Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

McCain's Energy Plan Will Drill Us Into a Deeper Crisis

By Javier Sierra, Sierra Club. Posted July 8, 2008.


Would more permits for oil drilling benefit U.S. consumers? McCain would like you to think so, but there's more to the story than he's telling.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The worst thing you can do when you are in a hole is keep on drilling. The country is in a hole called energy crisis and oil addiction. But Senator John McCain and President Bush are planning to keep on drilling.

On June 17, the same day his campaign premiered a TV ad on which he boasted to have stood up to the White House's global warming policy, Sen. McCain changed course by announcing his plan, which was supported by President Bush, to open up the rest of the country's coasts to oil drilling. This, he said, "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis."

But two weeks earlier, on May 29, the same Sen. McCain reiterated his opposition to opening up the country's coasts to oil exploration by saying that the necessary infrastructure would take "years to develop" and that "it would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels."

Which McCain is right, the June 17 one or the May 29 one? Are you and the rest of consumers going to benefit from drilling our shores and our dearest and most pristine places? Let's put all this crude rhetoric through the truth refinery.

For starters, Sen. McCain's plan will not benefit the consumer until 2030 and only marginally. For instance, the big prize of the new oil drilling boondoggle would be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. If drilling this, one of the last complete ecosystems left in the Western Hemisphere, would start right now, consumers would not see the first drop of fuel until 2018, it would take another decade to reach peak production and even then it would lower gasoline prices by just three cents, according to federal estimates.

Implicitly, the Senator McCain and President Bush plan blame the environmental movement for hand-cuffing the country's energy alternatives by opposing opening more coastal areas to oil drilling. What neither Senator McCain nor President Bush would tell you is that Big Oil already has access to 6,000 offshore leases that they are not using.

The federal Minerals Management Service reports that out of the almost 9 billion barrels of oil that are thought to exist offshore, 80 percent of them are already open to the industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Even so, Senator McCain insists this would be a great idea, since "exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

As the New York Times opined, "The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power -- Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- exit the political stage."

McCain has also been absent from the political stage when it has come to environmental issues. He has missed every vote on this subject this legislative year. On one of those occasions, he was particularly missed when he skipped a vote that would have added important clean energy incentives to an economic stimulus package, which was defeated by just one vote. And regardless of his reputation as a green legislator, Senator McCain has the lowest environmental voting record in Congress, according to the League of Conservation Voters.

Meanwhile, according to the Consumer Federation of America, this energy crisis, including Big Oil's earnings drunkenness, has cost the country half a trillion dollars in the last two years.

The real solutions to our energy crisis, however, are already there:

  • By improving the fuel efficiency of cars and small trucks, we would save all the crude we import from the Persian Gulf and all the oil we would extract from the Arctic.
  • By opting for clean sources of energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal, we would end our dangerous oil dependency.
  • By reducing our energy consumption by only 2 percent a year from now to 2050, we would avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

The environmental movement calls on Senator McCain to support the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, which would repeal subsidies from Big Oil and increase funding for renewables, efficiency and conservation, and also to stop, along with President Bush, drilling us all deeper into this hole.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, oil, mccain, arctic, drilling

Javier Sierra is a Sierra Club columnist. Visit www.sierraclub.org/ecocentro.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What have you done today
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 8, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Drilling isnt the answer in the near term or long term. At some point Americans will have to realize the solutions are in their own hands. They just need someone to lead them to the water so they can drink.

I just increased the average MPG on my car by 3MPG according to my onboard computer. Slower starts, keep it under 65mph and less agressive driving.

If everyone could do that what would that add up to. Screw government actions, they are too slow and too ineffective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The measures mentioned above cannot reduce CO2 output by 90%
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 8, 2008 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
40% of our CO2 comes from coal fired power plants.
The only replacement THAT REALLY WORKS is
nuclear power. Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest,
bar none. Nuclear fuel is recyclable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Barry is the New Nancy Posted by: edith
Do It All
Posted by: edith on Jul 9, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to drill more, conserve more by a change to the tax system to tax consumption and exempt savings, including capital gains, from taxation; we need to develop alternative fuels not by govt subsidies but by a tax holiday for successful products that produce low emission, non-carbon energy that replace petroleum, coal and/or natural gas. Nothing but a very broad approach will work if we want to maintain a modern society, transport our goods at an affordable rate, and heat, aircondition and light our buildings. The American people are not going to support any government that forces them back into 19th century conditions or that appropriates most of their earned income by taxes or higher energy prices caused by carbon caps (a disguised tax).

Increase the supply of Energy and get the Energy from all potential sources. This will puncture the speculation bubble as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Cant Go Back
Posted by: billgee on Jul 9, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our Children must go on.

Oil solutions take us back.
Oil is the past

What is the Future?
Where the hell are We Going?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

earth_saver
Posted by: earth_saver on Jul 9, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately the author has made the suggestion that clean energy sources will reduce our oil dependence. This is a persistent myth in oil debate - or more appropriately a belief portrayed as fact that is accepted by our ignorant citizens.

The amount of oil used in power generation in this country is negligible relative to the amount of oil used for transportation. Almost all of our energy generation is coal or natural gas. Converting to cleaner sources of energy is a noble and worthwhile goal for this nation but it will do nothing to reduce our need for oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey AsteroidMiner
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Jul 9, 2008 9:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Nuclear power.
But I prefer Fusion, not Fission.

We just so happen to have a Fusion reactor which is wireless, accessible anywhere in the world, has no waste, and has a 10 billion year safety record.

http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png

http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/pv

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As for dealing with oil
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Jul 9, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for dealing with our transportation issues.
Thats easy too.
http://greyfalcon.net/poulsen
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/pge-adds-five-c.html

Only reason we might need liquid fuels is for cargo ships, aircraft, and military vehicles. Worst comes to worst, we do coal-to-liquids, or biofuels for something like that.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mythsofbiofuels

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Asteroid
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Jul 9, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is the "ONLY" power source which practically requires a federal monopoly in order for it to operate at all.
(Infact almost all Nuclear power nations run their Nuclear plants as federal monopolies)

It has a crappy return rate, a high capital cost increment, and a high default risk. Exactly the reason why investment banks won't even touch it. (And why the Fed needs to bankroll the whole damn thing)
http://greyfalcon.net/parenti
http://goliath......236/Nuclear-power-a-hedge-against.html
http://greyfalcon.net/energyresearch.png
http://energycent.....gybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=525

And no Nuclear waste can't be "recycled".
Hell, it can hardly be reprocessed once.
And even that has zero benefits to it.
Since it results in essentially the same level of high level waste regardless.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclearwasteland
http://fissilemat...documents/documents.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On the other hand Posted by: edith