The New York Times' Absurd Attack on Obama's Energy Plan

The lead editorial in Sunday's NYT, "Energy Fictions," is a misguided and misinformed smear of Obama's outstanding energy proposals. It harshly criticizes a few tiny pieces of Obama's energy plan that deal with short-term oil strategies, in particular, his willingness to compromise on offshore drilling, and then ends:

Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.

The NYT would seem to be accusing Obama of being dishonest -- even though it is the McCain campaign whose insatiable dishonesty now extends to climate-destroying [and soul-destroying] disinformation (see "Will McCain's cynical lies destroy the chance for serious energy and climate policy?").

Did the NYT even bother listening to any of Obama's speeches or reading his plan online, rather than, say, listening to the cable news version -- or worse, the Republican National Committee version? Obama has a detailed a plan to "cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources" -- more serious and more comprehensive than any presidential candidate of either party has ever put forward (see "A real energy plan for America: Efficiency now, 10% renewables by 2012, and one million plug-in hybrids by 2015").

And Obama has said over and over again that offshore drilling will not have any significant impact on US oil production or prices at the pump. But he recognizes that the Republicans have decided to drown out all debate by endlessly shouting the new Newt Gingrich mantra"Drill Here. Drill Now." As long as the media keeps miscovering the subject, any serious political leader will have to agree to some meaningless drilling to get a serious clean energy program passed.

[As an aside, the NYT helped rehabilitate the eco-image of the virulently anti-environmental Gingrich last year, calling his new book, " A Contract on the With the Earth," part of a "move to the pragmatic center on climate and energy." As if. Gingrich fooling the media by disguising himself as an eco-friendly centrist is about as pathetic as Radovan Karadzic wandering around Belgrade disguised as a New Age doctor.]

But I digress. The entire editorial is as intentionally misinforming as a typical Wall Street Journal ed, but you expect that from the WSJ. The NYT writes of Obama's energy plan:

The Democrats' presumptive nominee has made a poor choice of weapons, beginning with his proposal to tap the petroleum reserve, an idea that Mr. McCain has wisely resisted. True, some usually responsible Democrats have been urging the release of as much as 70 million barrels of oil from the 700-million-barrel strategic reserve. And tapping the reserve on several earlier occasions -- including the home heating oil crisis in 2000 and after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -- did in fact cause oil prices to drop.

Uhh, no. First off, Obama did not propose to tap the reserve -- he proposed a small "swap of light oil ... for heavy crude oil." The total volume of oil would stay the same. It'd be nice if the NYT got simple facts right in their lame hitjob.

But these were the kinds of genuine emergencies for which the reserve was designed in the first place.

Uhh, no. Bush's father released oil during the first Gulf War when prices had begun to drift up slightly -- to $32 a barrel [!!! -- ah, the good old days, when a war in the Persian Gulf coupled with a $32 a barrel price constituted an energy crisis].

High prices -- even $4 for a gallon of gasoline -- do not, in our view, constitute such an emergency.

That would be funny if it weren't coming from the so-called "paper of record." We have a world market for oil -- oil embargoes, the raison d'être for the reserve, have been replaced by price shocks. That is, the way that supply shocks will manifest themselves today is in high prices. Today we again have a war in the Gulf, but this time oil prices are 4 times higher than they were when Bush's father released announced he would sell 34 million barrels from the reserve -- and oil prices dropped by one third in 24 hours. And he didn't even have to sell all of the 34 million barrels. And we have more than 700 million barrels in the reserve. And in over a quarter of a century we've never even sold a combined 70 million barrels. But the NYT mindlessly repeats a long-dead shibboleth about the "responsible" use of the strategic reserve during some hypothetical emergency -- which somehow doesn't include two wars and record prices, which means the reserve can basically never be used.

As I testified to Congress last month on this subject, "If oil prices did drop [after releasing maybe 70 million barrels], that would vindicate this strategy. If oil prices did not drop, that would demonstrate how useless the strategic reserve is.

(They may even be salutary: according to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 30 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year than they did last year. Consumers are moving briskly to the more fuel-efficient cars they probably should have been buying all along.)

Ah, now we see where the NYT is coming from. They want higher oil prices. Well, they obviously never ran for office or in fact tried to govern this country. I wouldn't call higher oil prices "salutary." I have, however, predicted for years they are "inevitable" given our myopic energy policy. But to the extent that higher prices in the short term are partly due to speculation, I certainly think it's worth releasing a little oil from the reserve to find out -- and then using that money to jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy.

The rest of the NYT editorial is even more illogical, if that's possible, in a bizarrely consistent way:

The windfall tax idea seems exactly the kind of populist gimmick Mr. Obama has been trying to avoid, and could be counterproductive. It is true that oil company profits have reached obscene levels, largely as a result of oil prices. It is also true that oil companies receive tax benefits that they do not need and that ought to be repealed. But rebates would encourage consumption, leading to higher prices at the pump and hurting the very consumers Mr. Obama is trying to help.

[In voice of Jon Stewart] Oh mavens of the most respected newspaper in the world, why do you mock me? That last sentence is one of the dumbest thing ever published in the NYT. Yes, they are arguing that if you give struggling people a rebate during economic hard times, they might actually spend the money, and some of that spending would go toward consuming oil (perhaps 8%, in fact), which in turn might raise oil consumption (perhaps 1%, in fact), which in turn might raise oil prices (perhaps microscopically and just temporarily, in fact), which in turn might hurt the very consumers Mr. Obama is trying to help (and monkeys could fly out my butt, in fact, but they probably won't). Somehow I suspect most Americans probably would take the rebate and not worry too much about whether their stimulus will cause price inflation that eats slightly into the value of the rebate.

And one more thing, the five biggest oil companies are poised to receive $33 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies over the next five years -- and last year put more than $60 billion of their profits (a stunning 55% of the total) into stock buybacks (see "Follow your money"). That is beyond obscene.

Has the New York Times ever published such a lame editorial? Let's hope not. It ends:

A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.

Not surprisingly, the NYT left out the key ingredient in the toxic stew -- the media's blatant miscoverage of the energy issue. That's the real reason it is impossible for this country to have a grown-up conversation on energy.

If the ref doesn't understand or enforce any of the rules, the game inevitably becomes fixed, and one side, typically the one employing Karl Rove or his disciples, realizes that repeatedly lying to the public may well be a winning strategy (see ""Note to media: Are you going to allow McCain to just make up stuff on oil drilling?").

The paper of record is now the paper of discord.

Comments

[sculptor]

The NYT hasn't been worth the paper it's been printed on for quite some time (case in point note that Rupert Murdoch went after the WSJ and not the NYT) so you can ignore this as meaningless propaganda.

[fightorleave2]

Why would anyone be surprised that the NYT would sandbag Obama and is actually probably rooting for his defeat.

[mjt218]

The same volume of heavy crude typically yields less gasoline and jet fuel than heavier crudes. Heavier crudes also require more energy to break down, and as a result are more expensive to refine.

I don't agree with the NYT's assessment of the actual facts of Obama's plan. However, it is important to note that a volume for volume swap does not leave us in the same position.

Also, heavier crudes coming into the Gulf Coast (location of most of strategic petroleum reserve) are likely to be Venezuelan. Lighter crudes are likely to be either domestic or West African. I'd prefer to keep the premium on the lighter crudes, which are more valuable in the first place.

[Dulce]

I've read the Editorial and I agree with Joseph Romm. The issue, here, is not so much what the NYT board's opinion (or anyone's opinion) of what a good Energy Plan would be, and whether, based on one's own (and, hopefully, "informed") opinion, Obama got it right or not. The issue here is the tone and intent of the Editorial. Open debate is good and I wish there could be more of it on some of those issues that really matter to us. ("Informed opinion" and "grown-up conversation" would have been good: There is a case to be made against tapping the petroleum reserve---as there is also a case to be made in favor of it.) But accusing Obama of being "populist" and "gimmicky" (the word is used twice in the NYT editorial) is another thing altogether. I also tend to be wary of people who use expressions such as "THE ONLY SOLUTION" or "THE ONLY STRATEGY" as the NYT editorial does in its conclusion. It's reminiscent of president Bush's "you're either with us, or against us," and smacks of arrogance. Furthermore, considering that Obama is a very serious proponent already of "a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources" (the one and "only strategy" that the NYT is advocating), it seems to me here that the NYT is barking at the wrong tree.

[saltysea]

The NYT has been drifting further and further right for a while now. Sad.

[diogeron]

Maybe Bill Kristol is directing the editorial staff.

[sf94127]

I have read Obama's energy plan and it very politically motivated. A lot of it is based on taking billions from the oils which will damage their ability to replenish reserves. This $1K rebate from "windfall" oil profits will go to Ipods and expensive gasoline because the fundamental problem is unresolved!

Obama's proposal to take oil from the Strategic Petrol Reserve is one of the biggest panders of the campaign. It is a far bigger pander then the gas tax holiday; in fact the GTH makes more sense on a relative basis (merelt relative I don't endorse the GTH).

Obama says Boone Pickens has good ideas but he does not embrace Boone's main idea that the first priority is to reduce energy buys from overseas, not even close. Obama is focused on votes and he used the energy crisis to stoke peoples anger. Obama is a big phony the consumate old politician.

[Viper]

Do you need a list of repugs who let loose from the strategic reserves to break oil speculation?

Using the reserve is not meant to solve a problem.. it does how ever help bust speculation just as the repeal of the Enron loophole would do which the DEMs vote for and the repugs vote no for.. six times now.

Regards

[SurrealPumpkin]

My rebate will go towards paying down my mortgage. Bring it on.!

[uvymopkq]

Like most central planners, Obama feels that he's so much smarter than everyone else. Obama says that "my Republican opponents " they don"t like to talk about efficiency." Yet, he is the one who doesn"t really understand efficiency. Looking at only the number of gallons that might be saved, he ignores the other costs that real people have to face everyday. According to fueleconomy.gov, adjusting tire pressures might save "up to 3%" of gas used by cars, not 3 to 4 percent of all the United States' oil consumption as Obama claimed. Americans use about 380 million gallons of gas a day, so up to 11.2 million gallons a day could be saved. Undoubtedly this is an overestimate because just as people have cut back on driving as gas prices have gone up, they have probably already been replacing air filters and checking tire pressures more frequently.

[Gma11]

This is the reason I read HuffPost and other such blogs.

The corporate media has no investment in the truth - however, they do have heavy investment in deception.

[anglohistorian]

Remember Judy Miller in the run up to the Iraq invasion and occupation?
That's right Judy Miller of the NYT. (Go to war)
Remember some of the comments from the NYT when the issue of Iran
came up? (Go to war)
Remember how late they came to the Civil Rights struggle? ("White queen CR activists")
Remember how late they came to a critical position on the Vietnam War? (1968- "We need a national debate")
Plenty of other issues too.
Same old, same old NYT with energy policy.
They will see the light when a new sustainable energy policy is being implemented.
Then it will be a good idea to the NYT.
A prime example of the so-called liberal media as an abject failure to do what their roll is
Re the First Amendment. They are corporate, just like Fox/Murdoch. Don't expect anything from them.
NYT a century late and incalculable amount short.
At least as gutless as Congress. NYT / MSM have a lot to answer for. Along with the US Congress.
Obama's energy proposals, while not satisfactory at all, are are more realistic than
Bush/Cheney/McCain's.

[blueskybigstar]

New York Times, rather than fill out one of your extensive questionnaires to tell you what is wrong with you. First, you had journalists just making things up. Then, you took part in the orchestration of the biggest fraud in government since W W 2, straight from Hit ler's playbook. When you let people put out lies and misinformation, even in your editorial, then you have ruined your good name.

[rgblue]

And this is what passes for a "liberal" publication in today's neocon America. The dumbing down of the electorate has come a long way.

www.pickensplan.com - real solutions for real Americans, no matter what your politics.

[texfly]

One man's tax is another man's investment.I

Only difference the tax never leads to growth (except for big corpoartions at the government teat.

I have a plan that would fir in well with Obama's energy plan. (See PickensPlan.com or HuffPost Off the Bus and find "A WINDfall for America") It's a pay-as-you go investment plan by "We the People" that will promote rapid growth of wind (and solar, electric an plug-in hybrid vehicles, if you like) by providing $10 billion/month via a $0.03/kWh sucharge on all electrcity, then ALL energy as fossil fuels are replaced by wnd/solar/tidal/wave electricity. After 10 years we are fossil fuel free and the $0.03/kWh goes to "We the People" programs. The plan generates approximately $900 billion/year. Based on hard numbers not adjectives.

[blueskybigstar]

Clinton taxed and it did lead to growth. Denmark taxes and it does lead to growth. What matters with how people should be taxed is to discourage people from doing things that harm how we live in a livable society and environment, to fund the things that only govt. can do best, to reinvest in things which will help small business grow and make us competitive on the world market. People may not know this, but California has already invested extensively in wind. 10% of CA's electricity now comes from wind. Do you think the federal govt. ever gave CA any incentive or reward for its investments? That is what they should do.

[joebhed]

I admit it was a quick write and a quick read here, but

$10 BILLION PER MONTH, times 12 months per year EQUALS $120 BILLION per year.

In order to get to $900 BILLION PER YEAR, you need a year with around 90 months.

And, in order to do that, you need to go out in space and get hold of that quasi-polar axis "force" that shifts the earth's tilt and slow it down to about one-seventh of its normal shift.

So, you gotta add a couple of billion for that feat as well.

That's beyond solar energy.

That's cosmic.

[afed27]

Mr. Romm, What, pray tell, are your energy qualifications? There have been other critical reports on Obama's energy plans, not only the comments made by the N.Y.T. As a Democrat & anxious to see a Democratic administration, I am scared stiff of an Obama one. He is out to tax us to destruction! If his plans are adopted, the deficit will mushroom multiple times over & the downslide started by Bush will continue unabated. Having done nothing for us while in 2 Senates, the man does not know where to begin. He is making grandiose suggestions trying to make us believe that he will actually do something. If he should do what he says he will do, we will be in a mess of trouble! A thought just occurred to me. Perhaps Obama's record is so negative because neither Senate would approve any
of his plans because they were so implausible & so unworkable.....

[sceptic]

afed27, you seem to be forgetting that your choice is between Obama and McCain.

[speakingout]

It's amazing to me that MCCain supporters all run around crying Drill, Drill, and isnt it interesting that McCain is driving the biggest gas hog around, A BUS! He will NEVER do anything to fix this country, he's just a neocon, big oil puppet that can't speak without a prompter or script. So who is he speaking for if after spending 27 years in the senate he can't speak on his own? What IS McCains policy. All he ever says is "we need' to do this or that, but NEVER says what HE will do. End the war! They are using half of our country's consumption for military vehicles, planes, etc. Save lives and gas, what a revelation! The media is controlled by the corporations, that support McCain and don't want to give up their hold over the peon people that are their slaves. All the dumb idiots that think we need to drill are just that, dumb idiots! We have enough oil in the reserve to last us 50 years if we never drilled another drop. We can convert coal to clean fuel and that would give us over 800bbl. We have plenty of time to stop the pigs that are consuming more than their share, like McCains bus and SUV drivers who drive alone. They should be taxed an excess consumption fee. We NEED to get off oil COMPLETELY! Electric cars were invented 100 years ago. Solar, wind, anything but oil! Mass transportation. Impeach Bush! Vote Obama 08!

[Rrhain]

"He is out to tax us to destruction!"

Huh? The last time there was a tax increase, we had the economic boom of the 90s. Then taxes were cut, and we've had nothing but economic crisis followed by economic crisis.

Just what do you think would happen if we repealed the Bush tax cuts? If we repealed the Reagan tax cuts? For the past 60 years, the economy has always done better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. If it hadn't been for the interest on the Reagan/Bush debt (just the interest), the budget would have been balanced in 1994. Instead, we had to wait until the end of the 90s to see surpluses...

...that were immediately pissed away by the Bush tax cuts.

Why are you afraid of following a policy that has been shown to work?

[EasyCheese]

Your statements can not be supported. There is no proof that a single thing (like tax cuts), can cause an entire economy to succeed or fail.

Even more important is the timing of an administration. World events play a huge part in determining the economy of the United States.

[berkeleygirl1962]

Dr. Romm's "energy qualifications" are handily recapped in his HuffPo bio, and detailed on his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm). What, pray tell, are YOUR qualifications for challenging what he says here (and what are the sources of the "other critical reports on Obama's energy plans, not only the comments made by the N.Y.T." that you cite?

[JenniferInMO]

Has no one actually read Obama's energy plan? It is on his web site, downloadable in easy to read and detailed formats. How about all of us reading it before commenting. It is obvious the NYT did not read it because it reads just how a good energy plan should read according to the NYT.

Here is the link: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy. If nothing else, just read the easy, overview version.

Afed27, where are you getting this info about Obama taxing us to death? Are you just watching the McCain ads or have you read some of his proposals? The Bush Admin has created an insane deficit and debt. Rather than raising taxes or spending less he and the Congress (Republican dominated for 6 years and gridlocked for the last 2) have just charged all this spending. Someone needs to be responsible and pay for what we have charged on the national credit card. McCain wants to continue our presence in Iraq (and now Afghanistan and most likely Iran) indefinitely. Who will pay for this? McCain's answer is to balance the budget by "finding" the money somewhere. Obama has some of the country's best economists on his team and he will continue to consult with them. McCain has no clue about economics. He admits his ignorance about economics and is just recently learning how Social Security works. How responsible will he be with our money?

[sawdustinhershoes]

You've been listening to too much Rush. If you are truly a democrat, then you're barking up the wrong tree, because Obama's the dem's candidate. Period.

If you want McCain as prez., then keep being uninformed. Just stay as you are and only watch Fox and listen to AM radio. If you do, then Obama will become the worst person on the planet to you.

HOWEVER, if you go to Obama's web site and READ a bit, you'll see that you've been bamboozled by the thousands of hours of bad press being put out by the right to ENSURE THEY REMAIN IN POWER. If you were truly a dem, you wouldn't quibble, you'd on you knees thanking the man who might save your country from complete totalitarian fascism.

[demigod]

Hmmm...let's see - the oil companies want McCain elected president.....high oil prices have hurt the Republicans....Obama is ahead in the polls.....now oil prices are coming down !!! It's MAGIC !!! Could it be that all the Republicans are in collusion - first to milk the American consumers, and then to dupe them into electing pro-big oil leaders ? It is very clear who the oil companies support. The game is rigged.

[sawdustinhershoes]

yep!

[Sciguy]

I respectfully disagree on one point in particular - I think the strategic reserve should be used only for a crisis-type of emergency. For example, if there was another oil embargo, and the country was under attack, and the oil was needed by first-liners (military, fire, police, medical) in order for us to survive, the short-term crisis would require release of strategic reserves. If the crisis continued, farmers would need reserved oil for food production.

I don't think we can continue to use oil for our energy needs. We do need to work on alternative energy sources NOW. If Big Oil could suck money out of it, we'd already have vehicles and electricity from entirely non-oil sources. I hate to admit it, but I think that higher gas prices are indeed giving us a boost in both conservation efforts and searching for alternative energy sources. Look at the number of people riding little scooters around! That may change come winter, but for now, lots of folks have given up cars for scooters, and they all say something about how little gas they take.

I'd love an EV. As soon as someone makes one that can haul a ton of feed up to our barn, I'll buy it. Eventually, our national argument will go from "releasing strategic oil reserves" to "how do we make more electricity without further poisoning the planet?" In the meantime, I'll have to conserve more.

[blueskybigstar]

Just the mention of using the strategic oil reserve brought prices down because people stopped speculating. The rules of supply and demand do not work when there are people who have enough money or power to corner the market and speculate and make sinful amounts of money while normal people suffer. There only need be a mention of using the reserves to make people cool off, to throw a wrench into speculation. It is an emergency now. We should get off oil. We never should use the whole reserve, but it needs to be used as leverage.

[dwcokla]

The price of oil was $145 on the day George Bush removed the executive order on drilling.. today it is below $115... Way to GO George!!

[Wingit]

Is thepotential collapse of the U.S. Economy a big enough reason to tap into the SOR?

[SurrealPumpkin]

We need fuel efficient cars: hybrid, electric, hydrogen, whatever mix for "normal" use. That is driving to work, shopping, vacations etc. That leaves room for the "gas guzzlers" for heavy work where the alternative energy cars don't have the heft.

so, keep your truck for farm work and drive to the movies in your shiny new ev.

[foxfan]

I shed a tear when I saw a liberal web site critical of a liberal newspaper. Is this the beginning of the end?

[Silknspark]

Good one foxfan!!!

[MarciL]

Liberal newspaper? What are you talking about? It's a CORPORATE newspaper.

And the so-called "liberal" newspaper LIED about the liberal candidate. That's MUCH worse.

[blueskybigstar]

Who labeled it liberal? Time and again they have editorialists put out lies and misinformation for the Bush administration.

[texfly]

No such crtter as a liberal newspaper ever existed. They all have been fairly conservative (check the editorial pages). The NYT has generally been rigorously factual in its news stories. But with news cycles leas than 24 hours it can't keep up. It can only report on the propaganda out there. There is no longer any interest in digging out the facts, even though they are a mouse click or two away.