Drilling Down

(The New Republic)  This column was written by The Editors.

---

Representative John Shadegg was very proud of his Republican colleagues in the House. They had, after all, wrestled down rising gas prices. "The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking," he told reporters. And, even if he wasn't right about the technical workings of the petroleum market -- which, strangely enough, responded to a decrease in consumer demand and not the posturing of conservative congressmen -- he had a point: By showing up and making their case for drilling for oil, Republicans were indeed moving the needle.

From the opinion polls, you could see how the GOP has persuaded the public of the wisdom of its fetish for populating the U.S. coastline with oil rigs. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Survey, nearly three-quarters of Americans like the idea of offshore drilling. And, most dishearteningly, the public apparently believes the least plausible piece of Republican spin -- that such drilling, even if it won't yield oil for many years, will lower prices in the near term. Then there is the Republican domination of the energy debate in the presidential contest. Under pressure from John McCain, Barack Obama felt obliged to temper his long-standing opposition to drilling. On one of his stronger issues, Obama was suddenly on the defensive.

That Republicans have, against the odds, won the first round of this debate is a remarkable feat. This initial triumph owes as much to Democratic ineptitude as it does to GOP savvy. It speaks to the fact that Democrats have been unable to rhetorically defend their environmental policy as sound energy policy. If Democrats can't figure out how to make their case for alternative energy and conservation, they will have squandered an historic opportunity -- and find themselves buried in a deep political hole.

To recount how things went so badly: The Democrats' initial instinct was to revert to populism. They began wailing about the rapacity of "speculators." "Without regard for anything but their own profits, we've seen that -- it seems the traders are the ones bidding up the prices," Senator Harry Reid crowed last month. "They keep buying futures to inflate the price, and they keep making more and more money." There was, however, a problem with this case: It simply wasn't true. Speculators weren't responsible for rising prices at the pump. And, beyond that, the public simply didn't believe this diagnosis. So the Democrats made their first adjustment. They began to broaden their populist diatribe and started attacking the likes of Exxon and the rest of the big oil companies. But, by that point, they were already losing the argument.

Faced with grim polling numbers, Democrats made their second adjustment. They began to compromise with the drilling plans that they had just attacked. After Obama shifted his stance on drilling, Nancy Pelosi encouraged vulnerable Democratic congressmen up for reelection to do the same, according to House aides. This may help salve their political woes in the short-term, but it is a position that will vitiate their arguments over the long haul. To ultimately prevail politically, not to mention drive down energy costs and forestall climate change, Democrats will have to argue that the only true path to "energy independence" is independence from oil itself. That is, however much we may rely on our own oil sources, the market for oil is global, not national, and the growing thirst for oil from places like China and India won't be diminishing any time soon. So drilling may provide a few more U.S. barrels of oil, but this increase in supply will be minuscule compared to the cresting demand. Instead of generating a true solution to the coming crisis, the Republican energy plan further shackles Americans to the whims of the global oil market.

The inability of Democrats to make this critique against drilling is troubling. Yes, Obama mentioned the importance of tire pressure gauges. And he even did a terrific job fending off McCain's attempt to portray these gauges as the heirs to Jimmy Carter's cardigan. "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant," Obama told Ohio voters in a town hall meeting. (Indeed, he could have gone further and pointed out that no less a red-blooded organization than nascar has urged drivers to properly inflate their tires.)

But tire gauges are a very small part of the case that Democrats need to make. They need to argue that energy efficiency is the cheapest, most effective avenue for lowering energy prices in a hurry. That it's a means of salvaging our current lifestyle, not remaking it. In other words, Democrats need to better argue that environmentalism is the solution to high energy costs.

There's more at stake in these arguments than presidential polls. If Democrats continue to cede ground on issues like drilling, they will have lost the larger debate over our society's long-term dependence on petroleum.
By The Editors
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion and analysis

[thepitbull13]

Nancy Pelosi telling fellow House Dems to tell their constituents(all of a sudden) that they favor oil exploration is the real hoax. She and they KNOW this is what 70% of Americans WANT and they only choose to for votes. Instead they go on vacation. I keep hearing there''s 68 mil.sq miles?acres? of leases not being used... umm leases do not guarantee anything just a permit to drill after all the geologic and environmental studies have granted a go ahead to drill. This process takes years, and as the law is written now they DO loose it if they DON''T use it.

[thepitbull13]

"For instance, offshore drilling will only produce about 200,000 additional barrels" you are grossly under-estimating our natural resources...............
How about this for an energy policy.......WE GO FOR IT ALL. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Gas, Coal and OIL. Why in the world are some people in this country are trying to restrict ANY possibilities of becoming energy independent. Our country sends $700 billion overseas for fuel. I''d also like to note that without oil you can forget about having many pharmaceuticals, paint, plastics( could you imagine a world without plastic...no computer, cell phone, bottles.....), asphalt roads, WE as humans are now dependent on the products of oil. See how many things are made from oil and you will see why the profits are what they are from the oil companies, their profit justdo not come from gasoline. TBoone Pickens as a noble idea but he also said those things are ugle and not on my land. Go for it all, why restrict our nation?

[aakalan]

zgomer: "The liberals and this guy are nothing but worthless bums! ... the liberlas want to say that there is alternative energy...where in the hell is it! wind and solar! oh that is rich!!... You moronic idiots that are liberals had better get with it, because we won''''t have a contry to save much less the planet like that idiot Piglosi says she wants to save, what a bunch of shiit!!"


ZGomer: The only idiot, bum and moron in your post is you. Your rant is incredibly uninformed and juvenile.

For instance, offshore drilling will only produce about 200,000 additional barrels of oil - in 2030! - according to the U.S. Govt. Which will not improve energy prices at all.

And, we don''t have any refinery capacity to turn that oil into gasoline or heating oil. Therefore we may import less oil, but we''ll have to import gasoline instead.

All this while polluting the hell out of the planet, when alternative, clean fuels are on the cusp of possibility and cost-effectiveness.

Like other uninformed fools, you make fun of wind energy, when wind energy, combined with new cars like GM''s Volt will produce totally clean-running inexpensive, non-oil, non-imported transportation.

It''s a new world out there, and people like you are still stuck in 1955. All you can do is call people names. Try thinking (and reading a bit, too) before you post your next nasty screed.

[jon2012-2009]

"If Democrats can''t figure out how to make their case for alternative energy and conservation, they will have squandered an historic opportunity -- and find themselves buried in a deep political hole."

This isn''t just about the Democrats. When George Bush was elected, twice, it should have been a clue that there is something profoundly dysfunctional in this democracy. We have a base of citizenry that''s not up to the tradition and responsibilities of a great nation with many areas of the country dominated by ignorance, superstition and lack of intellectual skills, the kind I have seen in some third-world countries. It would be odd if our politics and economy did not reflect this caliber of our aggregate human potential.

[chatmandu002]

Drill now, pump now. Keep our money at home. The more we drill here the less we are dependent on others. Put a 10% export tax on oil produced here until our production is greater than our demand. Help the free market develop new sources of energy.

[noloyalisti]

The government should force the oil companies to explore on their leases they have that they are bogarting. They should tax the heck out of their profits and use the money for development of alternative energy. They should immediately put a cap on executive salaries.

Unfortunately Chevron, Exxon and Shell, own the government, like it was in Nazi Germany.

[andylance1]

A Hoax on the American People

The best selling author, Nancy Pelosi rejected the idea of a House vote solely on the issue of offshore oil drilling, calling it "a hoax on the American people."

Why are we the only nation on earth restricting offshore oil drilling? We are so rich we can afford to import 3/4 of our oil from foreign sources. We are so rich we can afford to give our farmers billions and billions of dollars so they can grow corn and turn it into ethanol. It does not matter if it raises the cost of food by 20 to 30 percent.

[ramos937]

Note one more new drilling rig in operation on land or offshore until two questions are answered. First, will the oil produced by dedicated to USA use? Second, can our refineries handle new additional feedstock?

If the answers are no, why drill?

[choiceshaveconsequences]

You resemble an opium addict insisting that with ''''just one more hit'''' he can beat his addiction.
Posted by ubrew12
----
Very apropo observation. Reminds me of the Republican insistence that with just a few more troops we can win in Iraq, or John McCain''s remark that with just a few more years we could have won in Vietnam. Addiction is addiction no matter the venue.

[ubrew12]

dmw1167 said: "How many of you know that Nancy Pelosi has invested $125,000 in Pickens venture, so now we know why she is against drilling for more oil."

That''s not a lot of money to Nancy Pelosi (thanks to her husband). I doubt it would affect her vote one iota. Pelosi knows, as do most Congressmen, that oil is running out. Drill all you want, you''re just putting off the inevitable. But, act to use your ''commonwealth'' to bring alternatives up to speed, and you can cushion the blow that right now you seem hell-bent on gifting to your children. Oil is running out. This decades per annum oil finds are HALF what they were 10 years ago, which themselves were HALF what they were 10 years before that.

We need to act before the oil runs completely out.

You resemble an opium addict insisting that with ''just one more hit'' he can beat his addiction.