On Sunday, Rep. Peter Roskam and his family
decided to forgo their scheduled family vacation and instead headed east to Washington, DC, where a group of House Republicans were gathering to protest what they have termed the "Pelosi shutdown" -- the decision by Democrats to adjourn for August recess without first voting on offshore drilling legislation.
Yesterday, Roskam called into WLS' Don Wade & Roma to discuss his impromptu trip. After lauding him for his effort -- even thanking him for "helping America's families" by moving the energy debate forward -- the radio hosts assisted Roskam in obscuring some crucial facts about the drilling proposal. For instance, listen to this exchange:
ROSKAM: Our desire is to move a holistic energy policy forward. There is an understanding that were not simply going to drill our way out of this, but you’ve got to pursue those sources of energy in the short-run.
But if we can't "drill our way out of this" energy crisis, as Roskam acknowledges, why should we devote resources to expanded offshore drilling? Why not instead focus most of our energies -- and taxpayer dollars -- on developing sustainable, alternative sources of energy?
Curiously absent from the 11-minute discussion on WLS was any mention of timeframes -- with one exception. During the above clip, Roskam appeared to suggest that increased drilling will help lower gas prices "in the short-run."
But a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted we wouldn’t see “a significant impact” on gas prices until 2030. No economist from any ideological position disputes this point. So unless Roskam equates "20-plus years" with "short term," he's being highly misleading.
Of course, it's possible that extra drilling could provide a psychological boost to traders on the oil futures market, which in turn could lead to a reduction in price in the short-run. But that's not the case Roskam is making. And even if he was, there are plenty of other steps Congress could take to ease market concerns. In fact, there are also other ways Congress could provide immediate assistance to cash-strapped drivers. David Robert's outlines a few ideas here, including "everything from direct tax rebates to bumps in the EITC to expansions of healthcare coverage."
What often gets clouded over in the drilling debate is that we're chasing a finite resource. The cost of oil, like all fossil fuels, is going to keep rising regardless of the degree to which we expand exploration. By relentlessly and disingenuously pursuing a policy that won't control costs in the near future, and repeatedly blocking forward-thinking energy legislation, Republicans like Roskam are ensuring that American families will lose out where it counts: in the long-run.
Anonymous on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 13:43
Good thing he's just an "evil" trial lawyer and not a dentist -- all his patients would hear is "drilldrilldrilldrilldrilldrill..."
Anonymous on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 14:28
You're right. New oil wouldn't come on-line for two decades and Roskam is misleading. Drilling for oil is a losing proposition. Even if, 20 years from now, the cost of gas comes down at the pump, the true cost of burning more fossil fuel will far outweigh whatever savings there may be by contributing to global warming--and all its destructive consequences.
Anonymous on Tue, 08/05/2008 - 15:33
Dean Baker at TPM Cafe makes a pretty good argument for using the windfall profit tax as ju jitsu on the Republican argument for drilling everywhere. Call the Republicans bluff and say ok we'll let 'em drill all over, you can plant a rig 30' off Poppy Bush's dock at Kennebunkport, in Laura Bush's rose garden or up Dick Cheney's butt if you want to but anything over $3 per gallon of gas is windfall profit taxed to pay for alternative energy research & development. If the Repubs are right and there's a gusher under every tourist beach in the nation gas will be back to $2 a gallon in no time and their BFF the oil companies won't ever have to pay the WFT.
Of course the Repubs aren't right. The oil companies aren't stupid and they aren't gonna waste money drilling for oil off Miami that isn't there anymore than the Chinese, Norwegians, Canadians, Brazilians or Spanish do. The Spanish and Brazilians looked in 2001 and 2004 and didn't find any viable deposits 50 miles off our coast in Cuban waters. The US Geological Survey estimates there's 3.6 bbl of oil in Cuban waters, probably less on our side of the line. That 3.6 bbl is 230 days US consumption at 2007 rates and it's sour crude two miles down in a hurricane alley.
In the real world proposing the legislation would just cause Repubs to change the subject and pretend like they never brought it up in the first place. But it sure would be fun hearing Exxon/Mobil execs explain how they can't possibly make money on $3 gas anymore. Let the oil companies tell them in House hearings.There aren't any big fields of light sweet crude on US territory left to find. We used it all up. The oil companies would gladly take more giveaway leases if they can get them. They'd take the R&D money and build wind farms on the acreage too if we force 'em to. .
Post new comment