Offshore drilling--No! Climate-friendly energy--Yes!

Proposals by presidential hopeful John McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Crist to drill for oil offshore is the wrong direction for the United States, and most Americans know it.

We have only a short time to make a turnaround on climate change or the weather disasters we've seen in the Midwest could become the norm, and we could find ourselves in runaway cycles that could make much of the planet inhospitable to human life.

Instead of drilling for more of the very carbon-based fuel that is causing the problem, the American people by large majorities favor conservation and the development of renewable energy. And the alternatives are well within our means.

Buildings are responsible for 30-40 percent of the climate impact. By retrofitting existing buildings and making new construction climate friendly, we'll create green jobs where they are most needed, and jump start a stalling economy, while reducing our carbon footprint.

Americans are driving much less then they were a year ago -- 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April 2008 compared to April 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Many are scrambling to find alternatives, and public transportation and electric vehicle are available, as we outlined in the YES! Climate Change issue. But a bit of leadership at the federal level would go a long way towards softening the blow of high fuel prices while reducing our climate impact.

To make sure that there is enough clean electricity to run these climate-friendly forms of transportation, we need a major investment in wind, solar, geothermal, tidal energy. This is all quite do-able. Sweden is making progress on its pledge to go oil free in 15 years. And Germany is a leading country in solar installation, not because it is especially sunny, but because it made the commitment. Many of the best energy policy ideas we found as we researched our climate change issue are being implemented in Germany. All of these policies are well within our reach here in the U.S. All of them would provide new areas for economic growth and buffer us from the long-term shock of high oil prices.

Despite all these option, you'll still hear people say that increasing offshore drilling would be a favor to American families. But what do the American people say?

• An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 6-9 shows 27 percent say the development of wind and solar power is their top choice for energy development, while just 16 percent favor offshore exploration.
• A March 2008 Gallup poll shows that 61 percent of Americans favor conservation of existing energy supplies over production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies.
• Sixty-four percent of those surveyed last year (I don't have 2008 numbers) were even willing to pay higher energy taxes if the money was used for the development of renewable energy alternatives.

On this issue, like a number of others, the American people are out ahead of their leaders.

Maybe this will be the election season when the American people offer our representatives clarity about what we want, and insist that they do their jobs representing us--not big oil and coal--and our aspirations for a sustainable future for all.

Follow Sarah van Gelder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SarahVanGelder

Comments

[Phil123]

I'm sorry, but this isn't an immediate solution. All of these things will take even longer than drilling for oil. Since drilling for oil was dismissed because it did not provide an immediate solution, then these long term conservation concepts have to be dismissed on the same grounds.

[venicesurfer]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/62_agree_with_mccain_on_need_for_offshore_drilling

62% agree with mccain. only 27% agree with obama on the issue of off-shore drilling.

[MadelineO]

The polling numbers are correct but misleading. Note the question:
In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/general_politics_toplines/toplines_oil_drilling_june_13_2008

However, the federal government's own energy study predicts that offshore drilling will have no significant impact on oil prices for many years.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2546114820080625

If the poll had included more factually accurate language, would the answer have been the same? "Do you support offshore drilling, even if it will have only small impact on the price of oil and gas, which won't be realized for many years?"

[Michale32086]

Short of First Contact, I can't think of anything doable that will have an IMMEDIATE effect on gas prices..

OK, there are LOTs of things that could, but how likely are they?

My point is that just because something doesn't give us an immediate benefit, doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Michale.....

[RoloTomassi]

"That would be the industry that leads the world in technology and expertise."

That would also be the industry that polutes in every country it operates in. The same industry that opposes and actively works against alternative fuel resources while lying the American public in stating that it supports such efforts. The same industry that is very interested in developing hydrogen fuel cells so that they can keep the US over a high-price energy barrel. The same industry that is currently driving and supporting the NeoConservative Warmongering machine in the Middle East. The same industry that has as little regard for human life as it does the environment [approching ZERO].

Yes, I am well acquainted with your industry, and while you yourself may not see it, your industry is primarily a destructive enterprise that opposes any progressive policy that doesn't put money in their pocket.

I do know far more about your industry than most people, and I have no reason to be impressed or to trust your industry at all, as time and again your industry has proven to be one of the most irresponsible industries on the planet.

[RoloTomassi]

My bad, as the post above was meant as a reply to the post by TxAggie.

[Michale32086]

Two programs that would do a LOT more for the environment than ANYTHING to date.

Hybrid Trade In Program
Allow people who have running and working gas powered vehicles to trade them in for hybrids.

Solar Power Program
Provide solar power systems to homeowners.

Where would the money come to pay for these programs???

Over $50 BILLION (yea, with a B) has gone to STUDYING the laughable joke/con that is Human Caused Global Warming. Mind you, not to do anything ABOUT it, just to STUDY it...

If that kind of money be made to line Al Gore's pockets, surely money can be put towards programs that actually DO SOMETHING for the environment, no??

Michale.....

[KillTheMessenger]

If you can show me the $50 billion that were supposed to go into global warming research, I will show you the place where the sun sets in the East.

Putting out nonsensical statements does nothing for your credibility in the matter. If you stick to the truth, you will be more successful in making your case.

Having said that, residential solar and hybrid subsidies will go a long way to mediate the problem on the 30 year timescale. The cost will be a lot higher than these $50 billion, though. It will be on the order of tens of trillions over the next decades. We don't just need solutions in the US but worldwide. The best way to go about paying for these is with taxes. A 1 cent/kWh surcharge on electricity would allow us to kick off a world class solar program that could ramp up solar energy to the level of several percent over the next decade. And a $2000 annual gas guzzler tax or a similar gas tax ($2/gallon) would allow us to quickly replace the US fleet and drive up efficiency to where we need it to be to be ahead of the falling supply curve.

[Michale32086]

"If you can show me the $50 billion that were supposed to go into global warming research, I will show you the place where the sun sets in the East."

Oh jeeeze, can't you do your own research??

Well, OK if I must.. let me dig up the old link....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

Now, where is that place in the east???

Michale...

[kingcityguru]

Firstly, it is hard to take your seriously when you don't add CO2 and air pollution free nuclear energy to the list. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear, why can't the US; particularly, when a huge majority of the world's uranium is found in the US and Canada.

Secondly, as for offshore drilling, you can go from drill in the water to pumping out oil in less than a year. As I noted before, I own Candax -- a Tunisian producer -- that did just that and is now pulling oil out for $10/barrel (up 20% yesterday on 3 year record volume).

I suspect your main concern is the deindustrialization of the West rather than protecting the environment (and, yes, I have solar panels on my roof from Day4Energy (dot com) that produce the electricity that powers this post and my entire home)

[Merlin7]

This article is technically correct -- but politically foolish. Polls show Americans favor offshore drilling by a huge majority.

[RoloTomassi]

Please provide a link, as I suspect you're off on that....

[Michale32086]

Although I put very little stock (read in NONE) in polls, I can say that, as a Floridian, many MANY people both in and out of government are in favor of limited off shore drilling.

Michale.....

[venicesurfer]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/62_agree_with_mccain_on_need_for_offshore_drilling

62% agree with mccain. only 27% agree with obama.

not everything obama is for and against is popular by the public.

[Cryos]

The realistic way out of this situation is a combination of drilling, refining capacity, nuclear, conservation, and alternative energy research. People can have these environmental ideals all they want but ideas don't produce energy or make inefficient alternative energies efficient.

However liberals have become what they claim conservatives are: intolerant, uncompromising and faith based (the media and idealist eutopia is the god) so I don't expect the logic in this statement to really have any impact.

[RoloTomassi]

You are either very misinformed, or just basically clueless.

[KillTheMessenger]

Nuclear will only make sense if we find a way to recycle fuel rods or dispose of them in long term storage. Without both, nuclear plants run until their storage pools are full and then they have to be shut down. Also... we don't need more electricity, we need transportation fuels. Electricity makes sense only if we have viable electric vehicles, which will take a while.

Drilling will buy nothing on the short term and do very little in the long run. It's a great republican sales tool for their customers, the oil industry which sees billions in revenue at $200+/barrel coming from offshore and arctic leases.

The liberal bashing is not helpful because there is still a lot more technical and economic expertise among Democrats than among Republicans who essentially have gone on a long term rampage against the most vital interests of their own country.

[doctordawg]

This is a huge false argument by the extraction industry. More offshore drilling wouldn't benefit the United States any moreso than any drilling anywhere, since the oil companies would not sell American oil exclusively to Americans, but would sell it into the world market like all oil. China could very well purchase most of "our" oil if they bid for it.

It seems implied that offshore oil is "ours" to keep. Think about it for just a moment, and it becomes an obvious childish error in judgement. This is ony true if we nationalize our oil companies. I'm sure McCain isn't planning THAT.

The ony way for America to reduce it's dependence on oil, and apparently more important to most greedy, blind citizens, the only way to reduce our gas bill is to use less. Really simple. But somehow offensive to McCain and his ilk. The only way to return to two-dollar-a-gallon gas is to double our efficiency and use half. But considering there are 44 mile per gallon cars out there, and most drive 22 mile per gallon cars or worse, it's an instant fix to buy a Prius. Done. Problem solved.

[TxAggie]

I am a part of that evil extraction industry that you want to nationalize. That would be the industry that leads the world in technology and expertise. We are the ones that pay royalties and fees to the US govt such that we are the #2 provider of revenues to the US Treasury. Your comment that more offshore drlg won't benefit the US any more than drlg enywhere else is simply incorrect. First of all, it creates jobs here not only evil extraction jobs but a myriadsof support jobs, tax revenue, royalties are paid to our gov't instead of a foreign gov't , it reduces ourtrade deficit and helps our economy. Platts estimates that production in the OCS will increase 20% from '07 to '08 as a result of the large discoveries in the GOM. That increase exemplifies the potential of our industry and what increased access can do you our country. Your assertion that there is no guarantee that the oil will stay here is riduculous. With the billions of $$ required to bring OCS production to market- its i staken to the nearest refinery pint and sold just as fast as it can be refined. It will take a broad based effort to improve our energy situation- not a knee jerk nay sayer lack of plan that you seem to endorse.

[KillTheMessenger]

Every industry buys its own hype. They mail-order it. In one industry I know by heart one can get a positive assessment of the performance of products or companies for about $250k-$500k. Industry insiders usually laugh about the things they order because they know them not to be true. But as long as the Wall Street analysts buy the hype... hey, it's fair game. If Wall Street can not live with the real reality, it needs to be shown a false one.

It's the same with the oil industry. I don't know how much you guys pay for your "reports", but I know that they are just as false and that you laugh about them just as much as every other industry insider laughs about theirs.

But around here we should stick to reality. There is no money at stake, after all.