Obama vs. McCain on energy

[bascule]

McCain says: LET'S DRILL FOR MORE OIL!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/mccain.energy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

Obama says: that doesn't make sense

 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/

 

It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it's just not possible. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves. We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.

 

Obama calls for drastically reducing our consumption of oil by ratcheting up fuel efficiency standards and also heavily promoting biofuels as an alternative to oil.

 

At least to me, it's sort of feeling like... McCain: More of the same! Obama: Change!

[CDarwin]

Biofuels are almost as big a crock as ANWR, though.

[Phi for All]

I sincerely hope we can capitalize on the very recent trend that the high price of gas has engendered (I've seen six different Smart Cars in my suburb in the last month!). Americans don't rock the boat when things are convenient or don't cost much. We don't generally speak up at the workplace as long as our jobs are relatively safe. We'll let the bullies kick sand in our face as long as they don't block our time in the sun.

 

But the energy isn't cheap anymore. It's $20 to fill the barbecue propane tank, $50 to fill the truck, the Hummer 1 & 2 have been discontinued and the Hummer 3 is a 5-cylinder (for green folks who secretly wanted an H1, and don't mind explaining themselves endlessly, I guess). With more smaller cars on the road, the old "they're not safe" argument is giving ground to smugness at the pump. We're starting to realize it's the big ol' gas-guzzlers that made small cars unsafe in the first place.

 

I can appreciate holding on to your market to squeeze the last good drops of profit, but I think the oil market has long been free of the pressures a normal market feels, due to subsidization, lack of alternatives, suppression of patent technology and state-of-the-art spin marketing. The next president has a chance to start with a more level playing field and I hope he takes advantage of this new trend instead of our aversion to change.

 

Biofuels are almost as big a crock as ANWR, though.

Especially now that the US corn crops are being flooded by heavy rains.

[swansont]

I'm not sure if McCain doesn't understand the scale of the issue or if he's just pandering because it's what some people want to hear, and zigging while Obama zags is just strategy. I just want someone to grow a backbone and do what's in our long-term best interest rather than do what's popular.

 

Hybrids evolving into plug-in electric with a gas reserve for emergency/long-haul use. Energy independence. Why can't someone sell that?

[Phi for All]

Hybrids evolving into plug-in electric with a gas reserve for emergency/long-haul use. Energy independence. Why can't someone sell that?

If Chevron used the NiMH technology they've been sitting on and announced an x-year strategy to team up with GM and produce the EV-2, EV-3 and finally the EV-4 (the evolution you mentioned), I'd take back every bad thing I ever said about them. The US could lead by example for a change, too.

[bascule]

Biofuels are almost as big a crock as ANWR, though.

 

That looks like a composition fallacy, namely: corn-based biofuels are a crock. That says nothing about biofuels as a whole. I see enormous potential in algae-based biofuels.

 

Hybrids evolving into plug-in electric with a gas reserve for emergency/long-haul use. Energy independence. Why can't someone sell that?

 

You might want to read the original link re: Obama

 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/

 

He's certainly pushing (mandatory) hybrids as part of fleet requirements for automakers, although not necessarily with the plug-in option.

[john5746]

Obama seems to like making political hay out of solutions. It seems to me that we need to work on both sides of the equation, not just the demand side. We will be using oil for a long time into the future. As the price increases, it opens up domestic avenues that may not have been considered previously.

 

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm

 

The issue is more complex than he suggests. Of course it would be stupid to think it will solve the problem - just as it is stupid to think any one idea will solve the problem.

[Pangloss]

We should drill for all domestic oil. We're probably the only country in the world that doesn't do that, thanks to our dire need for self-flagellation.

 

I don't think drilling is any kind of solution, but it's silly not to do it.

[CDarwin]

That looks like a composition fallacy, namely: corn-based biofuels are a crock. That says nothing about biofuels as a whole. I see enormous potential in algae-based biofuels.

 

But that's not what US politicians are talking about.

 

We should drill for all domestic oil. We're probably the only country in the world that doesn't do that, thanks to our dire need for self-flagellation.

 

I don't think drilling is any kind of solution, but it's silly not to do it.

 

We do drill for domestic oil, just not where it's still abundant. Honestly, I tend to agree that we probably should be drilling in Alaska more, but the US hit peak oil in the 1970s and there is nothing that ANWR can do about that.

 

EDIT: Oops, I didn't see the "all." We seem to agree pretty perfectly then, and without me even having to make a pedantic correction. Yay.

Edited June 17, 2008 by CDarwin
multiple post merged

[Phi for All]

But that's not what US politicians are talking about.

If there was a sawgrass or algae market to subsidize, they probably would be.

[swansont]

You might want to read the original link re: Obama

 

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060228-energy_security/

 

He's certainly pushing (mandatory) hybrids as part of fleet requirements for automakers, although not necessarily with the plug-in option.

 

That's a speech from Feb of 2006, though. What's he been pushing recently?

[bascule]

We should drill for all domestic oil. We're probably the only country in the world that doesn't do that, thanks to our dire need for self-flagellation.

 

"dire need for self-flagellation" is certainly an interesting way of describing "catastrophic environmental impact"

[Pangloss]

So every country that is drilling for oil is guilty of "catastrophic environmental impact"? It's not possible to drill for oil without "catastrophic environmental impact"? I see.

 

I think off-the-cuff reactions like that are why we don't have a nuclear power program like that of France, which would have put us light years ahead of the situation we currently find ourselves in. This is exactly what I meant by "self-flagellation" -- our inability to take positive steps forward that other countries seem perfectly capable of doing without all the muss and fuss.

[swansont]

So every country that is drilling for oil is guilty of "catastrophic environmental impact"? It's not possible to drill for oil without "catastrophic environmental impact"? I see.

 

Oh, come on, that's not what you said earlier. You said drill for all domestic oil. Don't move the goalposts.

[iNow]

Also, drilling is only one tiny piece of the equation. Once it's been removed from the ground, it's burned and put into the atmosphere.

[Sisyphus]

How about thinking of life beyond the car, and designing cities that are 'more European than Europe' in their energy efficiency? In other words, FORGET energy efficient cars and try energy efficient cities!

 

Agreed. I know I've held up New York as a positive model before, but it bears repeating. The statistics are pretty overwhelming. The average Manhattenite uses 1/8th the energy of the average suburbanite, and it's mostly owed to density, walkability, and convenient and efficient mass transit. And all of it without sacrificing economic prosperity or overly imposing behavior that doesn't flow naturally from the city itself!

 

Not that that is a universal solution, of course. Obviously not everybody can live in cities - what would we eat? We should do what we can in this direction, but we've had almost a century of car-centric growth, and we're going to be stuck with the results for a long time no matter what we do. But we can stop making it worse.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Sisyphus

[Phi for All]

This is exactly what I meant by "self-flagellation" -- our inability to take positive steps forward that other countries seem perfectly capable of doing without all the muss and fuss.

I don't see this as self-flagellation; the whip is being handed to us in the form of clever campaigns by those who stand to lose money and power if our current systems change too drastically. We're guilty of wielding that whip robustly once it's been given to us though, I'll admit that.

 

The "unwashed masses" are the most affected by these campaigns, just as they're the ones that are most affected by commercials telling them how bad they stink or how much their future depends on the lustrousness of their hair. Educating Average Joe is what's needed but AJ will always savor the sound byte over the tutorial he really needs. Which presidential candidate is going to try to tackle the job of teaching AJ to think a little more critically about his future?

[Pangloss]

Oh, come on, that's not what you said earlier. You said drill for all domestic oil. Don't move the goalposts.

 

Why would drilling for all domestic oil represent "catastrophic environmental impact"?

 

Also' date=' drilling is only one tiny piece of the equation. Once it's been removed from the ground, it's burned and put into the atmosphere.

[/quote']

 

I agree we need to be moving away from oil. I just don't see why we should be required to beat ourselves about the head and shoulders while the rest of the world digs everywhere it possibly can. That's not fair.

 

The "unwashed masses" are the most affected by these campaigns, just as they're the ones that are most affected by commercials telling them how bad they stink or how much their future depends on the lustrousness of their hair. Educating Average Joe is what's needed but AJ will always savor the sound byte over the tutorial he really needs. Which presidential candidate is going to try to tackle the job of teaching AJ to think a little more critically about his future?

 

Makes sense.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I'm with the common sense movement here. I realize we can't drill ourselves out of this entire mess, but isn't that like refusing to use your hand to feint a bullet? It may not do much to cure the problem, but seems ridiculous to reject the obvious.

 

And, even if we all buy electric and hydo cars tomorrow, we still have high priced industrial and military equipment that will continue to need it well in the future, even after we've all forgotten about oil. I'd sleep easier knowing a chinese invasion could be met with our big toys and our own oil to run them with.

 

So, I say drill, drill and drill again. But more importantly, let's stop giving oil companies subsidies for alternative fuels. Here's a thought....how about we stop giving funds to the private sector that thanks us by charging us R&D prices regardless of our "investment"?

 

Who Killed the Electric Car ought to be a great testiment on why we shouldn't do these kinds of things....(while we repeat history by doing it with Ethanol).

[bascule]

I think off-the-cuff reactions like that are why we don't have a nuclear power program like that of France

 

I fully support massively expanding our number of nuclear reactors. That'd work quite well with swansont's suggestion of plug-in hybrids.

 

It would appear Bush is now pushing offshore drilling as well:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Edited June 18, 2008 by bascule
multiple post merged

[swansont]

Why would drilling for all domestic oil represent "catastrophic environmental impact"?

 

It brings into question the location of the oil, and cost/benefit.

[Pangloss]

It brings into question the location of the oil, and cost/benefit.

 

Nonsense, "catastrophic environmental impact" was a definitive statement, not the raising of a scientific inquiry. So get off my back.

 

 

Yeah' date=' I'm with the common sense movement here. I realize we can't drill ourselves out of this entire mess, but isn't that like refusing to use your hand to feint a bullet? It may not do much to cure the problem, but seems ridiculous to reject the obvious.

 

And, even if we all buy electric and hydo cars tomorrow, we still have high priced industrial and military equipment that will continue to need it well in the future, even after we've all forgotten about oil. I'd sleep easier knowing a chinese invasion could be met with our big toys and our own oil to run them with.

 

So, I say drill, drill and drill again. But more importantly, let's stop giving oil companies subsidies for alternative fuels. Here's a thought....how about we stop giving funds to the private sector that thanks us by charging us R&D prices regardless of our "investment"?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Well put.

 

 

I fully support massively expanding our number of nuclear reactors. That'd work quite well with swansont's suggestion of plug-in hybrids.

 

It would appear Bush is now pushing offshore drilling as well:

 

I agree with both of those things' date=' and I disagree with my state's delegation's bipartisan opposition to offshore drilling. I don't see any (or at least not many) birds dying on the European shores due to North Sea drilling, and sure as hell nobody's talking about ending that drilling, and yet we can't even START drilling off the Florida coast without every environmentalist screaming end-of-the-world scenarios and shouting about "catastrophic environmental impact". Accidents happen and that's likely with nuclear as well, but that makes it an endeavor to be endured and learned-from, not something we should cast out in ignorance. That's what science is all about. Nuclear should [i']never [/i]have been abandoned, IMO.

[bascule]

Accidents happen and that's likely with nuclear as well

 

Both have a history of nasty accidents. The difference is modern nuclear technology, particularly negative void coefficient reactors and modern computerized control systems have rendered the dangers of nuclear power mostly moot. Chernobyl was a positive void coefficient reactor, none of which exist in America.

 

However, offshore drilling accidents remain common:

 

http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/usumacinta.htm

 

Even if offshore drilling were legalized in areas where it's presently banned, it'd still be years before this would actually result in oil production:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7460767.stm

 

It sounds to me as if offshore drilling is being touted as some magical stopgap measure for current oil prices, but that isn't the case. We're talking about a solution that won't come to fruition for years.

[Saryctos]

Why not drill ANWR under the conditions that a % of the profits will go to funding alternative energy solutions.

[CDarwin]

Why not drill ANWR under the conditions that a % of the profits will go to funding alternative energy solutions.

 

Hmph. That's an interesting notion. You'd have to finagle it constitutionally because the Federal government can't tax one place more than any other, but it seems like it might be workable.