Featured * :: new energy

Conservative Clarifies: "All Of The Above" Means "All The Drilling We Want"

Bill Scher — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:10:44 -0400

In the latest edition of "The Week in Blog" over at bloggingheads.tv, the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll and I talked about the conservative blog reaction to the "Gang of 10" compromise, which would allow some drilling off the southeast coast in exchange for the end of subsidies to Big Oil and renewed investment in clean energy.

While conservatives have been shrouding their support for coastal drilling in the cloaked sound bite, "All of the Above," I had noted last week that for conservatives, "that 'All of the Above' list seems to sputter out for conservatives when it gets to renewable energy."

But Conn clarified to me that for conservatives, "All of the Above," just means "all" of the drilling they want. He said "any bill" that does not open up every inch of American coastline and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is not "all." Watch the segment below.

Of course, this only furthers the point. For conservatives, "all of the above" is not about having a comprehensive energy policy that achieves energy independence and creates affordable energy options to oil. It's about getting Big Oil "all" that they want.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now embracing the outlines of the Senate "Gang of 10" proposal, saying the House would consider a bill that would allow "opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil."

And yet, in response to the compromise, the House Minority Leader John Boehner (who was golfing while his conservative colleagues railed against Pelosi for keeping to the House recess schedule) lambasted it.

So agree or disagree with the substance of the compromise.

But if congressional conservatives continue their temper tantrum in the face of it, calling the conservative bluff is less likely to actually lead to drilling than it is to expose how deep conservatives are in Big Oil's pocket.

For Conservatives, "All of the Above" Means "No Clean Energy"

Bill Scher — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:58:10 -0400

Conservatives know that after eight years of keeping America dependent on oil, they can't easily promote another Big Oil giveaway. So the message mantra around coastal drilling is "All of the Above."

"All of the Above" is supposed to mean that we need to do "everything" in response to the gas price shock, and more drilling is just one thing among many, including support for coal, nuclear and renewable energy.

Funny thing is: that "All of the Above" list seems to sputter out for conservatives when it gets to renewable energy.

Today's Tom Friedman column in the NY Times makes the point that long-term extensions of renewable energy tax credits would, "unlike offshore drilling," have "immediate impact on America’s energy profile," because many renewable energy projects cannot get private financing with the current short-term credits about to expire.

The conservative response from my bloggingheads.tv partner and Heritage Foundation blogger Conn Carroll? A "fact checking" claim that Friedman is wrong because, "According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) wind and solar contribute a combined less than 1% to our nation’s energy needs. Whether or not Friedman’s favored alternative tax credits get passed will not change that fact in any significant way."

Why wouldn't the tax credits change that fact? Heritage does not say.

There's a reason why renewable energy is stuck at 1% of our energy mix: no long-term energy policy in support of renewable energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists explains:

Unfortunately, the "on-again/off-again" status that has historically been associated with the PTC [renewable energy production tax credit] contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry. The cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong growth in development around the country during the years leading up to the PTC’s expiration. Lapses in the PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the implementation of planned wind projects. When the PTC is restored, the wind power industry takes time to regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth until the tax credits expire. And so on.

And as a report commissioned by the wind and solar energy industries shows: "over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress."

If Heritage is concerned that tax credits by themselves are not enough to lift the renewable energy industry off the ground (I know how much they hate cutting taxes on businesses), they could get behind the full Apollo Alliance plan of $30 billion of investment a year to create 3 million jobs generating clean energy and energy-efficiency.

But that would mean actually including clean energy in"all of the above."

Even more telling, than this one "fact check" misfire, is the apoplectic conservative reaction to the "Gang of 10" coastal drilling compromise.

I was concerned that congressional Democrats were caving by flirting with such a compromise (I have long chronicled the "Failures of Compromise," the futile attempts by congressional leaders to appease conservative obstructionists that have marked this Congress.

However, by luck or design, the Gang of 10 compromise -- which will also likely fail to become law -- is serving to expose how disingenuous conservatives are when they say "all of the above," and how deep they are in the pocket of Big Oil.

The compromise proposal would lift the ban on coastal drilling for Florida; allow Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia to do the same; while keeping the ban in place for the Pacific Coast and the northeast). But, the oil could only be sold in the U.S., not on the global market. Further, the plan would end tax giveaways to oil companies to invest $84 billion over 10 years towards clean energy and fuel-efficiency.

Sounds very "all of the above," doesn't it?

But the record profit-taking oil companies don't want to pay their fair share in taxes. So conservatives are conveniently ignoring their own compromise-y "all of the above" rhetoric, to throw a fresh temper tantrum.

They're lambasting the Gang of 10 as "selling out conservative, Republican ideals in the name of singing kumbaya with liberal Democrats," "intend[ing] to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better." and "it might be worthwhile recalling the murderous Gang of Four, the Chinese communist leaders who directed the Cultural Revolution."

While they have convinced themselves that "drill, drill, drill" is a political winner, the reality is that support for clean energy is stronger than support for coastal drilling. A new Gallup poll further confirms what I argued two weeks ago.

By snubbing a compromise that does both, because it doesn't completely give away the store to Big Oil, is only showing voters how deep conservatives are in the Big Oil tank.

The fact is conservatives do not believe in "all of the above." They believe in oil dependence.

In fact, it was at last year's big conservative convention CPAC where I heard a featured speaker declare: "Energy Independence Is Not A Possible Option." This is a dangerous pessimistic attitude that will harm both our planet and our pocketbooks.

Progressives may not want more coastal drilling (which would do nothing to lower prices), and progressives certainly want to greatly reduce our fossil fuel use and carbon emissions in the long-run.

But we are the ones who believe in "all of the above." We just understand that oil, coal and nuclear are already represented in our energy mix. It's clean energy that's been missing.

That's the choice that's been denied us, to protect Big Oil from real competition.

And that's where our policy needs to invest in if we are to have affordable energy options that won't destroy our Earth.

More on conservative hypocrisy from David Roberts at Grist.

Yes Conservatives, Inflating Tires Beats Coastal Drilling

Bill Scher — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:18:03 -0400

The latest conservative lie -- regarding Sen. Barack Obama and fuel efficiency -- actually has a great amount of truth to it.

On Thursday, conservative radio host Sean Hannity claimed Obama said, "All you need to do is inflate your tires. That's all you need to do. If every American would join in this effort, of inflating one's tires, then it's all going to be fine. And we can still import 70% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Just keep those tires inflated."

Conservatives -- lovers of childish mockery over substantive ideas -- later today are apparently planning to distribute tire gauges at an Obama energy event.

And earlier today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, conservative hack economist (who does not hold an economics degree) Larry Kudlow, a very loud advocate of coastal drilling, said of Obama's comments about tires, "That’s not really much of a policy."

No, it's not. That was Obama's point.

Obama's actual comment last week was:

...we could save all the oil they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.

He was decidedly not saying "all you need to do" is inflate your tires, or "my entire energy policy" is inflating your tires.

(Obama has a much larger energy plan centered on investment in renewable energy and fuel efficiency technology. Similarly, it would not be fair to say Sen. John McCain's "entire" energy policy is coastal drilling, when he is also advocating loosening regulations on nuclear power and a contest to promote battery technology.)

Obama was observing that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing "simple things" such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Where did he get that crazy idea? From George Bush's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. (hat tip: Get Energy Smart! Now!)

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that's being generous, because Bush's Energy Department says we can't expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

In their knee-jerk mockery, conservatives are flying closer to the truth then they intend to.

Inflating your ties does not amount to an energy policy. It's just more of a policy than coastal drilling, since unlike drilling for a tiny amount of oil, it would at least save us some money now.

A real energy policy would provide us consumers with a energy choice besides buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil. Maybe if conservative Senators stopped filibustering every proposal that would help provide such choices, and force their Big Oil donors to face some competition, we could get somewhere.

See our Making Sense alerts on coastal drilling and gas prices for more.

Headlines You Won't See: Americans Support Clean Energy

Bill Scher — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:04:54 -0400

Pollsters keeping asking this summer about coastal drilling, and support has certainly risen in the wake of a coordinated conservative propaganda campaign and the absence of an effective coordinated response. Blaring headlines have followed: "Americans favor offshore drilling!"

But there is other poll data that indicates such support is not terribly deep, and pales in comparison to support for investment in clean energy and energy-efficiency.

1. Yesterday's CNN poll found 69% supported coastal drilling, but only 51% believed it would lower gas prices. And that's without a real coordinated effort to get the facts out about how painfully little coastal drilling would affect prices.

2. Also in that CNN poll, when voters are asked which presidential candidate would do a better job on gas prices, coastal drilling opponent Barack Obama beats coastal drilling supporter John McCain, 51% to 40%. Obama has emphasized the need to invest in clean energy and use less oil, and that forward-thinking approach appears to resonate more than the drill, drill, drill mantra.

3. The headlines in California today talk up a Public Policy Institute of California poll showing support for coastal drilling rising from 41% to 51%.

But PPIC's own analysis says: "California adults narrowly support allowing more oil drilling off the California coast and narrowly oppose building more nuclear power plants, with deeply divided opinions across party lines. By comparison, there is solid support and consensus for increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and increasing federal funding for research on alternative energy sources." (Emphasis added)

4. All of the above is in sync with last week's poll from the Wilderness Society, which found:

-- Only 34% "strongly" support coastal drilling, with another 19% merely supporting it "somewhat."

-- 54% don't believe coastal drilling will lower gas prices (slightly more than in the CNN poll), a number that rises to 64% when respondents are reminded that "we have already opened up most of our public lands to oil drilling and gas prices have not gone down."

-- 63% believe coastal drilling "is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers."

-- A whopping 76% believe "Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles" is a more important priority than "expanding exploration and drilling for more oil."

Unlike coastal drilling, polls have consistently shown strong support for investment in clean energy, promoting fuel-efficiency and capping carbon emissions.

The bottom line is: people don't desperately want drilling for drilling's sake. We desperately want affordable energy costs, and an energy policy that works.

People may give a weak nod to coastal drilling after hearing a one-sided argument. But even some of those folks remain skeptical it will work, and support for a clean energy policy -- one that will give us real choices besides buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil -- is far broader and far deeper.

Who Is Coastal Drilling Really For? Follow The Money.

Bill Scher — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:01:12 -0400

Who is really going to benefit from opening up our coastal shores to oil drilling? You, or Big Oil?

Follow the money and get your answer.

Last month, Sen. John McCain changed his position on coastal oil drilling. And all of a sudden, the fossil fuel crowd took a big liking to his campaign. The Washington Post reports that even though "oil and gas executives have not traditionally been a major source of campaign money for McCain," in June McCain took $1.1 million from oil and gas corporate executives -- five times more than in the previous month.

(Check out Huffington Post's David Donnelly for more.)

Why? Because while coastal drilling amounts to nothing in regards to lower energy costs for you and me, it does amount to a fat giveaway to Big Oil.

You may say, so what? Who cares if oil companies do well, so long as they increase the supply of oil and lower prices for me.

Except that there's not nearly enough oil off our shores to lower the price of oil (both the White House and McCain concede, when pressed, that opening up the coasts for drilling won't lower prices.)

And there's no reason to expect that oil and gas companies would be in any rush to use the leases and actually drill.

Remember, with supply of oil as it is, and the price of oil as it is, oil companies are doing quite well thank you very much. ExxonMobil recorded the highest annual profit of any company in the history of companies last year, $40 billion.

Tight supply + high gas prices = good times for Big Oil.

Same reason why oil companies don't invest in more refineries.

Not because of environmental standards, as they typically complain about. But because they're not interested in increasing supply, driving prices down and reducing their profits. The National Resources Defense Council explains: "...refiners reap higher profits when capacity is tight, so they actually have a disincentive to significantly expand production. In fact, oil executives have stated that the reason they did not expand refining capacity in the 1990s is that the low profitability of the business did not justify the investment."

Same reason why oil companies aren't drilling in all of the 68 million acres of federal space for which they already have leases. As Sen. Joe Biden recently noted in a Wilmington News Journal op-ed:

First, the oil companies in this country now hold 7,000 leases to drill offshore, yet only 20 percent of those leases are producing oil. That is 68 million acres for which they already have the rights to drill. Nearly 80 percent of our offshore oil is already available for leasing -- approximately 54 billion barrels total. They could be drilling in these areas, but they are not.

...

Here in Delaware, we are paying $10 more a day for gas -- around $3,600 a year -- than we were seven years ago. That is a bite out of a family's budget.

During the same period, permits for new oil drilling leases increased by 361 percent. Put simply, allowing more drilling does not equal cheaper gas.

Sure, it's not fair to expect drilling in every inch of that 68 million acres, because oil wouldn't be found in every inch. But even a defense of oil companies from the Houston Chronicle acknowledges that there is available crude that Big Oil chooses not to pursue because "it still is not cost-effective to drill for oil in some places" and "some oil companies hold onto leases to prevent competitors from drilling on them."

What's "cost-effective" for Big Oil isn't the same as what's cost-effective for you.

What's cost-effective for Big Oil, in the era of dwindling oil supplies and rising gas prices, is to string out what oil is left for as long as possible, and slowly prepare for an inevitable transition to alternative energy sources (What oil company TV ad doesn't try to assure you, "We're investing in clean energy, really! Nothing to worry about! Go buy oil.")

While fighting off a rapid transition to clean energy which would mean actual competition and consumer choices (Eek! Capitalism!) from upstart alternative energy companies.

That means a painfully slow transition to alternative energy, with you still having no choice but to buy increasingly expensive oil for decades, as Big OIl, propped up by conservative government policies, keeps making a mint.

It does not mean Big OIl would be in any rush to exploit what little oil is there off our shores. They want leases wherever they can get them, but just so they can string out oil supplies for as long as possible, not to provide any relief to you. If they did, they'd be working their current leases harder.

Big Oil is making money now. And if you're them, it ain't broke, so don't fix it. No need to rush and extract all the oil we have.

But for us energy consumers, our energy policy is beyond broke.

As Al Gore sharply put it last week:

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it.

If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again.

But it's not just Al Gore warning that there's not enough oil to lower prices. Oilman T. Boone Pickens, trying to get ahead of the curve on wind power, lays it out:

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

We can recognize that fact, and develop policies that make sense for us energy consumers. Or we can keep propping up Big Oil and let them suck our pocketbooks and our planet dry.

Oil companies keep shoveling in campaign cash to conservative politicians in hopes of keeping our government, our tax dollars and our resources in their service, with no benefit to you.

But we can choose to change our energy policy to serve us, not oil company CEOs. We can invest in clean energy and energy-efficiency instead of allowing yet another boondoggle for Big Oil. We can give ourselves the ability to power our lives without dependence on expensive oil.

We are under no obligation to remain subservient.