Why Do Republicans Like Fossil Fuels and Not Care That Much for the Environment?
Well, a lot more oil/coal money is given to Republican candidates, who therefore display their loyalty when elected by voting for this greenhouse gas energy source and against the environment. While that might be too simplistic an explanation, a good example of such action is Republican Congressman and Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), who, on June 5, 2008, displayed on his web page the following:
ANWR Exploration; REPUBLICANS: 91% supported; DEMOCRATS 86% opposed
Coal to liquid; REPUBLICANS: 97% supported; DEMOCRATS: 78% opposed
Oil shale exploration; REPUBLICANS: 90% supported; DEMOCRATS: 86% opposed
Offshore exploration; REPUBLICANS: 81% supported; DEMOCRATS: 83% opposed
He was merely pointing out that Republicans have been trying to develop homegrown energy reserves while Democrats were the ones responsible for our current energy predicament. Of course, it is no surprise that the League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan environmental group, gave him the lowest possible score, zero, seven of the past eight congressional sessions.
Last week in the U.S. Senate, Democrats could not muster the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster on a plan for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. The week before that Republican Senators killed the climate change mitigation bill. I loved Senator Bernard Sanders' quoted response: "The American people must be wondering what in God's name is going on in their nation's capital." Sanders is an Independent from Vermont.
When I worked in the U.S. Senate, President Jimmy Carter had a progressive solar energy program. But that was mostly because we were in the depths of the second energy crisis and there were such things as gasoline lines. I was still there when Ronald Reagan became president and decimated the national solar program. I went on to become director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute in the mid-80's when there were very little Federal funds for renewable energy research. Hub Hubbard, director of the then Solar Energy Research Institute (now National Renewable Energy Laboratory), and I had an inside joke of not getting much funding, but were nevertheless increasing our market share to keep surviving. SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth, shown in the box on the right, goes into the politics of renewable energy.
Mind you, the only Democratic president since then, Bill Clinton, did not do very much for sustainable resources. In fact, somewhat influenced by the aura of global warming, his administration gave their full blessing for increasing natural gas use over coal for electricity production. So what happened? The U.S., in seven years, added more gas-fired electric generation capability than the entire capacity of Europe. So what happened? The price of natural gas tripled, and it is said that not only did American consumers end up paying a lot more for energy, but we also exacerbated our carbon footprint. We have not been very smart in our energy planning, which can be expected, for we still don't have any national energy policy (see my HuffPost of June 2, 2008).
The Congressional Insiders Poll reported on June 7, 2008 showed that 95% of Democrats and only 26% of Republicans agreed with the following statement: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?" Go to http://nationaljournal.com for details.
John McCain on June 18, 2008, called for the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, drilling for oil in the coastal zone and, again, a summer waiver of the Federal gasoline tax. Barack Obama disagrees on all the above and has continued to emphasize conservation, mass transit and wind, solar and green energy. McCain co-sponsored the climate change mitigation legislation in the Senate, so Obama will not be able to make this major Republican-Democrat difference an issue. But the evidence is overwhelming that Republicans love fossil.
How are these inclinations affecting their electability? In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll of June 4-5, 2008, voters nationwide were asked, "Which of the following issues will be MOST important to you when you decide how to vote for the president? The results were: the economy (42%), war in Iraq (24%), health care (12%), terrorism (11%), illegal immigration (8%) and other (1%). Peak Oil and Global Warming, thus, combined, rate less than 1%, and did not even make the list.
A Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg Poll of May 1-8, 2008, essentially asked this same question and the environment got 4%. No mention of gasoline or energy. Thus, are Republican/Democratic platforms on energy and the environment irrelevant?
Actually, no, as the Pew Research Center survey of May 21-25, 2008 showed that registered voters thought energy (77%) and the environment (62%) were important issues. Why this remarkable discrepancy among polls? Mainly, the other surveys asked what was the one MOST important issue.
Gasoline sells for more than $10/gallon in Europe (in the $11/gallon range in Germany), so even $5/gallon in the U.S. should be a blessing. Well truckers will begin to find a way to rebel, lifestyles will be compromised and the matter of energy as a problem will grow through the summer, especially if Morgan Stanley is correct that oil will hit $150/barrel by Independence Day.
So what is the conclusion? A wild card in this upcoming election is that McCain and Obama are at polar opposites on the matter of energy. The issue of fossil / nuclear energy versus green energy could well be the uniquely different determining factor in November. We of course need both to minimize the trauma of Peak Oil and Global Warming, but the voting public will actually be able to make a difference in the selection of the 44th President of the United States, and the margin of victory could well be green.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The article does not answer the question posed in the title. It suggests that Rep lawmakers have their views because they are paid to do so, but that leaves the question who is paying the Dems? The reality is that the lawmakers' views reflect the views of Rep and Dem voters, which are sharply divided. This leads to the actual point of the article, made only at the end, which is that energy may well become a campaign issue. Beware what you wish for, for Obama has taken a hard road. He opposes the gas tax holiday, which people love. He is reported as saying we are a wasteful society and that the American people need an "attitude adjustment
David Wojick http://www
By the way, every poll I have seen (CBS/New York Times of May 4, Quinnipiac of May 15, etc.) indicates that the American people are AGAINST the gas tax holiday of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Do you realize that since the day McCain called for this nonsense in April the average price of gasoline has increased by around 70 cents/gallon? That Federal gas tax is all of 18.4 cents/gallon. Do you now better understand why most responsible "pundits" have called this a stunt? The sadness is that he again repeated this call earlier this month. Sadder still, some people in America still like it. But you're right, Obama isn't saying much about real energy solutions. (See my HuffPost on "Well, Barack, We Have a Problem...
Please don't say that the American people are against, or for, any of the various stunts on the election table. The American people are divided, perhaps even polarized. Half Dems and half Reps. Lots of people like the gas tax holiday, if only as a symbol of concern, because it is just about the only thing the feds can do immediately.
But to return to your topic, McCain is going full bore with the Rep strategies. This week it is drilling for oil, which also clearly addresses oil prices. Obama is countering with bio-oil, not to please the farmers (who just got biofuel Title IX in the farm bill) but because it clearly impacts the oil equation. If high gas prices become an election issue then being against strategies is not the way to go. This is a game of promises. What should Obama offer?
David Wojick http://www
I like fossil fuels because they provide me with the freedom to go where I want, I could care less what makes my car go but for now and into the future it is going to be gasoline. Once a reasonable alternative comes to the market, I'll go with that but until then I don't see why you wouldn't like fossil fuels.
UnbiasedView,
I think you have a point that we all can agree on. It is all about freedom!
A car that gets 45 mpg or 100 mpg of gas provides a lot of transportation freedom. A car that runs on methanol and gets 100 mpg (equivalent efficiency) provides transportation freedom and energy independen
Getting this increased freedom requires that we avoid the old smoke stack industry approach of "bigger is better". In the new world economy "smarter is better". This is what Patrick points out in his books. Biofuels are good, they provide energy independence, however some biofuels are better.
It is a competitive world. Why not use the best?
Hi All,
Should be more of . . .Why do environmentalists spend all that time studying, talking and complaining about the government . . . without doing anything?
At an environmental review meeting . . . one of the panel requested the microphone . . . and then said "I am am a scientist you know . . . to which the room was silent and respectful . . . to which he then added . . . I am conflicted on this project . . . we recently learned this project could have an impact on polar bears" . . . to which the room was silent . . . we were sitting in New Jersey!
Have yet to meet an environmentalist making a contribution to our environment (other than complaining) . . . yet I have met many farmers, ranchers, scouts, SUV owners, carpenters, timbermen and yes . . . Oil men . . . making visible contributions of time, energy, faith, materials and effort to improve our habitat.
I am one who will be siding with the folks who are actually helping to improve our habitat . . . rather than inhibiting all activity in the name of science.
God Bless
Texas Proud
Whenever I see a post with an inclusive statement, "I don't know any women who can cook" "I don't know any non-racist Southerners" "I have yet to meet an environmentalist making a contribution to our environment," that says to me that the poster is a very sheltered individual, who abhors interacting with people different from themselves, and has no true concept of what other groups of people are like.
I pride myself in my diverse group of friends. I am a left leaning moderate vegetarian married to a right leaning conservative who is in the military and the son of a cattle rancher. My friends range from far right to far left, and yet we all manage to get along.
My most conservative Christian friend works for city hall as part of a project to encourage businesses, through tax incentives, to plant rooftop gardens. My Buddhist moderate best friend is involved in a project to plant 1,000 new trees in Boston. My most liberal friend and I work together and have been working on a project to improve and streamline recycling at the major Boston hospitals.
I encourage you to make friends with people who are different from you. Liberals- not all republicans are greedy earth haters. Conservatives- not all liberals are anti capitalist athiests. Making blanket statements lumping every person in a given group into one stereotype demonstrates that you are a close minded person who only associates with like-minded people.
Diversity is the spice of life!
P.S. Your adding "God Bless" at the end of your post is a cheap and disingenuos tactic of trying to make your post seem less offensive than it is. Bigotry is bigotry, and throwing the name of God or Christ into the mix isn't going to change anything.
bigotry?
I think the premise is false: Some of the most ardent environmentalists are conservative sportsmen and farmers. Hunting, fishing, and most outdoor sports benefit from a pristine environment, and conservatives don't want to lose their vocations OR their avocations.
Remember: The root of the word Conservative is CONSERVE.
What happened? The Republican party is no longer conservative, THAT's what happened. The Republican party was hijacked by closet Bolsheviks, the neocon spawn of the Straussians and Communists who left the Democratic Party because it wasn't authoritarian enough.
Bottom line: We've all been had. Let's throw the false left/right dichotomy to the curb with the recycling, because BOTH political parties are infested with corporatists, which is just a nice way of saying "fascists.
Nice post!! Very well put and accurate.
Conservative fascist hate roof top solar because it will remove control from big central corporations.
Duh.
I con't hate solar, it just isn't as good of a deal as you think it is, otherwise everyone would do it.
Why didn't everyone do oil before they did?
You logic is missing.
Because most of the environment doesn't put food on the table.
Actually, Ray, take away the environment and you are dead within two minutes. You suffocate. OK, I'll add the air back for you. Now you are dead within a week... you dehydrate. OK, I give the clean water back. Now you starve to death in a matter of weeks or months. OK... now you need the whole environment to produce your food and everything else.
Your argument is as short sighted as they come.
Take oil away, millions die too.
Does Obama's call for conservation make him the true "conservative"?
ANWR Exploration; REPUBLICANS: 91% supported; DEMOCRATS 86% opposed
Coal to liquid; REPUBLICANS: 97% supported; DEMOCRATS: 78% opposed
Oil shale exploration; REPUBLICANS: 90% supported; DEMOCRATS: 86% opposed
Offshore exploration; REPUBLICANS: 81% supported; DEMOCRATS: 83% opposed
End of Civilization; REPUBLICANS: 97% supported; DEMOCRATS: 92% opposed
End of civilization comes from creating energy for it's people?
Why do democrats say they want low gas prices AND reduced use of gas?
Why not?
45 mpg, 55 mpg, 65 mpg, 75 mpg.......
This democrat can live with high gas prices. Low gas prices are an awful deal. You get addicted and then suddenly the cost for sustaining the consequences are enormous.
Good point. It does seem like a fundamental lack of understanding of how the free market works, doesn't it?
I thought Republicans undertsood supply and demand. If demand drops and supply remains the same then prices will drop. Reduced use of gas will cause gas prices to drop.
P.S. Patrick, I put your book in my wish list; I'll get to it maybe this summer or fall. (lots of books in line ahead of it) Good to see you here at HuffPo.
Let me suggest that you put SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth at the top of your book reading list because Humanity needs you to help make a difference. What can you do? Read the book. Actually, buy both books and start with the Epilogue at the end of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity.
I'm already with you Patrick. I just read Spencer Wells, next up is Lester Brown (I've been reading his world watch publications since the 80's). I'm an engineer; some of the work I do involves wind energy....
The American people do not have energy and climate change as a high priority because they are largely ignorant about the facts thanks to our corporate owned, profit driven, national disgrace of a news media, and effective obfuscation by the G.W. deniers --effective because of our sad excuse for a news media.
I am not sure you understand the science behind alot of this. Gas fired turbines, especially combined cycle (which uses the heat from a gas fired turbine to drive a steam turbine) has efficiencies approaching 60%. Compare that with a coal fired plant, about 26%and a car engine , about 18%, and you have significant improvement in efficiency. Also since coal is CH, oil is CH2, and nat gas is CH4, you also get 4 hydrogen atoms for every molecule of gas burned, which is where the energy is. So you are getting alot more energy for every C atom released to go mate with an O2 when using nat gas, a lot more. Mat Simmons and Boone Pickens both want nat gas as transport fuels, but this is based on the premise of continuing use of the internal combustion engine, which is in my opinion a flawed premise. Electric cars is the only way to go. Use sugar based ethanol and biodeisel to bridge gap and create the new infratructure.
Well, actually, I do have a PhD in chemical engineering and I just wrote a book on energy and the environment (see box on the right). On your logic, then hydrogen should be even better than natural gas for society today. Read Chapter 3 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth to learn that methanol should be a more sensible fuel rather than hydrogen. Have you comprehensively analyzed your food ethanol and biodiesel bridge to electric cars? That had better be a very short bridge, for sugar and corn to ethanol are phasing out (Brazil, notwithstanding) and the efficiency of biodiesel (see how much actual oil you can get from growing these plants, the water and land used and the time taken) is so low that I wonder how any investor got trapped into this option. Regarding ground transport, unless some better battery (lithium batteries have limits) is soon developed, the direct methanol fuel cell will make electric cars obsolete. Please read my HuffPost on ethanol vs methanol. Aloha.
Patrick, if you have a PhD in chemical engineering you should know that fuel cells have awful efficiency. Combined with the cost to produce any kind of biofuels, they are an absolute non-starter.
Actually, the technical limitations of most lithium batteries are dominated by electrode lifetime. Much better electrode structures are already under development and the batteries for transportation are going to be much higher performance than cheap consumer Li devices.
Natural gas is a good fuel. If we don't burn it up, natural disaster could release massive quantities of it and cause another methane extinction.
Add solar and wind to that and replace all coal, nukes and imported oil for about 1T$ in about 10 years.
over 45 Nukes worth of Wind will be installed in the next 3 years world wide.
The time for solar and wind is NOW.
See my profile for details calculations and supporting links.
I think the main point is that fossil fuels, no matter what they may be, are going to be gone one day. It's time to change to something that won't go away any time soon. Last time I checked, the Sun isn't expected to cause problems for the next 5 billion years, so that makes it number 1 on my list.
Next, and where I break camp with most Dems, is that nuclear is a good thing. France has proven it works, and so have we - it's simply a dirty little secret that the ecologists don't wan't spread about.
Both are carbon neutral - that is where we should be headed. After that, whether or not we use the internal combustion engine is something we will be around to talk about - since otherwise the sea level will have forced most of the populations to take to the mountains and ride goats and burros.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
