“Drill Baby Drill” Screams Punctuate McCain’s Energy Policy in Acceptance Speech
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 09. 5.08
Last week when I posted on Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, I promised John McCain would get the same treatment. As much of his speech focused on his past record of service and pointing out differences between his campaign and Obama’s, his relevant passages (other than passing remarks) in regards to the environment were pretty much given in one go. So, here there are:
Energy & Environment Policy in a Nutshell
My fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.
Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. [...]This great national cause will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce.
McCain’s speech touches on many of the same points as Obama’s. Creating a greentech economy will indeed create many new jobs (and jobs which are more difficult to outsource). The United States does indeed need to produce more energy at home. Hybrid, flex-fuel and electric vehicles do need to be promoted. That said, I think McCain misses the boat in the continued call for offshore oil drilling and the development of clean coal. To be fair, Obama also mentioned clean coal, so these comments apply to him as well in this regards.
Clean Coal, Offshore Oil Drilling Distractions From Making Real Changes
At the risk of sounding repetitive, clean coal simply doesn’t exist and throwing more money into that fire won’t make it happen. It’s simply an expensive distraction from getting the United States off fossil fuels and onto other energy sources as quickly as possible.
Ditto for offshore oil drilling: There certainly is oil in protected areas, but by every measurement there simply isn’t that much there and what is available will have so little impact on the price or supply of oil by the time it enters the market that the only people who will benefit from it are oil companies. The price consumers pay may drop slightly, but not significantly. The persistent call of “drill baby drill” heard throughout the speech is just the sound of junkies looking for a fix.
Real Energy Independence Impossible With Fossil Fuels
The long and short of it is, as long as fossil fuels are in the mix to any significant degree, and if there is any chance of reducing carbon emissions, any talk of actual energy independence for the United States is empty rhetoric.
Is it possible to marginally increase energy independence? Yes. However, the only route to long-term energy independence is through domestic renewable energy sources. With anything else, at some point, the United States will be forced to import fuel and enter into dependent relationships.
Offshore Oil Drilling, Fuel Efficiency, Renewable Energy, More...
Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise
Bush’s New Fuel Economy Rules Look Good...Until You Read All 417 Pages
Important U.S. Renewable Energy Incentive Package Still Stalled in Senate
New Generation of Nuclear Power Plants More Expensive than Expected
There Is No Such Thing As Clean Coal
First Commercial-Scale Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Approved for California
Mapping the Alternative Energy Potential of the United States
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Does Your Car Qualify for the Federal 'Cash for Clunker' Program?
- Obama Swats a Fly Ninja-Style; PETA Gets Fired Up (Video!)
- Green Glossary: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
- Discover San Francisco's Secret Treasures While Volunteering!
The best way to stop sending money abroad is to promote efficiency. That will also stabilize long-term prices and allow our reserves to last longer.
Not only am I worried about sending money abroad, I'm also worried about sending it to the nuts up in Palin-land.
Why don't we just out and say it? They are either liars or idiots, neither of which is a prime candidate for presidency (unless you're counting the last one).
BOTH Obama and McCain are at fault, I have a feeling though that Obama will tend to fulfill more green promises than drilling and "clean coal" than McCain however, who will provide the opposite. That's just my opinion however, although McCain really hasn't presented himself nearly as enthusiastic about green power as Obama, so that's not. Either way, I feel like I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here and I can only hope the green bug bites the person who wins. HARD.
"Drill Baby Drill" is strongly reminiscent of the "Burn Baby Burn" graffiti and signs seen during the ugliest moments of 1960s' riots . Coincidence? Or did t speech writers intend that? Weird.
No mention of climate is also interesting.
I am afraid I agree with Cybercat. Neither candidate appears to have a 1st hand grasp of renewables. Lobbyists will force both to make concessions. My sense of it though is that Obama is slightly more aware or initially committed to renewables making him a better choice for the planet. Still both can sell out Life for a few deadly short years of "cheap" energy. Either of them definitely need a critical wake up call and an absolute commitment to renewables from the first breath they take as president. Clean coal -no and we don't need any 10,000 year nuclear mistakes or pretense that technology is infallible. Wind -yes, solar - yes, efficiency - double yes (opps! I meant yes to the nth power)
Yeah, Obama's "clean coal" made me cringe when I heard it. I like Obama a lot but there are a few things that he has said that are clearly appealing to independents to win them over and not entirely based on fact.
However, I really do feel that at least Obama is trying on the green issue. McShame just seems to have the same old rhetoric no matter how much he tries to dress it up with buzz words.
The 'Drill baby Drill" makes me sick to my stomach. Also, what is this business of having a "Drill Offshore" banner next to a "Energy Independence" banner. That is what I'd call an oxyprotest. Just doesn't make sense.
Keep things simple - http://www.greengroove.org
Can we finally stop with this defeatist " pick the lesser of two evils" crap? It sounds so childish and ill informed. Mcain and Obama are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. No candidate is going to agree with us 100% of the time. As for the clean coal argument, I don't see whats so wrong in investing in developing technologies to make it cleaner. Yes it would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and all coal power plants are gone, and everything will be powered by wind or sun. It's not going to happen. Now I'm not advocating the construction of a whole bunch of new clean coal plants, but lets face it, existing coal plants are going to be around for quite a while still, and using carbon sequestration and clean coal technologies could serve as a small step to reversing the damage done by the current use of fossil fuels.
The whole energy debate is so complicated, most people don't even understand it. The repuglicans, who are typically mindless automatons, have clung to whatever their favorite pundits have been spewing out without even understanding the basic facts at hand. There's absolutely no way around the fact that no matter how much we drill for oil domestically, we will never be off of foreign dependence until our cars completely no longer use gasoline and diesel fuels. That's where this debate should start for everyone.
From there, we can debate how to proceed whether to use clean coal, nuclear or completely green technologies... it doesn't matter as long as we all understand that drilling is not even close to a real solution. And John McCain is the one candidate that absolutely doesn't understand that fact.
I would ignore what the candidates are saying and look at their past records. Both candidates had to say the magic words "offshore drilling" and "clean coal" to appease those huge, entrenched interests. Not doing so would release a torrent of 527 ads against him and cost him the election. Despite his rhetoric, McCain has more lobbyists on his staff and has been in the Washington power structure much longer than Obama and is more likely to do the bidding of big oil/coal. Obama is smart, and I have a feeling that he'll pay lip service to those industries (and the corn ethanol industry) and throw them a bone while putting the majority of his effort into true solutions like solar, wind, and rail. He's already indicated as much by dissing nuclear.
Barack has a lifetime League of Conservation Voters (LCV) rating of 96. John McCain has a lifetime LCV rating of 26. From their past actions, it's pretty obvious that BO is going to work to produce more, better environmental policies and legislation than JM. Here are some samples of each candidate's votes:
Barack Obama
# Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations. (Feb 2008)
# Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
# Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
# Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
# Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
# Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
# Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
# Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas. (Apr 2005)
# Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
# Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
# Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
# Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
# Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
# Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
John McCain
# GovWatch: Yes, his cap-and-trade bill is mandatory. (Jun 2008)
# Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
# Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
# Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
# Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
# Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
# Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
# Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
# Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
# Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
# Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
# Sponsored bill for greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
# Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
# Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)
# Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases. (Sep 1998)
I'll say it once again: we absolutely should drill in both ANWR and OCS. Why? Not because it will lower gas prices more than a few cents, but because we will make well over a trillion dollars, perhaps 2-3 trillion, in royalties and taxes.
The Republicans want drilling really bad. Let's make them pay through the teeth for. The current gang-of-14 bill is already a bigtime environmental winner, trading just a fraction of the OCS for lots of environmentalist goodies. Let's keep selling!
How about we trade the opening of ANWR for, say, a moratorium on all new coal uses and a special agency that will collect all the taxes and royalties from ANWR for mass transit and renewable energy infrastructure and R&D? I bet the Republicans would bite.
How about the areas of OSC that are still off limits even after this new bill? What should we sell that for? Well, lets keep sure all the profits go to the same agency as above. Throw in a carbon tax and we have a deal!
Republicans want nukes? Ok. What should we make them give? How about a shift of money from roads to mass transit (moving from the current 9:1 ratio to more of a 50:50 perhaps?) and a program that would take the tax revenue from the associated power companies and set up a conservation fund?
Frankly, we can get FAR more environmental protection by drilling this oil and gas and harnessing that money for good causes than we can by leaving it in the ground. It is simple reality that we will need oil and gas for decades. Borrowing from the Chinese in order to buy from the Arabs is much worse for us and much worse for the environment than drilling our own.
I'm not tuned into this issue but our friends in Norway (the greenest country on the planet) drill off shore responsibly and are energy independent with minimal impact to the environment. Why can't the US do the same?
"The repuglicans, who are typically mindless automatons, have clung to whatever their favorite pundits have been spewing out without even understanding the basic facts at hand."
Wow, I guess I just wasn't introspective enough to realize. Thanks for the enlightenment. Actually, I'm on the phone right now switching parties.
That's like saying that Democrats can't read (ya know, the button below that says "Post an intelligent and civil comment.")
Ecology is all about common sense.
I fail to see how preserving our health and environment come with all this ideological bagage for so many people.
It should be something as natural,common and neutral as brushing your teeth or saying "please".
It is about time the politicians listen to the AMERICAN PEOPLE and start drilling for OIL!!!!! We need to get the special interests, Al Gore and his friends selling carbon credits and making millions off the backs of hardworking tax payers, out of Washington!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
McCain seems to vote for and then against the same things. He is not following a true line. Opposes drilling in ANWR and then supports the funding for it. What the hell ?
He is definitely not very interested in energy independence.
Well, Bill, stradric may have directed his comment at republicans, but I think we need to admit that both parties frequently engage in mindless following of pundits, use of empty buzzwords and rhetoric, and whatnot.
I still stand by my opinion that no one who deserves or is qualified to be president could ever get elected, or would even choose to become a politician. Maybe around the revolutionary war it was the wealthy, smart and well educated people who rose up and worked together to figure out the wisest way to do things, but that was a long time ago. Today, we've got professional politicians trolling for votes and funds, pandering to anyone who'll give them those.
Anthony is right on the money .... the major political parties in this country are red and blue, definitely not green. There's a saying which goes, "If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem." That sums up the attitude of politicians toward environmental protection .... don't solve the problem, just keep making the public afraid of it and blaming the other party for blocking the solution.
This is exactly why we cannot rely on government to make real progress on environmental issues. Our economy is based on free-market capitalism, and that is the tool that will drive real change through private industry. Where consumers demand environmentally friendly products and services, companies will respond because they see a potential customer base.
Don't sit around and wait for politicians to make a difference, and don't waste your breath arguing about which candidate is "greener". Ultimately, they're all just telling us what we want to hear. People make the difference....not politicians.
I see the anti-environmental brigade are here, shame on these people who put profit (someone else's) before the lives of people and nature, in an attempt to score cheap political points.
Remember that senior energy analyists have said that it would take about 10 to 15 years before the off-shore drilling could come online, so Bush and McCain are pulling the wool over people's eyes once again.