Alarming Gains for Big Oil Need a Response
News that President Bush is teaming up with the oil companies to push for a big fight over offshore drilling shouldn't surprise anybody. This is a fight that the oil companies and Republicans have been preparing for. Bush needs to win a fight both to boost himself and John McCain. They figure a fight over high gas prices is their best bet and they could be right. But it is a high stakes gamble -- teaming up with oil companies and Bush is something we can turn into a disaster for McCain and the GOP.
Oil companies are among the least popular corporations in America. They are right up there with banks, insurance companies and airlines as corporations that frustrate everybody. The rising cost of gas hasn't made them more popular.
In response, these companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising that has nothing to do with selling gas. Instead they portray themselves as good corporate citizens who are investing in solar and wind-power research. They are trying to re-brand themselves as 21st-century "energy companies" instead of the heirs of Valdez and ExxonMobil.
Now, polling is beginning to show that a rising share of the public is ready to drill, drill, drill -- threatening to destroy precious and unique wildlife areas like the Arctic refuge and create more oil spills along the Gulf coasts. Worse, drilling is a distraction from real changes like massive investments in wind and solar power.
In February, Pew asked the public in a poll whether they favor drilling in the Arctic refuge. At that time 42 percent favored and 50 percent opposed. Now, in July, 50 percent favor drilling and only 43 percent oppose. That's a 12-point change since the February survey and a 28-point swing since a March 2002 Gallup poll (where 35 percent favored and 56 percent opposed).
The shift is something to be concerned about -- progressives are losing ground with the public on drilling. These are alarming gains in sympathy for the plans of Big Oil.
This change isn't because the idea has gotten better -- Arctic drilling might cut gas prices by a mere 4 cents a decade from now. It is because of a sophisticated communications campaign by the oil companies and the Republican Party that is mostly met with silence by the other side -- by our side.
To date the environmental movement hasn't mustered the campaign to push back against the oil companies. And, a populist anti-oil effort hasn't come together despite the fledgling attempts by truckers protesting high fuel prices or a war that, in the words of Alan Greenspan and others, was certainly in part about oil. The failure of the green groups certainly calls into question the value of a billion dollars of infrastructure that can't kick ass when it needs to.
The alternative messaging that is emerging needs focus and a big echo chamber from progressive allies. Terms like SPRO need to be discarded.
A large emergency campaign is needed to beat back Big Oil. The campaign should be as much about the economy as it is about conservation and clean energy. High gas prices are the wind filling the sails of the drilling fanatics. This is the theme the Republicans are tapping into today. It shouldn't be ignored.
The first task for this effort would be to create a message-frame that attaches all of the negatives of Big Oil companies to the drilling proposals under consideration. These efforts should be framed as "the oil company plan." The "oil company plan" has four parts: more oil drilling, higher gas prices, no new energy sources and wars in the Middle East to protect oil. If you can't talk about war and economic challenges as part of the problem with oil than you aren't getting the job done.
Another key element of the effort would be to propose our own alternative energy plan as big as anything else out there. The time is now for a big hairy audacious goal.
Ironically one of the voices who has emerged to critique our addiction to oil has been T. Boone Pickens -- the iconic Texas oilman and stalwart conservative. His $58 million advertising campaign features his direct-to-camera testimonial saying, "As an oilman, I know we can't drill our way out of this problem."
Politically, winning this debate -- or at least stopping the oil companies from winning -- is a strategic imperative for progressives in the 2008 election. Bush and McCain have picked this fight for a reason -- it looks like one they can win. And a winning fight that drags the Democratic candidate into an anti-populist stance while making Bush/McCain into champions is exactly what they need right now.
The result would be a big win for Big Oil with John McCain in the White House.
On energy issues, McCain and Bush share an agenda aimed at helping Big Oil. McCain has repeatedly voted against and skipped votes on renewable energy and increased fuel efficiency.
McCain has received more than $1.3 million from the oil & gas industry according to a Campaign Money Watch analysis of data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics Center.
Like Bush, McCain is surrounded by Big Oil lobbyists. At least 22 staffers or fundraisers for McCain's campaign have lobbied for Big Oil. They have represented 5 of the 9 oil companies in the 2008 Fortune 200.
It shouldn't be a surprise that McCain is buddy-buddy with Big Oil. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, McCain's tax plan gives nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to the top five American oil companies.
But this scheme by Bush, McCain, the oil companies and the Republicans has an Achilles' heel. A big bear hug of Big Oil and George W. Bush by John McCain can be a death blow if progressives do their job. This is as much an opportunity as it is a challenge.
All of this points to the imperative of getting organized now. You can't win if you don't play and right now our team isn't on the field. That needs to change...fast.
Follow Tom Matzzie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Matzzie
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
A few comments . . .
1) What's unique about ANWR? It's flat artic Tundra. Alaska, Canada and Siberia have plenty of it and there's nothing there but muggy swamps and gnats in the summer and frozen wasteland in the winter.
2) What evidence do you have that points to US oil companies having caused wars? Is this something in their annual report, or is there some dark secret room where secret phone calls are made and money is wired to unsavory characters that you have direct knowledge of? Sounds like a fantasy that Michael Moore couldn't even make up.
3) What's wrong with a company being large enough and successful enough to be in the fortune 200? Oil companies are publicly traded and publicly owned. Chances are, the writer of this column has a bank account and that his bank owns oil company stock. Or worse, maybe the writer has a mutual fund or a 401k and which is required by the SEC to disclose a record of its assets in its prospectus.
We don't count. Just as congress.
Without responsible media, there's no way for the public to hear the truth. If the American public is stupid enough to fall for Republican crap once again, what can anybody do? It seems hopeless.
Keep in mind this is the Bush Administration, which almost always means the exact opposite of what it says. For five years it insisted Iraq was not about oil; but it was. So if they're saying offshore drilling is about oil, you can be sure it isn't about oil. Whatever it's about - probably one last big give-away to the oil companies before ship Bush set sail - it is most assuredly not about oil. I wouldn't worry a whole lot about the environmental impact of handing over billions more taxpayer dollars to big oil; they're not likely to spend it on drilling operations. They'll spend it on the next crop of politicians. Although, aren't we about to reach the peak-dollar point? At any rate, please don't waste money trying to convince the public that offshore drilling is a bad idea. The public doesn't care in the least if one single drop of new oil ever makes it to the pump; all they want is someone scurrying around like mad pretending to be doing something. They want action. Not results: action. And not the kind of action where they have to take a bus to work. They said "No" to Jimmy Carter's mass transit ideas 28 years ago. And that's that. The world be damned; they have SUVs to move.
Sad but true... But on the otherhand China is adding a coal powered electric plant a day!
It really does nottmatter what we do given that scenario..
And as the price of oil goes up... we are not switching to Solar or wind as much or as fast as we our icnreasing the use of very dirty coal.
Regards
The pollution they are generating will catch up to them. Their people will begin to develop sicknesses that will create new costs for their government. The people will also begin to resist such developments as their health deteriorates.
The way America seems to be handling this energy crisis, it will be the Chinese who develop the next generation of fuel/energy technology after they go through my above scenario. We will have spent all our money all the wrong way. Where's Don Adams? We need to Get Smart!
better than denying drilling rights, why don't we demand market price for oil from Federal(public) lands. the same holds true for any 'extraction' industry.
Might want to point out that oil companies already hold leases to 80% of the coast line for drilling.
Might also want to point out that there are over 68 million acres of federal land under lease to oil companies, that have no activity.
Then its immaterial to open up the rest and shut them and Bush up , instead of losing a ton of votes on an issue thats immaterial as to its affect on the environmen
There are already 2200 plus U.S. platforms in the gulf and 10 other nations are also now driliing out there. There has not been a driling/platofrm spill in 40 years and that includes recent severe hurricane seasons.
Regards
First, 10 other nations are not drilling off our coasts!
Second, you must ALWAYS count on there being a spill!
Finally, they can ask for more leases when they start drilling on the land that they already have leased!
With so much to do in such little time Bush and Cheney are busy beavers.
Having never hesitated to exploit situations they are not about to stop now. So how is it possible after 7.5 years he can still fool Americans? Beware of ideas thrust into the public sphere dressed up as a quick-fix or immediate relief. Don't get fooled by PR gimmicks.
Bush never deviates from a pattern of fabrication and distraction. Initiatives are conveyed in misleading terms. For Bush distractions are two-fold, depending on the situation: 1) a public distracted by unnerving circumstances is an opportunity to exploit 2) if in trouble directing attention away from [himself] are mechanisms used, together or separately, to push an agenda through that otherwise would be unacceptable.
For instance after 911 the public in a state of shock, vulnerable and scared, Bush and Cheney forged a "pre-emptive" war doctrine and actually convinced Americans to surrender some civil liberties.
With the rapidity of unexpected changing events an uncertainty is permeating thru the public sphere. Always ready to seize an opportunity, scrambling to help the oil barons Bush is once again taking undue advantage of a situation.
Beware of ideas thrust into the public sphere dressed up as a quick-fix or immediate relief.
The WH has a vested interest in shaping "perception:" off-shore-drilling benefits oil companies & boosts McCain's image, too.
Don't fall for PR gimmicks.
ANWR is not a precious and unique wildlife area. It's a moonscape. There's basically just millions of acres of arctic tundra and lichen. It's not babbling brooks and woodlands filled with millions of species. Developing it would mean about 2000 acres would be drilled on. It wouldn't interfere with the natural habitat any more that the prudhoe bay production has. I think the OCS and ANWR drilling should be opposed based on the fact that it will require billions in tax breaks to oil companies to get them to develop the fields and we'll have to buy the oil at market prices anyway. We can open up the strategic reserve in the short term and give tax breaks to auto makers to retool to make fuel efficient cars for the long term. Let's drop the "it will leave Alaska, Florida, and California desolate wastelands" line. It isn't true and it sounds like the stereotypical tree hugging hippie. Let's frame it by saying that we're declaring our independance from oil companies. We don't need them. They need us. Opening up the reserve will be a strong message. anyway that's just my two cents.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However developing Offshore or in Alaska will not take any tax breaks. The Oil companies if you have not noticed are flush with cash, having accumulated the largest profits of any economic sector in Human history.
There are 2200 U.S. Oil platforms in the Gulf. 10 Other countries are drilling in the Gulf.
Does anyone have the number of people who visit ANWAR each year... likely to be less than i a large High School.
Its amazing will drill in Cities... We drill in the wet lands.... but not in one of the most desolete places on earth, with little wildlife per acre.
And yes giant wind and solar farms are a must.
We are facing economic collapse. We are going to need more oil to get us by until we can change over.. if not for transportation, for lubrication and plastics. This transition should have begun 30 years ago.
Regards
.
The oil companies won't use their profits for developing their business. That kind of corporate strategy disappeared a long time ago. They keep the profits and will only do any further developing on the taxpayers nickel (subsidies). Ya gotta love it!
It won't take a nickle of tax breaks, just access.
You are definitely right about this being serious, and that it is beggining to get worrisome traction. I think the big idea in the frame should be the concept of the idea being a con or scam on the part of big oil. That they are contributing to manipulating prices to scare Americans into giving them access to coastlines. Use that idea as the entry into showing that they're not drilling on their existing leaseholdings. Find out which Dem congressmen are pushing legislation to force them to drill it or lose it. (I'm sure heard that legislation of that nature is being pushed by someone)
We put a man on the moon within a decade in the sixties! That's how long it would take for drilling now to come on line. We will have the next sustainable fuel technology within ten years if we work together and fund the effort properly. The only way to break our current addiction to oil is by going "cold turkey" as much as possible.
As for a strategy to quell the current reactionary frenzy created by this floundering administration, I would remind the citizenry of the president's track record. When has he been right about anything over the last 7+ years? Were there WMD? Was mission accomplished? Did the tax cuts ever help to increase revenues enough to balance the budget? Was the prescription drug plan as inexpensive as advertized? Was privatizing social security the will of the people? Did he ever authorize torture? Wiretapping? Katrina? I'll run out of space soon... Ultimately, who in their right mind would heed a word of anything the decider has to say? I rest my case!
You are not even close to call turkey now and are near an economic collapse.
Cold turkey means people not eating all around the world. Oil is used for plastics, energy and fertilizer and even drugs.
Cold turkey means you dont have the money to make this massive change.
By all means we should be building massive solar and wind farms, which as you swith to electric for all heating and etc... the entire Grid will have to updated and replaced.
.
Its amazing we went to the moon in 10 years with technology that did not exist... Anf for this swith the technology has existed for decades.
The difference is that the repugs dont believe Government should lead the way...
Appollo and Manhatten projects were done under Democratic rule.
Regards
Regards
wiseapple You sound as if all we have to do is ignore the what they're saying and it will go away, because "who in their right mind would heed a word of anything the decider has to say?"
The problem being that the percentage of people who are buying big oil's (and our government's) con is increasing. As Tom puts it : "This change isn't because the idea has gotten better -- Arctic drilling might cut gas prices by a mere 4 cents a decade from now. It is because of a sophisticated communications campaign by the oil companies and the Republican Party that is mostly met with silence by the other side -- by our side."
We have to play the game if we expect to win, and, like it or not, politeness and civility don't always, I'd say even seldom, win. When they start shouting we must shout even louder, and somehow the issues have to be made more blatant to the general public, now "served" mostly by the likes of Fox News.
Anything but ignore the problem... Peace, Hippy Nana
I didn't mean to sound too reserved about the issue. I think we should be saying out loud- "too many times too many people have listened to this clown and look where it has gotten us. He hasn't made any correct assessments of anything for 7+ years and there is no reason this issue will prove any different. He has done enough (harm, that is) don't let him lead us down the wrong path again."
I know quite often environmentalists and progressives overlap. Is the fact that gas prices are rising not good news to environmentalists? It makes other sources of energy more feasible. Already SUVs are taking a huge hit to demand, while car makers are starting to ramp up production of hybrids. Why would you want higher CAFE standards? Doesn't that just make gas a cheaper form (and therefore more desirable) of energy for transportation.
I also know every progressive thinks that "Big Oil" is being unfair in keeping gas so high, but why are they being "fair" at all? Why don't they sell oil for $10/gallon? Altruism?
I will grant that it's better for the environment for gas to be this expensive. However, it's bad for both the economy and the people! This is why I wish that we'd never had ronnie raygun in office, because at least Jimmy Carter did SOMETHING right, by deciding that the US would get off foreign oil by reducing oil consumption!
I am assuming you mean oil being too high is "bad for both the economy and the people". The alternatives are even higher. Is that better for "the economy and the people"?
Sorry, but "big oil" is just far too wealthy to be beaten. Throwing a billion dollars into this contest is chump change to them. They've got us by the short and curlies and the best we can do is say, "thank you, sir, may I have another."
Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.
Oil companies ALREADY have millions of acres available to them for development which are years away from producing marketable product. Adding MORE acres to the land they're not developing does not bring oil to market any faster. Lifting restrictions on protected areas is therefore a "land grab" which will have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the amount of time between today and the delivery of oil from any new source. Every time BushCo or corporate media conflate the "Drill Here, Drill Now" Land Grab with efforts to reduce prices at the pump today, that falsehood / propaganda item needs to be flagged and contradicted.
Since there are years to go and R&D required for either new oil & gas resouces or any clean alternative sources, the logical and intelligent choice would be to invest that time and money into clean, renewable energy rather than the highly polluting, scarce fossil fuels which created the present energy crisis as well as the imminent environmental calamity of global warming.
Big Oil wants to portray themselves as "energy companies"; the fact is they are "carbon-fuel pushers", every bit as sleazy and despicable as a heroin pusher who does whatever it takes to keep his clientele addicted to the stuff which is killing them. We need to use the term "carbon-fuel pushers" whenever we refer to the corporations who are responsible for creating and maintaining the American carbon-fuel addiction. Their closest moral relatives are the tobacco companies, to whom they should be compared constantly.
I like the label "carbon fuel pushers"
Actually, most of the leases that they currently have would be six months to a year out from producing oil! They are already examined, drilled, and capped!
There is no such thing as an "American oil company' anymore. They are all multi-national organizations who have no alleigence to a particular country, just to themselves and their stockholders.
wrong, there's still plenty of us.
Somebody needs to really harp on the millions of acres of oil drilling leases the oil companies are SITTING on. The oil companies could be doing a LOT more drilling than they are doing now, but they are holding out because they think (sadly, possibly correctly) that they are finally going to get their precious coastline and ANWAR drilling rights.
Once these areas are have been given over to the oil companies for drilling, they are GONE FOREVER. And for what?!?!? There's not going to be ANY relief at the pump unless the oil companies deign to lower the prices for a couple of weeks in thanks for getting their way.
There are 2200 Drilling platforms in the Gulf for the past 30 plus years...No spills. Is the Gulf gone? Do you know where people go to fish in the Gulf... to an oil platform! Thats where the fish are.
10 other countries are drilling out there. You use the fuel from those rigs....
Gone... Much of the SW was oil fields at one point.. My town, the golf course is built on oil fields land along a Bayou.. Still some pumps pumping. 500k Dollar homes , but per you its gone forever...
Drilling is not like coal mining... which is increasing as the price of much cleaner natural gas and oil goes up! Did you see the North east or london when the industrial reveolution was being poowered by caol.. they were BLACK.
How does the U.S. not drilling more out there "protect" the Gulf given thousands of rigs already there. ? It does increase our imports and devalue the dollar further, however.
Do you really know what you are talking about. How much time do you have in Gulf waters? Have you ever been to Anwar or met anyone who has been there?
The ban on drilling was done not to protect the environmen
And yes build massive wind and solar farms quickly.
Regards
Gone forever? where do they go? The rig count is at a 22 year high smart girl, how could the industry drill more wells than it is drilling right now with every workable rig being pressed into service? Areas are not "given over' to the oil companies they are competitively bid for under the law.
How could we be drilling more? With what? The problem is we do not have access to the higher potential more promising areas included in the 85% of the OCS that is OFF LIMITS to exploration. Study up just a tad before you shoot off your keyboard, learn a little about the subject rather than relying on dem talking points.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
