Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Energy Fictions (NYT on Obama’s energy transformations)
Editorial, New York Times
A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.
The latest evidence comes from Senator Barack Obama, who in less than a week has reversed his stance on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, softened his opposition to offshore drilling and unveiled an out-of-nowhere proposal to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and funnel the money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 tax rebate.
Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent, Mr. Obama had been making good sense on energy questions, and his recent speeches had included a menu of proposals for energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels and new technologies.
Yet public opinion polls showing deep voter discontent with fuel prices – and Senator John McCain’s steady pounding on the issue, including television ads blaming Mr. Obama personally for the rise in gasoline prices – have caused high anxiety among Democrats. They also seem to have persuaded Mr. Obama, who earlier had resisted gimmicky proposals like a gas tax holiday, to strike back.
… Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.
(9 August 2008)
At Gristmill, Joseph Romm saw the editorial as an attack on Obama. In contrast, I thought the New York Times editorial was very good. They say what no candidate can say at the moment: We must have high gas prices, if we are to have a chance of kicking our oil addiction.
I don’t see this as an attack on Obama. After all, they say:
Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent, Mr. Obama had been making good sense on energy questions, and his recent speeches had included a menu of proposals for energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels and new technologies
Obama is under pressure about oil and has to trim some of his positions. That’s political reality. No reason to get excited.
I don’t think “record prices” are a good reason to start tapping into the SPR. It sends the message that the government will step in to keep prices low. Wrong message. The message should be – we will help with conservation and alternate sources, but we have to accept the reality that the age of cheap oil is over.
Experts say candidates miss the boat on energy crunch (PO)
Bill Lambrecht, St Louis Post-Dispatch
Giving consumers $1,000 energy rebates. Drilling for more oil offshore. Inflating our tires properly. These and other proposals by presidential hopefuls highlighted an increasingly fractious debate over energy last week, as Americans said sky-high gas prices would play a big role in how they vote in November.
Energy experts were heartened that an overdue discussion about the nation’s energy future has begun in earnest. But they worried that much of what voters hear is long on gimmickry but short on frank talk and long-term solutions.
“The campaigns are operating at a superficial level,” said Robert Alvarez, a former Energy Department official in the administration of then-President Bill Clinton and a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank in Washington. “It’s like magical thinking, with no one bothering to scratch the surface.”
… And neither candidate is addressing the biggest issue of them all, said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University.
That issue is an upcoming peak in global oil production followed immediately by decline as soon as the next decade, when the United States will have to be ready with affordable energy alternatives.
(10 August 2008)
Drilling for oil – behind the polls
David Moore, Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum’s blog)
A few days ago I wrote a post about The Opinion Makers: An Insider Reveals the Truth Behind the Polls, a new book by David Moore, a former Vice President of the Gallup Organization and Managing Editor of the Gallup Poll. We talk about polls a lot in the blogosphere, so I thought it would be interesting to invite David to guest blog about his book this week…. – Kevin Drum
DRILLING FOR OIL … in their heart of hearts, most political observers know that polls measure superficial opinions. Still, when the poll results are presented, it’s hard to dismiss what appear to be “scientific” measures of the public will.
Last week, for example, Paul Krugman cited with dismay a CNN poll showing 69 percent of Americans in favor of expanded offshore oil drilling. An article in The New Yorker cited similar poll results, as did pundits on several television news shows.
CNN was not alone. CBS, Fox, and the Los Angeles Times all showed similar or greater support for offshore oil drilling. It appears that this general consensus about public opinion has even persuaded Barack Obama to modify his opposition to offshore oil drilling.
But does the public really support more offshore oil drilling? Clearly the public wants the government to do something about the energy problem, and when presented with an isolated proposal – with no mention made of either possible environmental trade-offs or of the long time it might take for expanded oil drilling to actually produce more oil – the proposal sounds good. But that doesn’t mean people are not willing to consider trade-offs or other approaches.
Most of the polls frame the issue as though it were a problem of “energy independence” or of dealing with the “rising cost of gasoline.” But the energy problem is much more complicated.
(11 August 2008)
