John McCain is a snake-oil salesman. His energy policy might sound great to the average American, but is John McCain’s all of the above philosophy, that promotes both alternatives and offshore drilling together, the best policy to meet present-day energy demands? Certainly, it is not the best policy.
I do not trust McCain’s energy policy, because he has a poor record on both environmental and energy issues, which are interrelated. Furthermore, his straight talk approach implies business as usual or the status quo, and his straight talk approach on energy is a farce to falsely comfort Americans from the reality that we live in a finite world with finite resources.
Given McCain’s poor voting record on environmental issues, and his close ties to the oil industry (see how big oil rushed money to McCain after he “reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling” at the Washington Post), does McCain really have a new energy policy that is both imaginative and applicable in today’s world? I don’t think he does, because we have heard the same rhetoric from the Presidency of George W. Bush. We haven’t seen any significant policy or infrastructure to meet both energy and climate change demands come from the Presidency of George W. Bush. What we have seen from the Presidency of George W. Bush on energy and climate change is foot dragging. In fact, states have taken the lead in building the renewable energy infrastructure, and the federal government has not. I don’t trust McCain’s energy policy, because I hear and have heard the President make the same pitch. However, I do have some questions for John McCain:
- What does the McCain energy policy actually do? What are the numbers?
- Who are the projected winners and who are the projected losers (and please don’t say the American people are winners)?
- What is the role of renewable energy in the McCain all of the above philosophy towards energy policy? Again, what are the numbers?
- What is the role of nuclear power in the McCain energy policy? Numbers?
I think McCain is the one who is out of touch with America. Just like the gas tax holiday, McCain is wrong again, because given the world demand for oil, offshore drilling is a drop in the bucket, and isn’t worth the risk. Furthermore, I think his recent attacks on Obama for recommending that properly inflated tires save energy shows he is further out of touch. From TIME:
But who’s really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
More data is here to refute McCain’s claim that Obama is out of touch with America for recommending that properly inflated tires save energy:
Earlier this year, we cosponsored the Alliance to Save Energy’s Drive Smarter Challenge. As part of this campaign we advocated maintaining proper tire pressure as one simple step consumers could take to increase fuel economy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It’s more important than you may think. For instance, did you know…
• The Department of Energy estimates that 1.2 billion gallons of fuel were wasted in 2005 as a result of driving on under-inflated tires.
• Fuel efficiency is reduced by 1% for every 3 PSI that tires are under-inflated.
• Proper tire inflation can save the equivalent of about 1 tank of gas per year.
• Proper tire inflation also reduces CO2 emissions.
• Experts estimate that 25% of automobiles are running on tires with lower than recommended pressure, because people don’t know how to check their tires or don’t realize that tires naturally lose air over time.
Below are the voting records of both John McCain and Barack Obama from the League of Conservation Voters. McCain has a voting score of 0%, so between both candidates, who do you trust on environmental and energy issues?
Obama responds to McCain’s out of touch attacks: “It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” Furthermore, Obama actually mentions updating the electricity grid, which is perhaps the most important factor in promoting energy efficiency (and this video illustrates why I am voting for Obama):
On the Net: League of Conservation Voters – The Independent Political Voice for the Environment
I just ran across this interesting article “Drill Here, Drill Now,” that delivered a number of interesting points about offshore drilling. One interesting fact is that 620,500 barrels of oil ooze organically from North America’s ocean floors each year, compared to the average 6,555 barrels that oil companies have spilled annually since 1998. It’s an interesting article and i suggest you read it.
I read “Drill Here, Drill Now,” and I disagree with the article vehemently, because it fails to recognize three inescapable truths (four if you consider the obtuseness of conservatives that have failed to (1) recognize environmental degradation as a national security threat and that (2) the availability of energy is intimately linked to the consequences of environmental degradation).
First, the article fails to recognize that we live in a finite world, and oil is a finite resource. Climate change and carbon are real issues that are the result of burning fossil fuels. I know some conservatives and their think tanks fail to grasp the connections, but it’s true. We can’t ignore the consequences from extracting oil from the Earth, burning it, and then allowing that once trapped resource into the atmosphere. Our actions and their consequences do not disappear into thin air. Certainly, there are natural carbon sequestering mechanisms, but these cannot handle the carbon load produced by anthropogenic activities.
Second, the article seems to suggest that burning fossil fuels is not a problem, which is linked to climate change. Third, the article implies that business as usual or that hydrocarbon fuels will continues to sustain our “technologies and living standards.” Our debt to nature has arrived for some time, and our situation will continue to get worse. We should be using hydrocarbon fuels strategically. Drilling for offshore oil isn’t doing that. Oil companies should be forced to explore and develop the land they already have under lease, but they rather have it all.
The quote that “Mother Nature is 95 times dirtier than Man” is the exact circular reasoning that our country doesn’t need. Furthermore the quote, “101,997 barrels spilled from among the 11.855 billion barrels of American oil extracted offshore” assumes that those 101,997 barrels spilled have not caused both environmental and economic damage to people that depend on the oceans.
Given the claims made by Dr. Richard M. Swier in “Drill Here, Drill Now,” he isn’t qualified to manage our energy sources or the environment, because he is either incompetent in these matters, or he is deliberately trying to muddle the energy/environment debate. He mentions “radical greens,” but he also cites the “Heritage Foundation.” The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that is paranoid of the environmental movement. As a moderate, I’ll take the radical greens anytime over conservatives.