Drill Here, Drill Now, Get Nothing but an Opinion poll point or two

The Democrats are caving on offshore drilling.

As reported by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added):

"... In a shift on Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the House will take up comprehensive energy legislation next month that includes partially lifting the 1981 ban on offshore drilling...

"... On Friday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that the Senate will also examine lifting the ban, which now covers all but central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico and some parts of Alaska...

"... Until Saturday, Speaker Pelosi called the notion that more drilling would lower prices at the pump a hoax and said that there would be no votes on this issue on her watch.

"With the US controlling some 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, drilling in protected sites won't solve the problem of high gas prices in the short term, if ever, Democrats said.

"... In a bid to force an offshore drilling vote, GOP senators blocked votes on all other elements of an energy plan, including a popular measure to extend tax breaks for renewable energy."

What's happened is that the Democrats are losing political ground on this issue and the Republicans are holding to ransom the rest of the Democrats' energy agenda. For reasons of politics, therefore, the Democrats have decided to let the offshore drilling slide.

Over on ClimateProgress, Joe Romm, for whom I have great respect, has written repeatedly about how offshore drilling is a crock and won't make gas cheaper, but he has also written that he thinks the Democrats may as well compromise with the Republicans on this point.

I disagree. And this is not a party political point I'm making. It's not even a savvy policy point. This is a plain old disappointed citizen's point.

The disappointment comes from the fact that politicians on both sides of the aisle still don't really get that climate change is a planetary time bomb. They still think it's a political football.

The Republicans are using offshore drilling to score political points. The Democrats are relenting in order to avoid those Republican points being scored.

Neither party is exhibiting the type of leadership needed by the people of the United States and the rest of the world on this offshore drilling issue. It's a simple repeat of the gas tax pandering from earlier in the present election cycle--except that this time we can't be proud of the outcome.

Here's the thing. There is no question that high gas prices are killing people at the pumps and that this is awful. But what we absolutely don't need are false solutions that do nothing but perpetuate the illusion that we can continue to depend on fossil fuel.

When does a leader who cares about climate change draw a line in the sand? If not offshore drilling then where? Do we let the debate proceed next to shale oil extraction and coal liquification or do we begin the battle for hearts and minds now?

Instead of pandering to short term opinion trends, we need to expand on the vision of a better life for Americans and citizens of the planet that doesn't depend on oil.

A vision where our city kids don't suffer from asthma, where our lakes and rivers don't die of acid rain, where we preserve the great heritage of our beautiful land, where we aren't forced to spend upwards of 15 percent of our incomes on owning and fueling our cars, where we are independent of foreign oil and where we don't allow our planet to literally melt.

What would leadership towards that kind of vision look like when it comes to offshore drilling?

It would look like our Democratic and Republican politicians siding with the truth and with the people. It would look like leading from principle instead of leading from opinion poll figures. It would look like drawing the line in the sand on climate change now instead of later.

A principled political leader on this issue would say that high gas prices make life hard, but that offshore drilling won't help and explain why. A principled leader would do the right thing and use the opinion polls to help them figure out what needs to be explained to the people rather than what direction the policy wind should blow.

We are going to have to face some hardship on energy. And the reasons they are going to be difficult is that we didn't heed the warnings sooner which would have allowed us to make the transition smoother.

But the good news is that, if we don't get diverted by political hoaxes like trying to squeeze a small amount of oil out of our coasts and instead invest in renewable energy and efficiency, we will soon have an energy system that is clean, long-lasting, independent of foreign oil, and will save the planet for our grandchildren.

What's happening today, with Pelosi's decision, is that the politicians of both parties have exhibited their lack of faith in the people's ability to understand the issues and the possibilities.

If the politicians pander on offshore drilling then all they do is postpone the conversation. They allow it to move one step closer to shale oil and liquified coal. And they confuse the voters with their double-talk.

Photo courtesy of Socius in Daejeon.

Comments

[1greengeneration]

Colin, I want to believe in that kind of leadership, too, and normally I'm quite an optimist. But how does a leader like that get elected in this country? Isn't it more the fault of the American people, who push Democratic leaders toward the center, rather than the Democratic leaders themselves? I was astonished to hear Obama talk about oil drilling, but in a way I can't blame him because look how close this race is - he has a lot of pressure just to get elected.

I guess I'm holding out hope that he doesn't really mean it, and I will let him know how I feel once he is elected. But in the meantime, I prefer to put my time, energy, and hope into electing someone who at least isn't as bad as the other guy, and give him a little slack when he panders toward the right. At least if Obama is elected it will be a bit of progress... or rather, we won't be barreling down the track in the wrong direction quite so fast. But we have to at least get there, don't we?

And our real work has got to be with the American people. It is the people who elect the politicians (at least we hope). And it is the people who choose what this country cares about, who chose where to put their money, and who set the cultural standards that we battle against with our work.

[Growthbuster]

Glad to see you take a stand, Colin, against this kind of pandering - which the offenders would probably label "political pragmatism." As you're no doubt grasping, political pragmatism causes us to set the bar pretty darn low. In times like these the bar needs to be higher.
Sadly, when a lot of people who do understand the issues and the stakes choose the path of compromise it dilutes the critical message and pulls that bar down. It's tough, because they'll be the first to tell you that if they can't stay in power in Congress, then they won't be able to fight the good fight. See the movie Swing Vote for a depressing, but I think accurate, look at this phenomenon.
Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com

[marinade]

It sure would be nice if the government would get fixed. Well, let me rephrase that, since it is fixed in a way.

It sure would be nice if the government could get some work done that benefits the American people.

"The Republicans are using offshore drilling to score political points. The Democrats are relenting in order to avoid those Republican points being scored."

This is starting to seem like an excuse that Democrats use over and over. They throw up their hands and cry, "Woe is me, there is nothing we can do." It's baloney.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Our political system and culture is too irrational and childish too deal with this problem. Too busy trying to figure out who the Antichrist is. Only the bludgeon of an imminent crisis will force the slightest sensible action , by then it will cost ten times as much. Face facts, this country is doomed. I hope some of the others can pick up the slack because frankly we can't. American exceptionalism has hardened into a national mental illness, and there just isn't a pill couch big enough for all to fit on.

[mjt218]

You read my mind Immanuel . . . Colin's view of the role of great leaders leaves out one important point, people are not rational thinkers (at least not in a context that does not impact their peripheral vision and wallet).

[KillTheMessenger]

Here is a link for all proponents of offshore drilling that should be an eye opener:

www.mms.gov/offshore

It basically says that with ALL known offshore resources we have oil for 11 years. That's it. Time is running out for us to switch from oil to something else... or we will depend 100% on OPEC.

Even better... here is a link to what happened when we "drilled, drilled, drilled" the last time:

http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/tt/vol1/no1/lessons_history.htm

I want to turn your attention to figure 2 of the document above. There was an enormous spike in drilling activity when oil became expensive in the 1980s. And here is the same data overlaid with the result of that drilling:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/DrillingvProd1949to2005.gif

Can you see the incredible amount of oil and natural gas that frantic drilling activity produced?

Me neither.

[mjt218]

I'm going to have to respectfully challenge a lot of the points of your argument on this one KTM . . .

Your 11 year argument . . .
Production in the US OCS will continue for the next 50-100 years. Yes, total estimated reserves probably amount to approximately 11 years of total US oil and gas consumption. However, each well will only produce at certain rates (dependent on reservoir). For example, recent discoveries in the Lower Tertiary Trend of the Gulf of Mexico, are estimated to only produce ~10,000 barrels per well, but will do so on a slow decline over 40-50 years. Bottom line, domestic oil won't be gone in 11 years. Continued drilling and expansion of drilling will incrementally add to the amount of oil we produce domestically (not replace OPEC).

The article from SPE ties drilling performance in the early 80's to high activity creating the need for use of inexperienced personnel. Things are different today (thus you are comparing apples to oranges) because there will be 20% or more inexperienced personnel in the industry regardless of the level of activity by 2010. The article goes further to state that despite improvements in the industry this "big crew change" is likely to have a negative impact on performance. I hate McCain's slogan "drill here, drill now", but as an inexperienced E&P professional, I sure hope we drill as much as possible while the experienced 40-55 year old group (most of the industry) is still mostly in

[jfor]

That picture should be all it takes to keep the status quo and forget about offshore drilling. If this is what it looks like in an inhabitated area just imagine what it would look like in an area that doe not have million dollar beach homes and rich people.