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.
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.
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.
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...you know the drill. Lester Brown, Bill McKibben, other respected authorities also say that we've got to reverse our current habit: borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Mideast to pollute our air, and our grandchildren's futures.
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.
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.
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.
I appreciate this feedback and now know what I will be writing about next! Renewable energy, made in the USA.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/8/12517/55971/297/589573
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.
Not like offshore drilling is anything but a political trick.
Thanks SS for another smart article.
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.