Sarah Palin's Empty Promise
Congress returns to Washington this week, in the wake of Republican chants to "Drill, Baby, Drill." With gas hovering around $4 per gallon, energy policy and offshore drilling continues to be a red-hot issue.
Arguments over offshore drilling intensified last month when President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and many Republicans pushed for Congress to do the same. A rotating camp of Republicans showed up to the house floor each day throughout the recess, protesting Democratic resistance to an energy plan that would open America's shores to oil rigs.
Though Nancy Pelosi has adamantly opposed offshore drilling, just before recess she hinted that a healthy energy mix could include "opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil." Dems now hope to address rising fuel costs with a bill focused on developing renewable energy sources with allowances for some drilling.
Shame on them. They know better.
The deafening refrain from Sarah Palin, John McCain, and others gathered for the RNC have drowned out logic that even the Bush administration can't argue with. The energy department's own Energy Information Administration research indicates the offshore oil that's currently off-limits would have a trivial impact on prices--sometime in the distant future. Their 2007 report states offshore production couldn't start until 2017 and wouldn't impact crude oil or natural gas production or prices before 2030. The report goes on to say, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market...any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
Although we suck up 25% of the world's oil, the U.S. only has 3% of the world's proven reserves. The E.I.A. estimates offshore oil would add about .25% to that number--hardly enough to influence world markets.
Yet despite these assertions from within and outside of the federal government, the quick-fixers keep insisting offshore drilling will cleanly and quickly relieve our pump woes.
This distracts us from the congressional mandate we should be paying closer attention to: fuel economy standards. It doesn't sound as sexy as drilling but what could be hotter than drastically reducing our demand for fossil fuels with every mile we drive?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, increasing fuel economy standards is the single most effective way to cut our oil addiction, reduce pollution and save tens of billions of dollars a year. UCS maintains that if Congress had passed a 1990 bill raising fuel economy standards, cars and trucks would now average about 35 miles per gallon instead of 25 miles per gallon. That would have saved every American driver about $450 in this year along and reduced oil consumption by 2 million barrels per day, which is roughly what we imported from the Persian Gulf last year.
Congress enacted new fuel economy standards last December, mandating a minimum fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 and requiring the department of transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to increase these standards if the minimum doesn't represent "maximum feasible" fuel economy levels.
Again, according to the Administration's own studies, the maximum feasible fuel economy level could reach 35 mpg by 2015--five years before the required minimum. So it's surprising that the NHTSA recently proposed regulations that would require the auto industry to meet a fleet-wide average of less than 32 mpg by 2015. What went awry? In one study, the administration used gas prices below $2.50 per gallon, making the higher standard less cost-effective. But when they boosted the hypothetical price to $3 or higher, the benefits of a 35 mpg standard exceeded the costs.
Encouraging the auto industry to adhere to higher standards and aggressively pursue hybrid technology won't just reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it will reduce our dependence on all oil. Drill, baby, drill? No. Think, baby, think.
This post was written by Simran Sethi. With thanks to Merete Mueller for research assistance, and to the University of Kansas School of Journalism. For more information on energy challenges and opportunities, subscribe to Simran's "Powering the Planet" podcasts.
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
I just got a hybrid. I wouldn't trade it for any luxury car in the world. Nothing feels as good as driving all week on $30.
I have no sympathy for the Big 3 American automakers who have fought against higher MPG requirements. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess if the CA Air Resources Board had allowed the requirements for zero emission vehicles to stand. I'm sure GM wishes it hadn't crushed the last EV1 and sold the battery technology to the oil companies.
All this offshore drilling talk is academic anyway. Pelosi will never allow drilling off of the California coast. She's from California. I don't know any Californians that want drilling on their shores. Even the Republican governor is an environmentalist. I remember being a kid and hearing that you can't swim in Santa Barbara because there is oil in the water. I've been around drilling rigs my whole life. They are dirty, messy things. My father came home covered in oil everynight. Environmentalists are right to say its a bad idea to polute our coastline.
Just have to say one thing. When this whole thing about offshore drilling regurgitated into the news in August, I just sat down and did the math. Even if we did let them drill their hearts out, most of our oil has already been discovered and drilled. I can't remember all the numbers, but I figured with our current usage, if the International oil companies decided to only sell all the new oil in the U.S., it would only give us oil for 10 more years. That just doesn't really help.
We need to put our money into alternatives NOW. The past is over. Oil will go the way of the steam engine, the gaslights, and the stagecoach. It is inevitable. We must prepare for a new world.
Great post, Professor, and great dialogue. Particularly appreciate heathermerete's comment, wow!
Let's keep this simple: 99% of scientists agree about the devastation that climate change will have...not just on our planet, but on us. We're already seeing a bit of that, with rising temperatures causing extended and exacerbated hurricane seasons, gajillions of acres of beetle-killed forests...
So the mandate is this: vote the environment in 2008. Both parties have their plans. Both involve nuclear and so-called "clean" coal (though McCain's plan calls for far more). Obama's calls for far more renewable, America-based job-producing 'green' energy—as does T. Boone Pickens' plan, and he's a Texas oil man who funded the Swiftboat attacks against Kerry in 2004!
So this ain't about red or blue. This is about our future—and that's something we can all agree needs to involve energy independence.
Face it. John McCain and Sarah Palin will be your next leaders of the US unless a vast movement of volunteers step forward and push back as hard as they can. It is out of Obama's and Biden's hands. Rove, McCain, Palin, and Cheney will have massive wars and business will continue to milk the people of the United States and make them slaves to their own government. Give money to Obama and any 527's that support Obama. Six weeks and it will all be over except for the crying if you don't step up now.
See Simran Sethi's Profile
I'm not sure where you live, but they could be the next leaders of the "free world." So essentially, they impact everyone. We all need to step up.
This is the time for new leadership and new ideas. We led in the automotive boom, we launched the shuttle to the moon, we invented the internet and we can lead in energy technology.
With china's tremendous hunger for oil, and global warming getting worst ... the country that leads energy technology will lead in the next big industry.
You article is well written and your arguments well presented.
I would point out one counter thought here. Most Americans realize the left have effectively kept us from getting out our large oil reserves for a very long time. That we would be making quite a bit more of our own oil right now if the left had not kept us from getting at it for the last 20 to 30 years.
This has created in the mind of the public a built up resentment against the radicals who have kept us from our own energy. And we all, also know that we would be far better off if we were getting most of our energy from nuclear power like France.
It is this overwhelming resentment at the left holding America back and holding it hostage to foreign oil that McCain and Palin are tapping into. As you can tell by Obama's present falling in the polls, it's going to be hard to overcome this resentment. Obama's forced concession on allowing "some drilling" hardly seems believable. Also Nancy doesn't seem to be one that can be trusted on this issue.
So a lot of us out here don't believe the left is willing to let America get at it's own fossil fuel resources. They would prefer we drill where it isn't than drill where it is. And they are fooling no one. It's a shame we can't get beyond this and solve some problems.
See Simran Sethi's Profile
Thank you. I would prefer to access the vast renewable resources we have in the US. Wind, solar and geothermal. I won't put that on one side or the other but will say we have had a vested interest in the status quo and now is the time to build an infrastructure that will and can hold long after the non-renewable resources dwindle. I know we can do better than coal and oil. And it will be cheaper and smarter once we get it going.
I appreciate this feedback and now know what I will be writing about next! Renewable energy, made in the USA.
I would love to know if this Palin Pipeline information is true. Comments?
http://www
Very true . . . There's no bigger market for natural gas in the area than the oil sands.
I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but our three auto companies are about bankrupt. You can't impose regulations on them that could drive them out of business, cost jobs and further ruin our economy. There is a pragmatic solution to all these things but they have to be phased in on a schedule that is reasonable. Sideliners who have an opinion but no business experience are not doing anyone a favor with their irresponsible remarks.
freedog, I totally agree with you that imposing restrictions on industry is not the most effective way for environmentalists to get their policies passed. Environmentalism will never gain momentum at the expense of industry and commerce.
And that's exactly why it's so important not to frame the argument that way. If you look at the energy plan being proposed by the Dems, there is a huge focus on renewable energy. That means new industry, new jobs, a new way for America to lead the green economy, just as we did the auto industry back in the 30s, and during WW2.
By not holding the auto industry accountable for higher fuel standards, we're actually crippling them, and hurting our economy. As long as Japanese and European auto makers focus on fuel efficiency, American manufacturers are being left in the dust. And that can't be good for business.
See Simran Sethi's Profile
Right on, Heather. There are a host of factors to consider and you nailed them.
They are almost bankrupt because they have put all of their money and resources into large trucks and SUV's. They should have seen the writing on the wall when gas prices started to rise. But they kept dragging tail. First rule of a capitalist system is innovate or die.
Great post, as usual. Meanwhile, I had to laugh at the thoroughly obnoxious LAND ROVER banner ad in the middle of your blog...Tha
See Simran Sethi's Profile
If only I had planned that little piece of irony. . .
We need to work on our addiction, not just try to get more & more of the stuff.
Not like offshore drilling is anything but a political trick.
Thanks SS for another smart article.
its so TRUE.
the politricksters just want to open up the
offshore drilling because the public is so ill informed
and they thing that the cost of oil will go down.
when what we need to be doing is weaning ourselves of
this dependence and finding other solutions to energy.
thanks for putting this out there.
Keep it up... Alaskans are as outraged as anyone. Don't let Palin pull the wool over your eyes as she did to us up here 2 years ago. She's dangerous. (I didn't vote for her then either).
See Simran Sethi's Profile
AK, will you tell us more? All we ever hear in the lower 48 is that y'all are for drilling in ANWR. What gives?
Great post, Ms. Sethi! Keep pushing people to think!
The last line says it all. "Think baby think." We need to dig in on her points now. Specific points like these are critical as we point out the fallacies in the McCain-Palin promises.
See Simran Sethi's Profile
Thanks PT and shn!
Nice article, not too left but not entirely correct. As for the world's reserves you qoute 3% that's nothing but a guess and not exploring does nothing to increase those numbers. Funny thing happens when you drill oil and gas wells, they tend to find oil and gas which increases proven reserves and production. With 85% of the OCS and 82% of federal onshore lands off limits to exploration our lack of access is a self fulfilling prophecy. As for Nancy Pelosi- there are billions of bbls of proven reserves in Offshore CA, do you suppose her support of opening limited areas of the OCS will apply to CA- I suspect not. As for CAFE standards, perhaps we should as Senator Dingall where he stands, being a good democrat no doubt he supports increasing them, no? Everything should be on the table, increased drilling, increased CAFE standards, conservation, wind, solar, etc. It is not one answer, it is wise mgmt ofall our resources, something we have not yet seen.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
