Getting something for nothing is always a good idea. Kudos to Senator Obama and other progressives for understanding this. The key questions are:
- How much of a "nothing" is ending the congressional moratorium on offshore drilling?
- How much of a "something" can progressives get by way of a serious effort to end our oil addiction once and for all?
Right now, it seems like conservatives are willing to hold their breath until they turn blue in the face before they agree to move any legislation whatsoever if it does not include coast drilling. Politically, they seem to have a winning argument in part because the media simply isn't policing the debate, even when people like McCain just repeat the lies of the oil industry over and over again. And in national politics, the side who doesn't have to explain their position usually wins.
I do think that agreeing to some coastal drilling now is de minimis as for two reasons:
- Congress is going to have to end the moratorium sooner or later. If $4 gasoline doesn't bring enough pressure from the oil companies, conservatives, and the public, then $6 or $8 will. So why not agree to it now in return for jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy -- rather enduring pointless political pain and waiting a few years to start the serious transition?
- The Group-of-10 bipartisan deal leaves most coastal states out, as I'll discuss in part 2. And I doubt many of the remaining states are going to actually approve offshore drilling. The one that seems most excited, Virginia, will be vetoed by the Pentagon because the Navy uses the state's coastal waters for a variety of activities. And the oil companies don't really have that much interest in drilling off the Atlantic, since there's not that much oil and no pipeline delivery infrastructure to their refineries
I doubt the deal would even generate 50,000 barrels of oil a day 15 years from now. Is it really worth losing any political points in races for Congress or the presidency to (temporarily) hold back under one-thousandth of the global oil supply -- especially when progressives can get something real for it? Of course not. For that reason, though, congressional leaders are to be applauded for refusing to allow a simple up-or-down vote on offshore drilling. Between the 60 votes conservatives are requiring every bill to achieve in the Senate, and Bush's commitment to veto any intelligent energy legislation, conservatives have blocked all efforts to extend the renewable energy tax credits or to enact a renewable portfolio standard, among other crucial pieces of energy legislation.
Time for a deal. That's why on Saturday, Obama "said a shift in his stance on offshore oil drilling is a necessary compromise with Republicans to gain their support for his broader goals of energy independence," as The Washington Post reported. The RNC quickly sent out a pointless news release noting that Obama said on Wednesday:
"I want to be absolutely clear to everybody about this. If I thought that I could provide you some immediate relief on gas prices by drilling off the shores of California and New Jersey ... if I thought that by drilling offshore, we could solve our problem, I'd do it."
So? Obama understands offshore drilling is de minimis. If the conservatives don't, then isn't that the perfect time for a deal, when you can get something for nothing? So what exactly is the something that progressives should get in return? To answer that, we need to first look at the deal that is on the table, which is the subject of part 2.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Senate panel to kick off climate hearings on Tuesday
Rep. Massa explains his ‘no’ vote
Comments View as Flat
Russ Posted 2:21 am
06 Aug 2008
bad deal
The idea that there's some kind of binding grand compromise in the offing here is a foolish one.
Do you really think any "deal" with these people will hold up? You can make deals, and then they'll just renege on their part of the bargain while making further demands.
They'll demand ever more subsidies, tax breaks, royalty alienation, rollback of environmental regulations....At the same time they'll demand that "alternative" investment go to coal-to-liquids, coal spray-n-pray scams, CCS RD&D boondoggles, nukes, the hydrogen cell procrastination scam, etc.
This is just old-fashioned appeasement plain and simple. (This comparison is precise. if you're worried about public opinion, remember that 30s appeasement was very popular.)
This is pandering to the flat earth notion that we can drill and burn our way out of the mess we're in from being addicted to drilling and burning. It's Homer Simpson sinking in the tarpit, plunging in his arms to extract his legs, and then his face to extract his arms.
If you really think the political situation is so hopeless that you still want to pander while Rome burns, you might as well just give up and admit, we're lost.
The Democrats certainly do need a better message, but what, if the people are such idiots? The enemy knows exactly what they want to do - keep the fossil fuel party going to the dead end, and permanently forestall any transformation beyond fossil fuels. They're certainly willing to make a tactical "compromise", since they know when they bust the deal, the Dems will just cave in again, as they always do, and be willing to make another deal. As McCain has admitted, the point of offshore drilling is not to really do anything about price and supply (which he knows it won't), but to send a psychological signal, to help keep everyone in the bunker (and of course to add more obscene profits to Big Oil's treasure hoard).
Of course, I'm aware of the political realities, that there's almost zero chance of America growing out of its clinical retardism and actually assuming adult responsibilities, that there's almost 100% chance we'll just continue to whine and pout and demand and scream "IT'S MINE!" So almost certainly every drop that can be drilled eventually will, of course at zero benefit to all these spoiled brats, just at tremendous profit to the dinosaur corporations.
So if a "deal" has to be attempted, there's at least one thing which seems obvious. I'd demand part of the deal be and end to ALL fossil fuel subsidies, incentives, royalty waivers, etc. Perhaps that's one issue WE could "demagogue". After all, when they refuse, we could say to the people,
"The deal's all set, but even as they pile up endless billions of dollars in profits they still refuse to give up their corporate welfare handouts which we know you hate so much. So THAT'S why your gasoline is going to keep getting more expensive - because ExxonMobil refuses to take $11 billion instead of $11.5, and their waterboys in Congress are worried about getting less in bribes, er, campaign contributions. That's why the Republicans are holding up the drilling deal."
(Perhaps this could be a poison pill to kill the deal, save the seas and coasts, while trying to turn the tables of obstructionism perception.)
As for Obama's willingness to temporize here, do you really think he's making a cold political calculation, or is this more evidence that he's soft in the face of the intransigence of greed and power? Other examples - health care, FISA, Iraq. Also the general tenor of his campaign, as described by Paul Krugman:
There's one thing we have to get straight - you can make a temporary deal, retreat a little bit, but that'll only cause them to step forward and attack again. There can never be a "compromise". They'll never compromise. Greed fundamentalism never does, and never can.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:29 am
06 Aug 2008
^^^up
What he said.
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:19 pm
06 Aug 2008
Once Again...an argument without axioms
The thing is people launched into the whole yes/no about offshore drilling as if we were all 50 year old Senators in the late 1970s who remembered every word. I feel like I walked into the middle...not the beginning of a debate.
First off, though I've asked here several times...I have yet to hear the definitive list of what's wrong with offshore drilling. And nobody has answered by challenge that it seems to fit the Green paradigm of local production...less transportation...more control...less chance for error.
Could someone take us back to Square One and re-iterate the real concerns, problems, benefits of offshore oil? And why can't it be a little bit? Why can't we have some offshore...not end to end drilling platforms.
Permalink
314159265 Posted 11:29 pm
06 Aug 2008
numbers, jabailo, numbers
and very simple math.
But obviously still too complex for the average U.S. senator. Please send more horses to D.C.
Mars J. Pictor Florifulgurator, Western Bavarian Forest.
Permalink