Featured * :: new energy

Coastal Drilling Ban Is Dead: A Post-Mortem

Bill Scher — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:02:26 -0400

Congressional leaders have backed down to conservatives and will let the current federal ban on most coastal drilling to completely expire.

What does this mean for our energy policy? What does this say about the congressional leadership and the progressive movement?

1. Sit Back And Watch Gas Prices ... Not Drop. I cracked a brief smile when scanning conservative blog reaction to the news, and seeing Stop The ACLU seemingly put down the champagne glass and ask, "When will I see things reflect at the pump?"

The conservative movement got their way with a massive propaganda campaign promising that when we "Drill Here" will we "Pay Less." They even claimed in August that merely talking about drilling on the House floor was driving prices down. When pressed about how long it would take to extract the minimal oil available, the response was that ending the ban would have "psychological" benefits that would affect the market.

Well conservatives, your bluff has been called. I await a fresh round of excuses and made-up truthiness if gas prices do not significantly drop.

Once it is definitively proven that lifting the ban did nothing to immediately lower our energy costs, it may end up being easier to pass legislation to provide affordable clean energy, and perhaps even reinstate the drilling ban.

2. It's a Cave-in. Congressional leaders should take serious lumps. They embarked on a smart strategy to turn the tables by putting compromise legislation on the table and smoking out conservatives as hypocrites. It worked, yet they failed to follow through and attack conservatives for obstructing the "All of the Above" energy policy they claimed to support.

They failed to fully read the polls. Yes, drilling propaganda successfully increased support for it. But clean energy still polls better. The public is not narrowly obsessed with drilling the way conservatives literally in bed with Big Oil are. They did not trust that the public would be with them if they forced the issue.

In fairness, the financial crisis is so dominating that it makes it hard to get any other message through. But that also makes it harder for conservatives to follow through on their threat to shut down the government if congressional leaders had renewed the ban in upcoming stopgap financing legislation.

Just this week, the plan was to put a scaled back drilling ban in such a bill -- a partial giveaway that would have been even harder for conservatives to shut down the government over. Yet the congressional leadership still flinched.

3. It's Our Fault Too. While it's always easy to point the blame at someone else, the broader progressive movement deserves blame as well.

When gas hit $4/gallon, we all should have recognized it was an all-hands-on-deck moment. Public outrage needed to be met with a coordinated plan of action. We had the plans on the shelf -- investment in affordable, accessible clean energy to reduce dependence on increasingly expensive oil, along with short-term economic stimulus to help families deal with the spike in costs.

But we didn't strike first. Newt Gingrich did with his "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." propaganda. If we had seized the moment and framed the debate, his cheap sloganeering would have gone the way of the forgotten gas tax holiday.

Even after that moment, we had counter-arguments to make against the Drill Now dishonesty. Arguments just as simple but more factual -- Bush's Energy Department says more drilling won't lower prices until 2030. Done.

Those arguments were made, but not in nearly as coordinated and amplified a fashion as the conservative movement adopted "Drill Here. Drill Now." -- with every right-wing radio host, TV commentator, blogger and congressperson driving the message. Similar to Supreme Court nominations, they made drilling their #1 priority. We did not. As a sports commentator would say, they wanted it more.

One thing we should learn from conservatives is to never quit. Keep this in mind: they are still fighting Roe v. Wade after losing repeatedly in the Supreme Court.

The drilling ban is a lost battle. The fight for a clean energy future is far from a lost war.

Conservatives Stay Under The Covers With Big Oil

Bill Scher — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:29:28 -0400

As predicted here last week, House leaders put an "All of the Above" energy bill on the floor.

And conservatives in Congress -- who pretended to support an "All of the Above" energy policy all summer -- rejected it, staying under the covers in bed with Big Oil.

The compromise bill -- which both allows states to lift bans on coastal drilling and repeals handouts to Big Oil so we can invest in clean energy -- passed the House without conservative support. Furthermore, President Bush -- for years the lead whiner demanding more drilling -- threatened to veto the bill.

Why? As the New York Times reports:

Among other objections, House Republicans joined industry in criticizing the measure because it would eliminate about $18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, including a manufacturing deduction of particular benefit to large firms. The savings from the oil companies would be diverted to pay for tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels, vehicles that use alternative energy and other fuel efficiency programs and research.

To review, conservatives are rejecting a bill that allows for more coastal drilling and more clean energy -- the exact "All of the Above" approach they claimed they wanted -- because it would take away special favors for Big Oil.

Whatever problems there are with this bill, it has served a useful purpose. It has exposed the lie that conservatives really believe in a comprehensive "All of the Above" energy policy.

Anything that makes Big Oil the least bit unhappy -- making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes, forcing oil companies to compete with clean energy companies, and actually giving us a choice for the energy we buy -- conservatives will fight to the hilt.

And since the conservative minority is large enough to either filibuster a compromise bill in the Senate, or sustain a veto from President Bush, we will remain at the mercy of Big Oil -- and forced to keep buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil.

Until that conservative minority becomes even smaller, our energy policy will not change, will not become more affordable and will not become cleaner.

Conservatives Reject House "All Of The Above" Energy Bill

Bill Scher — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:15:45 -0400

The House leadership is offering a compromise "All of the Above" energy bill that goes farther than the Senate "Gang of 10" compromise -- both in coastal drilling and in clean energy. (See coverage from NYT, AP, Reuters and WSJ.)

Yet congressional conservatives still are rejecting it, furthering proving they do not really support an "All of the Above" energy strategy, because they are (literally!) in bed with Big Oil.

While the Senate bill would only mandate drilling off of Florida's coast and allow other southeast states to choose drilling, the House bill would allow all coastal states to choose drilling off their coasts.

At the same time, the House plan joins the Senate in repealing Big Oil tax breaks and sweetheart royalty deals, channeling that revenue into clean energy, including renewable energy tax credits.

Further, the House proposal does more than the "Gang of 10" in regards to renewable electricity -- mandating 15% of our electricity comes from renewable sources -- and by including support for green buildings and mass transit. (Climate Progress offers a more detailed, and not terribly enthusiastic, rundown.)

Like it or don't like it, the new House bill certainly fits the "All of the Above" approach conservatives claimed their support for more drilling was rooted in.

The conservative response? Calling it a "hoax." Why? They claim because royalties from new coastal drilling would not be shared with state governments, so states wouldn't have incentive to opt-in.

Excuse me, conservatives. Didn't you just claim that the mere utterance of more coastal drilling was lowering gas prices for everybody? Haven't you been saying that when we actually "Drill Now" we would all "Pay Less" immediately? And now you reject a compromise claiming that isn't incentive enough, that states need an additional handout for this to work?

(UPDATE: I should also note that the Senate "Gang of 10" proposal does share royalties with states, yet conservatives found different excuses to reject that bill.)

It's simply not a serious argument. It's an excuse to reject an "All of the Above" bill because they don't support an "All of the Above" energy policy. As conservatives are (literally!) in bed with Big Oil, they will not support anything that makes Big Oil pay their fair share in taxes, forces them to compete with clean energy companies, and gives us a choice besides buying increasingly expensive oil.

Conservatives are right that it would probably take a hefty bribe to get most states to allow drilling, but that's because they are wrong about every other aspect of their argument.

Coastal drilling will not lower prices, according to Bush's own Energy Department. It is not worth the risk to states which are dependent on their pristine coastlines for tourism revenue (Grist has noted few are expected to opt-in, if any). Even offering a share of royalties -- revenue states wouldn't see until a decade from now -- is pretty meager incentive.

The political dynamic was shifted by conservatives during the summer, because they launched a coordinated dishonest propaganda campaign that was not forcefully rebutted, prompting the congressional leadership to offer an "All of the Above" compromise. But if conservative credibility is undermined by their rejection of the sort of "All of the Above" bill they had claimed to want, then the political dynamic will shift again.

Will The "Drill, Baby, Drill" Temper Tantrum Shut Down Our Government?

Bill Scher — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:40:18 -0400

The conservative delegates in St. Paul did not chant, "All of the Above." They chanted, "Drill, Baby, Drill."

So much has coastal drilling gotten conservatives foaming at the mouth, that they're barely bothering with the pretense that they believe in a comprehensive energy policy.

While conservatives continue their extended temper tantrum, the current ban on most coastal drilling expires September 30th, putting pressure on congressional leaders.

With Congress back in session, congressional leaders are planning to put compromise packages on the floor. As I explained last month, the basic approach would allow for some additional drilling while also repealing tax breaks and sweetheart royalty deals for Big Oil, and channeling the revenue into generating clean energy. CQ (sub. req'd) reported yesterday on the planned strategy:

[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] has said she will schedule a vote soon on a comprehensive energy package that includes some new drilling with environmental safeguards.

This strategy is expected to proceed on two parallel tracks. Congress will consider standalone energy legislation aimed at resolving the issue. And separately, leaders will decide whether to extend the expiring moratorium.

Democrats say they hope Republicans will feel the need to join in a proposal to link limited offshore drilling with efforts to promote renewable energy. If Republicans do accept that plan, then Democratic leaders could add language reflecting the agreement to a stopgap continuing resolution that is planned to finance government programs until early next year. Lawmakers are aiming to pass a continuing resolution this fall because they don’t intend to finish the coming year’s regular spending bills before the November elections.

If the two parties cannot reach agreement, however, then some Democrats predict their party will extend the drilling ban for another year, without opening up any new areas, as part of the continuing resolution.

...

The Pelosi package is likely to place a long list of protective restrictions on new exploration, such as buffer zones that would bar drilling close to shore and requirements that state officials first agree. Her package would probably also strip oil and gas companies of about $18 billion in tax benefits they currently receive. And she would make oil companies pay the government royalties that have been in dispute and force them to use cash to pay royalties on leases rather than using oil swaps.

In exchange, the measure would be designed to win support from environmental activists by setting aside billions of dollars over the next decade to be invested in alternative fuels and to subsidize mass transit, while requiring utilities to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable fuels. A key ally of environmentalists, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., would also like to encourage green building design and accelerate implementation of tougher vehicle fuel economy standards.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has promised a vote, probably the week after a Sept. 12 energy summit, on a bill put together by a group of 16 senators that would increase spending on renewable energy sources while opening areas, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico, to more drilling. That plan would lift the ban beyond a buffer zone.

What's the response to this attempt at compromise among some leading congressional conservatives? Shut down our entire federal government!

No, I'm not kidding.

Because conservative leaders are so deep in the pocket of Big Oil, they are vehemently against any compromise that doesn't give Big Oil everything it wants.

Presuming Senate conservatives are able to filibuster any compromise energy package, they could then try to throttle the "stopgap" financing bill that would renew the current ban along with funding the operations of our federal government -- either by filibuster or by sustaining a possible presidential veto.

A second CQ report notes that there are more rumblings about a shutdown among House conservatives than Senate conservatives, suggesting some awareness that the tenuous public support for coastal drilling has its limits.

But the differing reactions indicate that conservatives are struggling to deal with their own success.

Conservatives got a lot of mileage by couching coastal drilling as part of an "All of the Above" approach. Problem for them is, they don't actually believe in "All of the Above." They believe in "Drill, Baby, Drill." Listen to the chants.

Conservatives believe in propping up Big Oil with our tax dollars, shielding oil companies (and oil-soaked dictators) from having to compete with clean energy, and denying us affordable energy choices.

But because of the conservatives' effective summer propaganda campaign -- which falsely claimed coastal drilling would lower gas prices -- they moved the congressional leadership.

Now, conservatives are going to be faced with an "all of the above" bill that, despite the additional drilling, makes Big Oil mad. (For more detail, check out Climate Progress which has been digging in to the compromise.)

Conservatives will be put on the spot before September 30: compromise for the public interest, or continue the temper tantrum for Big Oil's interest.

The Big Idea In Denver: Green-Collar Jobs

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:20:51 -0400

In all the buzz of ideas and activism going on outside the convention hall, the rise of green-collar jobs as a signature progressive idea is inescapable. With the potential to help solve our economic, environmental and national security weaknesses, investing in a clean energy economy is quickly becoming a no-brainer which only conservative brains refuse to embrace.

I had the opportunity to talk with Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire about her record on clean energy and green jobs. Watch our interview below.

And I also interviewed David Roberts of Grist.org, who was very impressed with the "sophistication" of the green jobs discussion outside the convention hall, yet felt it was only getting cursory mentions inside the hall.