coastal states and judicial delays in the others.
By then we (hopefully) will have viable, affordable electric cars, significant installed wind generation, and much less expensive solar generation. The shift away from petroleum should be well underway before the first big spill created.
Add to that the increasing public realization that global climate change is something that must be taken seriously. How many people are likely to go out and buy a gas burning car when they can get a better performing electric for the same money and save significantly each time they 'tank up'?
Let the Regressives have their off-shore drilling rights. See if the market agrees with them.
I'm betting that zero new rigs will appear.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 pm
13 Aug 2008
That maybe working. But I think he should now go radical and fight back directly. Straight talk the former straight talker.
Tell the truth, increasing supply is a dead end, only reducing demand will solve the problem. Propose voluntary, patriotic oil use reduction targets of 1 1/4% per quarter, along with programs that will help meet those reductions.
Develop an emergency oil rationing plan in case of a catastrophic short supply becuae of war or natural disaster, coupled with petroleum reserve supply.
If quarterly targets are missed, institute milder rationing to get the reduction plan back on track. Call for personal sacrifice similar to those made by the generations that won WW2.
It's a radical way to fight back. Just right for Obama. FDR did it, talked to the people and got the necessary sacrifice for national survival. It's a good time to do that again.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 3:05 pm
13 Aug 2008
Compromises with people who are trying not to succeed can only be counter productive.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:58 pm
13 Aug 2008
How much better would targeted reduction, that keeps ahead of supply restriction, coupled with emergency rationing be at eliminating that oil price shock risk to our economy?
It would mean a whole new economic boom based on stability of energy prices and a reduction of inflation. Our currency would gain strength immediately, and that would lower prices signifigantly.
In a world of state owned oil companies and OPEC price fixing and corrupt insider trading, how could a market based approach to hedging risk, that depends on real free market (a free market that doesn't exist) efficiency, be effective? It doesn't work. As we all can see.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:06 pm
13 Aug 2008
Is there a more perfect description of the achievements of the current administration? It may have have looked like pure ineptitude but W turned out to be 'smarter' than he looked.
Is there a sad paradox here? Is 'good' government that actually addresses itself to the fundamental necessities of fiscal, social and environmental responsibility inevitably doomed to be undervalued and condemned? Do we only have respect for a government that totally f**ks up, so long as it does so spectacularly and shamelessly? I guess we'll know in November. "You can fool some of the people all of the time..."
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
bigfaceworm Posted 1:34 am
14 Aug 2008
Some blame the media. While I think the media is very corporate-friendly and Republican heavy, this "excuse" just gives the Democrats an excuse for being bad at politics. A part of politics is using the media.
In a time where the president is widely regarded as the worst in several generations, the Republican nominee (who's looking more and more like a clone of the current administration) is still in the race. The Democrats could not ask for a more charismatic leader than Obama, yet he's just barely squeaking by.
Poll after poll show the majority of the U.S. population sides with the Democrats on issues (see http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report ), yet Democrats continually lose the political war.
As angry as I am at the Republicans for lousing things up, I'm even angrier at Democrats for being so bad at their jobs.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:56 am
14 Aug 2008
So, this is an old idea that began even before Reagan was in the White House. Unfortunately, as has sometimes been pointed out on Grist, the corporate media has every reason to censor this information, and that's exactly what it's done.
Permalink