Blog entry

Conservatives Don't Believe In Energy Independence. Just Ask 'Em.

Bill Scher — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:14:44 -0400

In recent posts, I've shown that conservative talk of an "All of the Above" energy policy flies in the face of repeated conservative actions to defeat anything that significantly invests in clean energy and forces Big Oil to compete -- not to mention the declaration at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference by featured speaker and oil lobby representative John Felmy that "Energy Independence Is Not a Possible Option."

Today, conservative media hero John Stossel further conveys the true core conservative belief, in a column titled: "The Idiocy of Energy Independence."

The column is an excellent case of conservative illogic at its finest.

Here's Stossel's main argument:

To be for "energy independence" is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer's floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving "energy independence" would expose us to unnecessary risks -- such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn -- and ethanol -- shortages.

For Stossel, it's risky to be overly dependent on one's own country. But it's not risky to be overly dependent on one source of energy.

Since the global supply of oil is tight and diminishing, the disruption of supply that Stossel worries about is already happening. Natural disasters, military attacks and geopolitical conflicts (Russia, Nigeria, Iraq, etc.) all have all impacted the supply and price of oil, leaving us unsafe.

Sure, it doesn't make sense to have all your eggs in one basket. The clean energy economy would be based on a diverse energy portfolio that includes wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and small hydro. And fossil fuels won't be eliminated from our energy mix in this generation, just reduced.

Stossel also tries to criticize the notion of public investment in clean American energy:

McCain and Obama talk constantly about how much they will "invest" -- with money taken from the taxpayers, of course -- to achieve energy independence. "[W]e can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market," Obama said.

What makes Obama think he's qualified to pick the "best plans"? It's the robust competition of the free market that reveals what's best. Obama's program would preempt the only good method we have for learning which form of energy is best.

Stossel acts like oil thrives in some sort of global free market. There is no such thing.

Many of these countries we "trade" with run nationalized oil companies. Our current government energy policy props up Big Oil with tax breaks and cheap land giveaways. And Big Oil funds politicians to prevent clean energy from getting a foothold in the market and offering us consumers a real energy choice.

We're subsidizing the disease and starving the cure, thanks to conservative policies.

Conservatives like John Stossel are fighting like hell to preserve and extend the status quo that keeps us dependent on increasingly expensive oil. Not surprising, considering Stossel thinks "these oil companies are heroes."

Weak arguments by conservatives are merely showing their fealty to Big Oil, at the expense of our pocketbooks and our planet.

Conservative Clarifies: "All Of The Above" Means "All The Drilling We Want"

Bill Scher — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:10:44 -0400

In the latest edition of "The Week in Blog" over at bloggingheads.tv, the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll and I talked about the conservative blog reaction to the "Gang of 10" compromise, which would allow some drilling off the southeast coast in exchange for the end of subsidies to Big Oil and renewed investment in clean energy.

While conservatives have been shrouding their support for coastal drilling in the cloaked sound bite, "All of the Above," I had noted last week that for conservatives, "that 'All of the Above' list seems to sputter out for conservatives when it gets to renewable energy."

But Conn clarified to me that for conservatives, "All of the Above," just means "all" of the drilling they want. He said "any bill" that does not open up every inch of American coastline and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is not "all." Watch the segment below.

Of course, this only furthers the point. For conservatives, "all of the above" is not about having a comprehensive energy policy that achieves energy independence and creates affordable energy options to oil. It's about getting Big Oil "all" that they want.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now embracing the outlines of the Senate "Gang of 10" proposal, saying the House would consider a bill that would allow "opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil."

And yet, in response to the compromise, the House Minority Leader John Boehner (who was golfing while his conservative colleagues railed against Pelosi for keeping to the House recess schedule) lambasted it.

So agree or disagree with the substance of the compromise.

But if congressional conservatives continue their temper tantrum in the face of it, calling the conservative bluff is less likely to actually lead to drilling than it is to expose how deep conservatives are in Big Oil's pocket.

For Conservatives, "All of the Above" Means "No Clean Energy"

Bill Scher — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:58:10 -0400

Conservatives know that after eight years of keeping America dependent on oil, they can't easily promote another Big Oil giveaway. So the message mantra around coastal drilling is "All of the Above."

"All of the Above" is supposed to mean that we need to do "everything" in response to the gas price shock, and more drilling is just one thing among many, including support for coal, nuclear and renewable energy.

Funny thing is: that "All of the Above" list seems to sputter out for conservatives when it gets to renewable energy.

Today's Tom Friedman column in the NY Times makes the point that long-term extensions of renewable energy tax credits would, "unlike offshore drilling," have "immediate impact on America’s energy profile," because many renewable energy projects cannot get private financing with the current short-term credits about to expire.

The conservative response from my bloggingheads.tv partner and Heritage Foundation blogger Conn Carroll? A "fact checking" claim that Friedman is wrong because, "According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) wind and solar contribute a combined less than 1% to our nation’s energy needs. Whether or not Friedman’s favored alternative tax credits get passed will not change that fact in any significant way."

Why wouldn't the tax credits change that fact? Heritage does not say.

There's a reason why renewable energy is stuck at 1% of our energy mix: no long-term energy policy in support of renewable energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists explains:

Unfortunately, the "on-again/off-again" status that has historically been associated with the PTC [renewable energy production tax credit] contributes to a boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry. The cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong growth in development around the country during the years leading up to the PTC’s expiration. Lapses in the PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the implementation of planned wind projects. When the PTC is restored, the wind power industry takes time to regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth until the tax credits expire. And so on.

And as a report commissioned by the wind and solar energy industries shows: "over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress."

If Heritage is concerned that tax credits by themselves are not enough to lift the renewable energy industry off the ground (I know how much they hate cutting taxes on businesses), they could get behind the full Apollo Alliance plan of $30 billion of investment a year to create 3 million jobs generating clean energy and energy-efficiency.

But that would mean actually including clean energy in"all of the above."

Even more telling, than this one "fact check" misfire, is the apoplectic conservative reaction to the "Gang of 10" coastal drilling compromise.

I was concerned that congressional Democrats were caving by flirting with such a compromise (I have long chronicled the "Failures of Compromise," the futile attempts by congressional leaders to appease conservative obstructionists that have marked this Congress.

However, by luck or design, the Gang of 10 compromise -- which will also likely fail to become law -- is serving to expose how disingenuous conservatives are when they say "all of the above," and how deep they are in the pocket of Big Oil.

The compromise proposal would lift the ban on coastal drilling for Florida; allow Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia to do the same; while keeping the ban in place for the Pacific Coast and the northeast). But, the oil could only be sold in the U.S., not on the global market. Further, the plan would end tax giveaways to oil companies to invest $84 billion over 10 years towards clean energy and fuel-efficiency.

Sounds very "all of the above," doesn't it?

But the record profit-taking oil companies don't want to pay their fair share in taxes. So conservatives are conveniently ignoring their own compromise-y "all of the above" rhetoric, to throw a fresh temper tantrum.

They're lambasting the Gang of 10 as "selling out conservative, Republican ideals in the name of singing kumbaya with liberal Democrats," "intend[ing] to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better." and "it might be worthwhile recalling the murderous Gang of Four, the Chinese communist leaders who directed the Cultural Revolution."

While they have convinced themselves that "drill, drill, drill" is a political winner, the reality is that support for clean energy is stronger than support for coastal drilling. A new Gallup poll further confirms what I argued two weeks ago.

By snubbing a compromise that does both, because it doesn't completely give away the store to Big Oil, is only showing voters how deep conservatives are in the Big Oil tank.

The fact is conservatives do not believe in "all of the above." They believe in oil dependence.

In fact, it was at last year's big conservative convention CPAC where I heard a featured speaker declare: "Energy Independence Is Not A Possible Option." This is a dangerous pessimistic attitude that will harm both our planet and our pocketbooks.

Progressives may not want more coastal drilling (which would do nothing to lower prices), and progressives certainly want to greatly reduce our fossil fuel use and carbon emissions in the long-run.

But we are the ones who believe in "all of the above." We just understand that oil, coal and nuclear are already represented in our energy mix. It's clean energy that's been missing.

That's the choice that's been denied us, to protect Big Oil from real competition.

And that's where our policy needs to invest in if we are to have affordable energy options that won't destroy our Earth.

More on conservative hypocrisy from David Roberts at Grist.

Proof We Can Go Green. Now.

Bill Scher — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:52:57 -0400

The Dell computer company just announced a milestone. It is now a carbon-neutral business. And by powering itself with clean energy, Dell is saving money.

The Wall Street Journal blog Environmental Capital reports:

Dell’s reliance on greater energy efficiency and renewable energy is now saving the company $3 million a year. Okay, a drop in the bucket. [Dell makes a profit of $11.7 billion.] But more importantly for other companies of all sizes, Dell executives say the internal returns on the efficiency drive are stellar: Most of the new projects pay for themselves in less than two years, and almost all the projects pay back in less than three.

“Since we figure we’ll still be in business in three years, it just makes sense,” said Dane Parker, Dell’s global director of environment, health and safety.

Dell’s Round Rock, Texas, headquarters are already famously 100 percent powered by clean energy. But since 2004, the rest of the company has increased renewable-energy purchases ten-fold. Conventional wisdom says buying things like wind power is an expensive luxury, since wind and other alternative energies are more expensive than traditional power sources.

Not anymore—wildly volatile electricity prices thanks to higher coal and natural gas prices mean Dell’s actually saving money by going green, just like the city of Houston. Getting clean energy on long-term agreements locks in rates that can suddenly look cheap as other power bills soar. “It gives you price certainty compared with the volatility of traditional sources, so it’s a money-saver,” said Mr. Parker.

Conservatives will likely look at this milestone and argue that the market is taking care of everything itself. That is utterly detached from reality. Dell is on the leading edge, but without a change in energy policy, it will be the exception and not the rule.

Fact is, there is nothing "free" about the global energy market. In the U.S., oil and coal are nuclear are propped up by government policies. And we buy plenty of foreign oil from nationalized companies in the OPEC cartel.

There could be many more Dells. But today, our energy policy primarily supports clean energy instead of fossil fuels. It doesn't have to be that way.

The argument that investing the clean energy is too pie-in-the-sky and economically dangerous is now debunked. Much of the technology is already here, and Dell is successfully using it without hurting its bottom line.

The main obstacle for getting available clean energy technology on line is the initial cost. As Dell shows, it pays for itself over time, but many businesses and families can't front the initial costs.

And of course, there are community infrastructure needs -- wind farms, smart electric grids -- that only our federal, state and local governments can take the lead on. (Such as the town of Rock Port, Mo., which is now 100 percent powered by wind.)

That's where government policy is crucial, making the financial investments and incentives so all households and companies have real energy choices, and can make decisions that make America more energy secure and economically vibrant.

So if you're sick and tired of volatile energy costs, and want stable affordable prices from clean energy, know that we can make it happen.

When You Don't Have Facts On Your Side, Make Some Up!

Bill Scher — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:21:42 -0400

Conservatives are trying very hard to sustain their coastal drilling propaganda campaign, which is difficult when you have no facts to sustain your case. They have to stay one step ahead of the fact-checkers, which means regularly concocting new lies that make objective facts appear to be subjective debate points.

The latest lies?

The first lie: as Steve Benen at Crooks and Liars flags, that every political stunt conservatives do on drilling has magically lowered the price of crude oil — be it President Bush's symbolic lifting of the executive order banning coastal drilling, or the current conservatives' Twitter temper tantrum on the House floor.

By lowered crude oil prices of course, we mean they're down from $147 to $119 per barrel. Now, they've only quadrupled in price from when Bush came into office! Bravo!

The real explanation for the nudge downward is more depressing: The recession is reducing oil demand.

From that great bastion of liberal media, Fortune Magazine:

But falling oil prices also suggest that the recession the U.S. has so far avoided is well on its way, as consumers pull back from the spending spree that drove economic growth earlier this decade. A weakening economy will mean more layoffs, further pressuring already reduced spending.

"There is no doubt that with gasoline prices dipping below $3.90 a gallon we have a bit of a reprieve on the energy front," Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a report Monday, "but the reality is that this is a chicken and egg game because the decline is reflecting the consumer recession."

Perhaps the biggest factor behind the recent 18% drop in the price of a barrel of crude is sinking North American demand. Federal Highway Administration data show the number of miles driven in the U.S. dropped from year-ago levels for the seventh straight month in May.

The fundamental cause of high oil prices remains: global supply is dwindling and global demand (primarily from China and India) is rising. That's not going to change over the long-term.

If we want to keep driving energy costs down, we can increase supply ... of clean energy, since there's barely any more oil off of our coasts.

And we can reduce more demand .. preferably through energy-efficient technology and conservation, not an even deeper recession conservatives appear to be celebrating.

The second lie: Coastal drilling can get oil into marketplace within months.

Sen. John McCain launched this one by citing unnamed "oil executives" who told him there would beneficial effects "within months." (hat tip: Friends of the Earth) This has metastized into a talking point claiming prices would be lowered within a "year and a half."

However, Bush's Energy Department says otherwise:

The projections ... indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.

Conservative lies. As regular as the sun coming up. Do you want to buy a used oil derrick from these clowns?

The Most Beneficial Thing Conservatives Have Done In The Last 28 Years

Bill Scher — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:17:45 -0400

Yesterday in my post on inflating tires versus coastal drilling, I noted that: "Conservatives -- lovers of childish mockery over substantive ideas -- later today are apparently planning to distribute tire gauges at an Obama energy event."

Over at The Huffington Post, commenter EFC responded by saying:

If [conservatives] do, in fact, distribute tire gauges it will one of the most beneficial things they've done for the general populous in at least the last 28 years.

Tou-frickin-ché, EFC.

That's gotta be in the Top 10 blog comments of the decade.

Yes Conservatives, Inflating Tires Beats Coastal Drilling

Bill Scher — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:18:03 -0400

The latest conservative lie -- regarding Sen. Barack Obama and fuel efficiency -- actually has a great amount of truth to it.

On Thursday, conservative radio host Sean Hannity claimed Obama said, "All you need to do is inflate your tires. That's all you need to do. If every American would join in this effort, of inflating one's tires, then it's all going to be fine. And we can still import 70% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Just keep those tires inflated."

Conservatives -- lovers of childish mockery over substantive ideas -- later today are apparently planning to distribute tire gauges at an Obama energy event.

And earlier today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, conservative hack economist (who does not hold an economics degree) Larry Kudlow, a very loud advocate of coastal drilling, said of Obama's comments about tires, "That’s not really much of a policy."

No, it's not. That was Obama's point.

Obama's actual comment last week was:

...we could save all the oil they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.

He was decidedly not saying "all you need to do" is inflate your tires, or "my entire energy policy" is inflating your tires.

(Obama has a much larger energy plan centered on investment in renewable energy and fuel efficiency technology. Similarly, it would not be fair to say Sen. John McCain's "entire" energy policy is coastal drilling, when he is also advocating loosening regulations on nuclear power and a contest to promote battery technology.)

Obama was observing that coastal drilling would save us so little oil and so little money even twenty years from now, that you can actually save more money immediately by doing "simple things" such as keeping your tires properly inflated.

Where did he get that crazy idea? From George Bush's Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. (hat tip: Get Energy Smart! Now!)

Their joint site fueleconomy.gov is loaded with fuel-saving, money-saving tips. Keep your tires properly inflated, for example, and you can save up to 12 cents a gallon.

Compare that immediate savings from that single tip, with what coastal and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling combined would get you two decades from now: 6 cents a gallon.

And that's being generous, because Bush's Energy Department says we can't expect any impact on prices from coastal drilling until the year 2030.

In their knee-jerk mockery, conservatives are flying closer to the truth then they intend to.

Inflating your ties does not amount to an energy policy. It's just more of a policy than coastal drilling, since unlike drilling for a tiny amount of oil, it would at least save us some money now.

A real energy policy would provide us consumers with a energy choice besides buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil. Maybe if conservative Senators stopped filibustering every proposal that would help provide such choices, and force their Big Oil donors to face some competition, we could get somewhere.

See our Making Sense alerts on coastal drilling and gas prices for more.

Why Isn't Big Oil Drilling More? Look At The Profits.

Bill Scher — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:07:59 -0400

Today, ExxonMobil reported that it broke its own record for highest corporate profit in a quarter: $11.68 billion. The rest of the Big Oil posse is rocking and rolling as well: Shell's profits are up 33%, BP is up 28% and ConocoPhillips is up 13%.

So in case you didn't understand why Big OIl isn't drilling in the 68 million acres where they already have leases, now you can see.

Why ramp up production, invest in more refinery capacity, and rush more oil on to the market in hopes of lowering prices for consumers, when you're already making as much money as ever has been made in history.

As I said earlier in the week: tight supply + high gas prices = good times for Big Oil.

So long as we consumers don't have any other energy choices except for buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil.

So, we can keep starving investment in clean energy. We can keep propping up Big Oil with tax giveaways. We can give them more leases off our coasts -- where there's so little oil it can't do anything to significantly lower prices.

But don't expect Big Oil to do anything different to help us out. Don't expect Big Oil to quickly use those leases, and rush to get those drops of coastal oil.

Because they're doing just fine as things are.

We can keep our energy policy in Big Oil's hands, or we can force Big Oil to compete with clean energy so we'll have real choices.

And that's our choice.

Headlines You Won't See: Americans Support Clean Energy

Bill Scher — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:04:54 -0400

Pollsters keeping asking this summer about coastal drilling, and support has certainly risen in the wake of a coordinated conservative propaganda campaign and the absence of an effective coordinated response. Blaring headlines have followed: "Americans favor offshore drilling!"

But there is other poll data that indicates such support is not terribly deep, and pales in comparison to support for investment in clean energy and energy-efficiency.

1. Yesterday's CNN poll found 69% supported coastal drilling, but only 51% believed it would lower gas prices. And that's without a real coordinated effort to get the facts out about how painfully little coastal drilling would affect prices.

2. Also in that CNN poll, when voters are asked which presidential candidate would do a better job on gas prices, coastal drilling opponent Barack Obama beats coastal drilling supporter John McCain, 51% to 40%. Obama has emphasized the need to invest in clean energy and use less oil, and that forward-thinking approach appears to resonate more than the drill, drill, drill mantra.

3. The headlines in California today talk up a Public Policy Institute of California poll showing support for coastal drilling rising from 41% to 51%.

But PPIC's own analysis says: "California adults narrowly support allowing more oil drilling off the California coast and narrowly oppose building more nuclear power plants, with deeply divided opinions across party lines. By comparison, there is solid support and consensus for increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles and increasing federal funding for research on alternative energy sources." (Emphasis added)

4. All of the above is in sync with last week's poll from the Wilderness Society, which found:

-- Only 34% "strongly" support coastal drilling, with another 19% merely supporting it "somewhat."

-- 54% don't believe coastal drilling will lower gas prices (slightly more than in the CNN poll), a number that rises to 64% when respondents are reminded that "we have already opened up most of our public lands to oil drilling and gas prices have not gone down."

-- 63% believe coastal drilling "is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers."

-- A whopping 76% believe "Investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles" is a more important priority than "expanding exploration and drilling for more oil."

Unlike coastal drilling, polls have consistently shown strong support for investment in clean energy, promoting fuel-efficiency and capping carbon emissions.

The bottom line is: people don't desperately want drilling for drilling's sake. We desperately want affordable energy costs, and an energy policy that works.

People may give a weak nod to coastal drilling after hearing a one-sided argument. But even some of those folks remain skeptical it will work, and support for a clean energy policy -- one that will give us real choices besides buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil -- is far broader and far deeper.

Conservatives Keep Saying "No" To New Energy (And Old Energy)

Bill Scher — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:36:39 -0400

Conservatives keep saying progressives only say "No" when it comes to energy.

But in reality, congressional leaders have repeatedly supported legislation to invest in generating clean American enegy, supporting energy-efficiency and even accelerating oil drilling where oil companies already have leases.

And conservatives have repeatedly said "No," blocking such legislation with filibusters and filibuster threats.

Just yesterday, conservatives once again filibustered a long-range extension of renewable energy tax credits. The expiration of these tax credits would be "devastating" to the burgeoning clean energy industry, offering competition to Big Oil and more energy choices for consumers.

But conservative leaders whined that the bill dared to raise revenue elsewhere so the tax credits would not increase the budget deficit. Though according to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., there are enough rank-and-file Republicans who support the bill to break the filibuster, but the conservative leadership is pressuring them to vote "No." (They may have another chance to vote on the tax credits today.)

Even more hypocritical, conservatives are -- so far -- refusing to accept an offer from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to have a vote on oil drilling. CongressDaily reports:

On Monday, Reid offered Republicans the chance to have four amendments to the speculation bill regarding offshore oil and gas drilling; oil shale production; nuclear energy, and a broader GOP package containing these and other issues. All would have to earn 60 votes to pass.

Republicans say they want more than four, do not want the amendments dictated to them and if those requirements are not met, at a minimum do not want all four amendments having 60-vote thresholds.

That raises the question: are conservative leaders even interested in saying "Yes" to their own proposals? Are they interested in actually passing legislation, or are they more interested in blame-shifting?

Conservatives must know that if Congress actually lifted the ban on most coastal drilling, that prices still would remain high, the public would grow even angrier, and their lone talking point would be exposed as running on empty.

So they keep saying "No." As Robert Borosage reminds us today, they've gotten quite good at it.