The Gang of 10: Barack Obama's Energy Trump Card?
By SilentPatriot Thursday Aug 07, 2008 7:00pmNate over at fivethirtyeight.com has a great post about a proposed energy plan that he argues -- quite persuasively -- Barack Obama would be wise to sign on to. The bipartisan legislation includes:
* Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.
* Dedicates $20 billion to R&D on alternative fuels for motor vehicles.
* Extends a series of tax credits and incentives, such as for the purchase of hybrid vehicles.
* Funds the above -- at total cost of about $84 billion -- by closing tax loopholes for petroleum companies, in conjunction with licensing fees.
This is a compromise I would definitely be willing to consider. Although I am strongly opposed to offshore drilling because of its limited short-term impact and failure to address the larger issue of dependence on fossil fuels, the tax incentives, investment in alternative fuels, and closure of tax loopholes for oil companies are well worth the trade off. As Nate notes, McCain opposes the bill because of those tax loopholes. By supporting the legislation, Obama can show he is willing to tackle the energy crisis in a bipartisan fashion that ensures investment in future technologies, all the while showing how McCain is beholden to Big Oil. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Be sure to read the entire post, as it breaks down precisely why this would be a huge, perhaps election-sealing, gain for Obama, and catastrophic loss for McCain.
Benen adds his thoughts.
Login or Register to post comments.
This is Paris Hilton's idea. Proper credit should be given to her. Thanks.
Facts are facts - oil prduction has been flat since 2005, no one is pumping more of te crap into the ground, so the fact is: if you want to keep your suburban TV happy motoring society going, your going to have to open up every single tap for the black stuff.
Don't like it? Fine - turn off your computer, turn off your electricity, your AC, and sit in the hot dark ness and think about it for a while.
But will Obama do it? This seems like a smart political play. So far the campaign haven't nailed McCain on anything or taken the advantage on any election-winning issues, including the economy.
Obama Camp: McCain's Ohio DHL Deal A Turning Point
Hopefully Obama can restore our schools that are now only 4 days a week, losing sports because of busing costs, and some eliminating bus routes altogether because energy bills are too much for their budgets.
http://detentionslip.org
afterburner @ 2:
Or do like I do, and find a new source of power. Fossil fuels are not the only ticket, and coastal drilling is not going to make a dent in the crisis in which we find ourselves. Voting for this legislation only gives credence to the idea that offshore drilling is a legitimate step toward a solution. It's not. Period.
Let me guess: the entire $20 billion will go toward "corn-based ethanol", which is a euphemism for "corporate welfare for agribusiness".
Senator Webb just today emailed me an update of his recent activities, including this link:
Bureau of National Affairs: Citing Food Prices, Virginia Senators Call For `Temporary Relief' From Biofuels Mandate
Their is no mention of reducing (federally subsidized) biofuel production in the article at fivethirtyeight.com, and the link from fivethirtyeight.com to the actual piece of legislation proposed by the "Gang of Ten" is broken, so I can't tell whether this reduction is included in their proposal or not, but it should be.
How can we conscionably use food to make fuel when starvation is already rampant on this planet?
How can we conscionably use food as fuel when our own food prices are skyrocketing?
And why, if we "need" biofuel to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, are we exporting biofuel to other nations?
Aaron@5, I'm with you. Why not use solar and wind power? The sad thing is, President Carter had it right. If we started doing this shit 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. Look what happened to Carter. Always blame the messinger.
Is Sen Obama for off shore drilling this week? or was that last week....
I gotta say, the Dems in this Gang of 10 don't strike me as being real Dems. Nelson of Nebraska? Give me a break! But, they grow a lot of corn there, hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Corn should be used to feed people.
HEMP should be used as biofuel.
Perhaps the Obama campaign could hand out tiny oil rig pens with "McCain Energy Plan" written on them. They would run out of ink the second time you used them...
Just a thought...
I'm pretty sure Obama will sign on to it. If his corporate masters say it's OK.
Hall Monitor @ 4:
NY Times (July 15) - New Vision for Schools Proposes Broad Role
As a former Alaskan, I can tell you that that majority of Alaskans, including Deamocrats, support opening ANWR. Alaska has a resource based economy and the high wage, Union jobs are in the resource extraction sector. The alternative is making crap wages wearing moose costumes and serving tourists. Alaskans should be allowed to make the Anwr decision.
MountainMan23 @ 7:
The other thing that pisses me off is that non-food biofuel never gets much consideration or funding. Using switchgrass, hemp, yarrow, algae and sewage to produce ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas is not only more efficient, but has almost zero impact on our food supply.
Jo@10, Ditto. The 'Blue Dogs' are not to be trusted. They are pro-life(most anyway). The only thing different about these guys, instead of a R next to their name they have a D. Webb himself is a former Republican.
Jo @ 10:
It's a compromise bill between Dems and Repubs. I think a few of those ten are GOP.
@ 7: How can we conscionably use food to make fuel? Why do you think we eat food in the first place? For energy! You're arguing as though food supply and energy supply are two opposing forces. If we come to rely on biofuels, you're going to see an increase in the production of foods that you otherwise wouldn't. You know that the market isn't going to open up more fields for produce simply for the cause of lowering food prices. In reality, these new forms of energy will in themselves lower the prices of imported produce by greatly reducing transportation costs. It's not necessarily the apple you're paying for.
You're also arguing as though food supply is the cause of starvation, when starvation is more an issue of access to food supply.
wagonjak @ 11:
I thought of that one too, an oil derrick key chain...perfect.
Did you see that Chevron is throwing a wrench into the production of Mercedes new hybrid?
Link
And why, if we "need" biofuel to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, are we exporting biofuel to other nations?
The other thing that pisses me off is that non-food biofuel never gets much consideration or funding. Using switchgrass, hemp, yarrow, algae and sewage to produce ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas is not only more efficient, but has almost zero impact on our food supply.
Chicken poop and kudzu...the south could be the new US energy center.
Jo @ 10:
If you want to make a killing, start selling car exhausts with mouthpieces.
Floridiot @ 19:
The one I heard that I liked was a drill bit through a plastic manatee and "McCain's Energy Plan" written in blood red on the side of the drill bit.
Blue Buddha @ 17:
I read the names. The Democrats in this compromise are DINOs. Where's the compromise?
eberit @ 20:
The other thing that pisses me off is that non-food biofuel never gets much consideration or funding. Using switchgrass, hemp, yarrow, algae and sewage to produce ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas is not only more efficient, but has almost zero impact on our food supply.
Chicken poop and kudzu...the south could be the new US energy center.
Seriously. There's enough chicken shit and kudzu in the South to supply our energy needs for centuries.
The most coherent and practical plan I've seen is by Anne Korin.
Not sure about her politics, but the plan is brilliant:
See
and
Alternative fuels?
Time to splash some ice water in your face. Take a read of Thomas Friedman's recent account of his trip to the Greenland Ice Cap. People I've talked to who've been part of the research teams in Antarctica are scratching their heads about why people are deluding themselves into thinking there's a future in using petroleum fuels.
The good thing about the abrupt rise in oil costs is that it has begun to launch discussion of future energy sources. Repealing bans on offshore drilling will only serve to delude people into thinking that continued reliance on petroleum is a possibility and defer necessary transitions still further.
The technology is presently available to make a significant and substantial transition away from petroleum fuels. This measure will not accomplish that. It will only prolong and intensify the pain.
Jo @ 23:
Ah, okay. I get it now. Didn't look too closely at the names. *^_^*
cg @ 21:
Yuk, yuk. Seriously, corn depletes the soil, hemp adds to the soil. It doesn't need petroleum based fertilizers and it is a renewable source.
Hemp is not marijuana.
Jo@28
Good hemp is.
eberit @ 20:
The other thing that pisses me off is that non-food biofuel never gets much consideration or funding. Using switchgrass, hemp, yarrow, algae and sewage to produce ethanol, biodiesel and natural gas is not only more efficient, but has almost zero impact on our food supply.
Chicken poop and kudzu...the south could be the new US energy center.
Hell, why are we exporting oil?...oh, that's right...the profit$
Crapitalism will save us.
If Cuban refugee's make it to a oil rig will it count as making it onto America soil?
If so let set up a series of rigs 100 feet beyond cuban waters and slant drill just for spite.
L.A. Confidential @ 31:
Yup. And the Fascists got the trains running on time.
Yeah, or Capitulism will ;>)
As we reside in the comfort of our homes and try to figure how to take down the Empire that produced these comforts.
Ironic
abarts @ 30:
Chicken poop and kudzu...the south could be the new US energy center.
Hell, why are we exporting oil?...oh, that's right...the profit$
Damn good question, abarts. At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say it again: you want to nip these new drilling initiatives in the bud? Just require that all recovered oil stays right here in the US. Big Oil will be up in arms.
Too bad.
Nikola Tesla: The Race to Zero Point Free Energy ( Documentary )
110 min - Rated 4.7 out of 5.0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834
Orangutan. @ 37:
Crapitalists have to die off before that will ever happen. Utopia means the rich and powerful would be out of a job.
Free Energy Documentaries - available on Google Video.
• Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion (00:46:06)*
• The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla (00:49:58)*
• Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point (01:49:38)*
• Equinox - It Runs on Water (00:50:18)
• Tesla: The Genius Who Lit The World (00:42:11)
• The Invisible Machine - Electromagnetic Warfare (00:45:28)
• Interview with Tom Bearden: Forgotten Work of Nikola Tesla (01:23:31)
• Holes in Heaven: HAARP (00:49:58)
Why Should We Give Crooks More Land And Oil
Logically, this plan to give the oil companies any of the people's treasure is a bad idea. They have made record profits, and while doing so, they have did nothing to help with the high prices at the pump. Now, can you believe this, they want more to create another record breaking profit dynamic. I say like Ted Stevens of Alaska, "NO."
The Republicans have a presumptuous nature to their strategies. Without addressing whether the people would be for giving Oil companies more land and oil, they have moved ahead to the oil company's right to have it. drill it, and profit excessively from it. Make them back up; make them sure the wealth and help lower the current high prices by balancing the price of gasoline with their profits. Yes, use that as a bargaining tool, and if they don't help to lower the prices of gasoline, don't give them shit.
Instead of the Republicans sitting in the dark trying to persuade the public they are doing the people's business, they should be using their influence to convince the Oil executives it is in their best interest to help with the gas prices. And, not letting the Democrats off the hook, they should be focusing on the same thing. Force the oil companies to earn the next record profit give away.
Joseph
Tonybo @ 25:
Yeah, I was skeptical at first because of the yaf.org backdrop... but what she says really makes sense. She must be a a paleocon (ie: traditional conservative), because there's no way a neocon is either that intelligent or honest.
The Chinese are far more disciplined than us.
Teach your kids Mandarin.
Offshore drilling is so obviously environmentally unsound that Bush I banned it. It's a terrible idea and it's the exact opposite of how to deal with an addiction to something. We need to reduce consumption. Let's invest in public transportation and alternative energy, crack down on price gouging by the oil industry, and educate the public about gas-saving behaviors.
Aaron @ 5:
You clearly have no sense of the scale involved with the problem, nor do you understand the values of petroleum beyond mere fuel. There is NO energy fairy. Period. There is energy from the sun, energy from radioactive materials, and petroleum. And that's it. Wind and hydro are displaced forms of solar. Petroleum is technically solar power, stored for 130 million years, but its quality is sufficiently different that it can be treated as a separate form. Solar/hydro/wind create electricity, hence they can be lumped together as their form is identical and, insufficient.
Your happy motoring society of suburbia is totally freakin' doomed. you can kid yourself with ideas about solar taking up the slack, but guess what: solar power requires materials made of (drum roll) petroleum. So does wind. 2108 will look much like 1908, only vastly poorer and more crowded. 2208 will resemble 1708, by way of 608. 3008 will be much like 1408, only the world will be a treeless wreck. Why? So Soccer mom can schlep her fat little sprogs to soccer practice in the SUV on her way to Walmart. Your every action is extremely destructive and depletes the world of irreplaceable natural resources.
you have ruined the world for the sake of your own convenience. Good move ace.
Blue Lensman @ 42:
Hard working but pretty reckless also.
L.A. Confidential @ 45:
Perhaps. But as true needs arise, their society is prepared to adapt. We're spoiled rotten.
There are a few alternative energy sources that big oil will try their damndest to keep from coming on line, like this one:
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage system
afterburner @ 44:
OK, I'll be the devil's advocate.
When the hard times arrive and political wills melt, what's to stop us from using nuclear energy to solve 80% of our needs?
Tonybo @ 25:
Thanks for the link.
Anne Korin is dishonest. She says, correctly, that only 2% of U.S. electrical energy is generated by oil. She argues, therefore, that wind and nuclear power are not needed, because they only go toward producing electricity.
Non sequitur.
The argument in favor of using wind and nuclear power to produce electricity is not to reduce dependence on oil, but rather to reduce the pollution coal-fired electrical generating plants throw up into the atmosphere.
Tonybo @ 25:
Thanks for link.
Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids NOW !!
From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 8/4:
"From Dow Jones/CNN:
The campaign office for presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., posted a statement that stopped short of an endorsement but praised the proposal as “a good faith effort” and “an important step in the process of reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
Although Obama said he remained ” skeptical” that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short term, his comments opened the door toward working with the group, saying he welcomed “the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.”"
VietVet8666 @ 49:
She goes on (watch all 3 segments) to propose flex-fuel plug-in hybrids that DO use electricity.
She said 50% of car use is for trips of 25 miles or less, and the battery in the plug-in hybrid can handle 20 miles on a single charge (I think it's better than that, but accept her figure). That means that 40% of car use in US can be electric powered. The other 60% would be from gasoline, ethanol, methanol mix - that's the "flex-fuel" part of the flex-fuel plug-in hybrid.
And all that technology is available NOW.
So .. pump the federal $$$ into Detroit to produce such vehicles.
I just made another pushback video. This one is going after the "Drill Here Drill Now" campaign. I aim to attack their argument with their own logic and using their own slogan.
It's on YouTube here:
Drill Now?
Blue Lensman @ 48:
Only your permission to bury the waste in your backyard.
This is a starting point compromise but this time the oil companies and corn producers are the ones that are going to have to compromise. That $20 billion for fuel alternatives is completely unnecessary as electric and plugin hybrid electrics would go a long way towards true energy independence.
Let's save what's left of *our* oil for our grandkids. They're going to need it more than we do.
OK, so let me get this straight:
* Opens additional drilling areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and allows Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to elect to permit drilling off their coasts. Existing bans on drilling off the West Coast, including in the ANWR, would be preserved.
So the West Coast is more or less OK, but the next time Virginia, North Carolina, or South Carolina get drilled by a hurricane or the next 4 or 5 per year that crash around the Gulf of Mexico, well, they're fucked, oil spill-wise.
Sure, that sounds like a workable "compromise".
MountainMan23 @ 52:
Yeah, that's the important part of her speech. This is NOW technology. It's the transition point between fossil fuels and non-fossil energy/fuels. The full transition is going take decades, and you need to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.
As for oil, I don't think it's going away, since half of it goes into making materials (plastics, waterproofing material, etc.). However, with developments in vegetation based plastics, nanotechnology, and processes for making crude oil from animal waste (as has been demonstrated in the past few years with poultry guts and pig shit), petroleum will eventually become like salt: it still has its uses, but will no longer be a strategic commodity.
afterburner @ 2:
You make it sound like this is a bad thing. Our way of life is ridiculous, it can't even really be caled a lifestyle, because no one is living. I say do away with it all and come up with some thing new, that don't destroy nature but works with it
TB @ 55:
I think the idea is that those states have expressed interest in allowing off-shore drilling, so the proposal would make it a state level issue instead of a federal issue. ANWR is federally managed, so Alaska don't quite have the same say in the matter. As for the west coast, I assume there's not an interest in off-shore drilling. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but I thought I'd throw it out there as a possibility.
Thrillhouse @ 58:
Yeah, I know, it's a state's rights thing, but there's an over arching issue here that off shore drilling is, in and of itself, a bad idea. There's guaranteed pollution, and, if things go really bad, there will be pollution on a regional scale, effecting more than one given state (BTW, is there any data on what oil released into The Gulf Stream would do?).
There's also the added bit that we need to be burning less oil overall, not more.
We have to reduce the amount of oil we burn to reverse global warming.
We shouldn't be drilling for off shore oil at all.
Drilling for more oil is like solving your crack addiction by manufacturing your own crack.
in south carolina, the governor and the big businesses want to drill, but pretty much everyone else in the state from environmentalists to the tourism industry don't want the drilling rigs off our coast. But Gov. Sanford would steamroll the state legislature and the public. He would win that one because he's got the money backing him. It's not really a state's rights issue if the people of the state are ignored in the decision making process.
It's an extraordinarily bad idea. Gas will get below $3 by October, and if he pushes this, Republicans will claim it's the result of their initiative to drill. They're already giving themselves credit for the recent decline, even though it's driven more by the turnaround in US policy towards Iran.
abarts @ 9:
Obama has not changed his position, no matter how much you make it out to be that way. Obama clearly stated that he is against off shore drilling but will include limited drilling in a bill IF it included in a REAL energy bill.
THere's a difference, troll head.
Chris @ 57:
EXACTLY!!
What makes America great is not the oil, or technolology. It's always been our ingenuity and our "Can do" attitude!!
We have to wake up and ....*gasp* evolve!
are candidates allowed to use visual aids when they debate?
also, to all the arguments against biofuel because we haven't successfully started a significant toward moving corn and soy for fuel without disrupting the food supply... you're right. there's only so many cornfields and soy fields. but. that stuff grows easy. maybe more of us should grow it, grow our own little backyard gas stations.
Thank you for this article. I was thinking the same thing. Why don't we have pundits who will continue to say this. They let the likes of Blitzer over take their thought. The dems do not know how to fight back. The Repulicans are at good at it and have no qualms about being negative and making their point. We must put a little Umph in the message. We have a sheep society. Whoever repeats the same thing the most, the sheep will follow. DEMS! MAKE SOME NOISE!!!!!!
Obama will cave on offshore drilling just like he has on every issue he thinks will make "moderates" vote for him. He will do whatever it takes to win, no matter how many times he has to stab progressives in the back.
NO offshore drilling. Sun, solar. pickensplan.com. Check it out.
Blue Buddha @ 56:
The crux of the matter is that OPEC is a CARTEL, which has and will continue to control the supply of oil - we drill more - they drill less. 35 years ago they drilled 30 MBD and today they drill 32 MBD, this is a only 1% increase despite the fact they have more members now and demand for their product has grown. Oil must be made a non strategic commodity - just as salt is today (no more salt cartel, so no more pain at the store).
Floridiot @ 19:
I hope Mercedes sues their ass off and wins. The hybrid they are referring to is an S class diesel hybrid that will get 40 mpg highway. People like Chevron are terrified of conservation efforts because it would disrupt their cozy monopoly that they have today. And that's why they have a million and one lies to support the current cost of diesel fuel ,they don't want diesel powered cars to proliferate like they did in Europe which last longer and get much better MPG.
Blue Lensman @ 48:
For one, the enormous capital expense and second, the danger of nuclear wastes which have a half life of 300,000 years. Substituting a nuclear based paradigm for our current one is like saying tuberculosis cures asthma. Conservation and living within our means are the ultimate answers. They may be unpleasant and cause some discomfort, but somebody, be it us or future generations, is going to have to do it. It might as well be us to avoid leaving the legacy that we knew what to do but did nothhing.
MountainMan23 @ 52:
I wouldn't give Detroit 1 cent until they dump their SUV loving paradigm and their small cars equal small profits mentality. The Chevrolet Volt, for example is an of their myopic greenwashing because the market that this car appeals to is too small, the cost of it is currently over 30,000.00 and growing, and by the time it hits the market other better products from other manufacturers such as Honda will have rendered it obsolete. But that's the price you pay for ignoring what the public really wants.
compromise? WTF?
screw that, that's how these bastards wean everything we own from us.
If they have SP thinking that way, then their strategy "drill now, think later" energy policy must be working
Login or Register to post comments.