Energy

Shimkus: "If Drilling Is Good, Drilling And Mining Is Better"

Adam Doster — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:54:55 -0700

For those of you who just can't get enough of GOP Rep. John Shimkus' energy shenanigans, we've got some more fuel for your fire.

Following his false suggestion at the state fair last week that the Democrats favor "doing nothing" about the energy crisis, Think Progress flagged a House GOP press conference today in which Shimkus proves he's no logician:

"[I]f drilling is good, drilling and mining is better." A 5th grader could dissect this argument with ease, but let's dish that task off to Matt Yglesias instead:

And, indeed, it’s true that if we think we should give zero consequences to the environmental, economic, and public health harms caused by the resource-extraction activities of the fossil fuel industry then we really should go beyond mining in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and all along America’s coastline — why not tear up as much of the country as possible looking for coal?

Sadly, Shimkus would agree. You see, he isn't too concerned with that whole global warming phenomenon. That's a problem cooked up by the "enviro extremists" who "play on people's emotions" by discussing the dangers of climate change.

In short: drilling isn't "good." There are no short-term benefits and the long-term prospects aren't great either. In fact, Shimkus and colleague Peter Roskam had to drastically fudge their numbers to make their drill-heavy VISION Act sound appealing. The same goes for coal. Meanwhile, the environmental and economic costs are enormous.

We're at a fork in the road and it's time to forge a new path, leaving Shimkus' anachronistic ideas behind.

Fun At The State Fair

Josh Kalven — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:47:51 -0700

The Illinois Republicans appear to have put on quite a display at the state fair this year. We already noted the ramblings by 18th District GOP congressional candidate Aaron Schock (above left) about Barack Obama's "level of socialism." Meanwhile, as has been noted on numerous other sites, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna (above center) also put his foot in his mouth, saying that if Abraham Lincoln "were here today, he would have to tell a story of a house divided that’s even more outrageous than the one that lived in his time," referring to the political climate in Springfield these days. The Rockford Register-Star's Aaron Chambers rightly skewers McKenna's suggestion that the current standoff between Illinois Democrats is somehow "more outrageous" than the fight between the North and South over slavery.

But it doesn't stop there. Earlier in the week, Rep. John Shimkus (above right) took to the stage on Agriculture Day and railed against the Democratic leadership in Congress for not allowing a vote on offshore drilling prior to the August recess. Maybe it was all the hay laying around, but Shimkus couldn't resist building a strawman. Check out his suggestion that his favored energy proposal is "in conflict to those who say, 'Let's do nothing'":

Internal mp3

But who has said we should "do nothing" about the energy crisis? The Democrats? To the contrary, they've put forth various energy proposals, only to see them blocked by the GOP. Moreover, the Democratic leadership has recently indicated that it is willing to compromise with the Republicans on a comprehensive energy bill. But the House Republicans like Shimkus have refused to come to the table, as Grist's David Roberts recently pointed out:

Now Republicans have gotten the idea in their head that drilling for oil in protected areas in the U.S. is a political winner, so they are camping out in D.C., throwing a hissy fit, demanding that Pelosi bring Congress back into session and allow them and up-or-down vote on drilling.

They are packaging this fiasco as an "all of the above" energy strategy -- as in, they support renewables and efficiency, but they also want drilling. Sounds so reasonable, right?

So a group of 10 legislators, five from each party, has put together a compromise bill, which would do exactly what they Republicans say they want: it would open up protected areas to drilling, while also boosting efficiency and renewables.

Obama and Pelosi have both signaled in the last week that they would be willing to support the bill. They will give a little ground on drilling, which they don't favor, in order to put in place measures that support renewables, which they do favor. For their efforts, the media has now said they've "flip-flopped" on drilling.

Meanwhile, McCain has refused to support the compromise. House Republicans have refused to support the compromise. Rush Limbaugh and his band of dittoheads are going absolutely ballistic on the compromise, flooding the legislators responsible with angry phone calls and claiming that it's going to sink McCain's presidential campaign.

More On Biggert's "Dictator" Accusation

Adam Doster — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:17:34 -0700

We caught Republican Rep. Judy Biggert yesterday describing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in rather unflattering terms for not allowing an up-and-down vote on offshore oil drilling. Turns out, Biggert wasn't alone. The Center for American Progress' Wonk Room has compiled a full list of House Republicans who have tried to brand the California Democrat as a dictator or tyrant since the chamber adjourned earlier this month. My personal favorite? This strange historical analogy, courtesy of Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC):

“When the people of France were starving, they went to the queen and said, ‘The people have no bread.’ The queen’s answer was, ‘Let them eat cake.’ That is not the kind of answer we expect from the leader of the people’s house in the United States of America.”

The irony, of course, is that the House Republicans have committed more than their fair share of obstruction during the 110th Congress. The Republicans attempted to force the House to adjourn repeatedly before August 1. Republican senators have filibustered energy legislation well over 10 times. Conservatives have outright rejected the so-called "Gang of 10" compromise, too. Here's Grist's David Roberts:

Meanwhile, McCain has refused to support the compromise. House Republicans have refused to support the compromise. Rush Limbaugh and his band of dittoheads are going absolutely ballistic on the compromise, flooding the legislators responsible with angry phone calls and claiming that it's going to sink McCain's presidential campaign.

Republicans have also abused a parliamentary maneuver called the "motion to recommit," which gives the minority a final shot to amend a bill before it's voted on by the body -- effectively delaying, modifying, or killing the legislation. From CQ:

So far, Republicans have racked up 116 motions to recommit during the 110th Congress, more than double the previous record of 56 set by the 109th Congress. Of those motions, 24 were adopted, far more than the previous record of six during the 106th Congress.

While Biggert and her cohorts play the victim, it's important to remember that the Republican minority has wielded a remarkable amount of power since the Democrats won back Congress in 2006. Indeed, if Pelosi is a dictator, she's doing a sorry job of consolidating power.

Biggert: Pelosi Is "Being The Dictator" On Drilling

Adam Doster — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:45:10 -0700

What's gotten into the House GOP's drinking water? So enthralled with their worthless plan to drill for more oil offshore, congressmen from across the country have infused their rhetoric with a little extra dose of hyperbole. Rep. Don Manzullo thinks the GOP's empty chamber stunt could be "America’s greatest hour." Minority Leader John Boehner said Americans "will hang" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't call for an up-and-down drilling vote. And this morning on WLS' Don Wade & Roma, 13th District GOP Rep. Judy Biggert joined in on the Pelosi-bashing fun. Listen here:

Internal mp3

What the American people want is for us to work together to come up with solutions, not to have Nancy Pelosi being the dictator. This is a democracy.

And Biggert isn't the only House Republican choosing to describe Pelosi this way. Check out this clip (caught by the Center for American Progress) of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) during an August 6 appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal:

As Josh noted last week, the suggestion that the Democratic leadership is somehow infringing on the GOP minority's rights by adjourning the chamber for August recess is tough to swallow. After all, prior to August 1, the Republicans repeatedly attempted to force the House to adjourn, as the Washington Post's Dana Milbank recently reported. Furthermore, if the Republicans want to raise a ruckus about obstructionism, maybe they should look to the U.S. Senate, where the GOP minority has blocked a record number of bills favored by both the Democratic majority and the American people.

Drilling Into IL-14

Josh Kalven — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:46:55 -0700

If we needed any more evidence that the Republicans plan on beating the pro-drilling drum all the way to Election Day, here it is.

The Courier News reported yesterday on the National Republican Congressional Committee's (NRCC) efforts to paint 14th District Rep. Bill Foster as "obstructionist" for voting to adjourn the House for August recess:

"Where's Bill Foster?" read the title of a recent NRCC e-mail blast to the media.

In it, the committee -- which spent close to $1.3 million in support of Oberweis leading into March's contest -- targets Foster for voting to recess instead of staying in Washington to debate energy policy. Last week, the NRCC released an "energy report card" that painted Foster as unwilling to get behind solutions to energy issues.

"Bill Foster has used his brief stint in office to define himself as an out-of-touch obstructionist, but this report card paints an alarming picture of a member of Congress who will do anything he can to side with Democrat leadership instead of the people of Illinois," NRCC spokesman Ken Spain stated in one release

The fact that the Republicans are targeting Foster in this fashion shows that they plan on using the August recess to attack any and all Democrats. After all, Foster is not exactly anti-drilling. He recently joined a bipartisan group of House members in supporting a bill that would expand offshore drilling and use some of the revenue from those new leases to fund the development of renewable and alternative energy sources.

Is Foster's chosen bill the right answer for Democrats? Not in my opinion. But he also can't be accused of "sid[ing] with the Democratic leadership."

Better Poll Questions Reveal Ambivalence About Drilling

Adam Doster — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:23:20 -0700

House Republicans believe they've struck liquid (political) gold with their recent oil drilling gambit. Rep. Peter Roskam cut his vacation short to head to D.C. and voice his concern. Rep. Don Manzullo says this could be "America’s greatest hour." Minority Leader John Boehner even thinks Americans are so eager to drill that they "will hang" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi if she doesn't call for an up-and-down vote.

But are Americans really that supportive of the GOP proposals? Guest blogging for Kevin Drum, Gallup managing editor David Moore says that when asked about drilling in isolation, Americans voice great support for the approach. But things get a lot murkier when the poll questions are more subtle and realistic:

A couple of polls addressed the energy issue a bit differently, and they found a more ambivalent public. Pew Research, for example, asked which of two approaches should receive higher priority: "expanding exploration, mining and drilling and the construction of new power plants, OR, more energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices?" Instead of overwhelming support for more oil drilling, the public was evenly divided between that approach and conservation (47 percent to 45 percent respectively).

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll offered five different approaches to dealing with the energy problems. Almost half (46 percent) opted for energy conservation and more emphasis on wind and solar, while 40 percent chose offshore oil drilling and drilling in protected areas in Alaska, while 10 percent preferred nuclear power.

And the CNN poll actually measured intensity of opinion, by asking if people "strongly" or "mildly" favored, or "strongly" or "mildly" opposed increased offshore oil drilling. The results found 46 percent "strongly" in favor, with 18 percent "strongly" opposed. More than a third, 35 percent, held only "mild" opinions. (In all discussions of the CNN results, however, there was no mention of the "mild" and "strong" opinions. The two groups were combined according to favor and oppose, which is typical of the way poll results are treated.)

Read the whole post here.

Boehner On WLS: Dems "Worship At The Altar Of Radical Environmentalism"

Adam Doster — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:01:30 -0700

There aren't two Americans more fond of the GOP's "Texas Tea Party" than the hosts of WLS' Don Wade & Roma. As the so-called "protest" trudges along, the broadcast duo continues to have House Republicans on their show, thanking the representatives for their purportedly valiant efforts. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner called in from the Cincinnati airport -- en route to the Capitol after some R&R on the golf course -- making sure to spread some distortions along the way.

For instance, while discussing Republicans' demand that Democrats return from August recess to hold a vote on the GOP's bill to increase offshore oil drilling, Roma and Boehner had this exchange:

Internal mp3

ROMA: In her interview with George Stephanopoulos, Speaker Nancy Pelosi finally ended up with one mantra at the very end of the 10 times he asked her tried and pin her on why she wouldn’t allow a vote. And she said finally, “I want to save the planet.” Is it because the Democratic Party has become beholden to the greenie groups that have funded their presidential runs so heavily?

BOEHNER: Oh yeah. They worship at the altar of radical environmentalism and that’s why they are standing in the way.

Their effort to paint Democrats as the side whose energy positions are controlled by special interests is quite remarkable.

Consider this: since 1990 environmental groups have contributed $17.7 million to candidates at the federal level -- most of which has gone to Democrats. During the same period, the oil and gas industry has doled out $220 million. These contributions have been directed at Republicans by a three-to-one margin. But according to Roma and Boehner, it's the Democrats who are "beholden."

During the same interview, Don asked the Boehner a leading question about Pelosi's opposition to the GOP's favored energy policy. Here's his response:

Internal mp3

BOEHNER: Well, I think the big issue is they [Democrats] want no part of nuclear energy, they want no part of using coal, and they want no drilling for new oil and gas. Moveon.org was at my office yesterday demonstrating and their plan is identical to Pelosi’s plan: no more drilling, no coal, no nuclear. All they want is solar and wind. Well I’m sorry, but you’re going to be very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter if that’s the only plan that you have. It’s not a serious plan to take a big step toward energy independence.

Of course, this is a wild distortion of of the energy plan favored by Democrats, including Barack Obama, to achieve "energy independence." While wind and solar power are key factors in any approach to build a sane energy policy, they are individual pieces of a larger policy. Promoting conservation policies (increasing fuel economy standards, weatherizing buildings), implementing an economy wide-cap and trade program, and creating millions of green jobs -- ideas Boehner overlooks -- will not only lessen our environmental footprint but improve our nation's economic competitiveness. He also ignores the very real concerns nuclear power and "clean coal" present and suggests that oil exploration will lower gas prices in the short-term, a point that's demonstrably false.

You can listen to Boehner's entire appearance here.

For more on the GOP drilling stunt, read our posts here, here, and here.

The "Open Government" Argument

Josh Kalven — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:48:20 -0700

There's a lot of absurdity circling around congressional Republicans' ongoing, pro-drilling stunt on Capitol Hill.

Yesterday, I noted that numerous GOP members from Illinois had joined the effort to bring Democrats back from August recess to vote on legislation to expand off-shore drilling. At his new blog Prairie State 2.0, Curt Mercadante responded by accusing the Democratic leadership of squelching "open government":

What the PI post avoids, of course, is the issue of open government and debate. [...]

It’s about the fact that they [the Democrats] tried to shut down debate in the U.S. House of Representatives.

They turned off the microphones, shut off the lights, darkened the House video feed (and, thus, C-SPAN) … all to prevent the GOP debate from being heard.

It’s about open government. It’s about transparency.

When a chamber of Congress adjourns, as the House did on August 1, the microphones, lights, and cameras are turned off. It happened when Republicans were in power. It happens now that Democrats are in power.

This effort to cast the adjournment as some sort of devious, anti-democratic maneuver is a clever election year ploy -- and nothing more.

In fact, folks like Mercadante seem to have forgetten that in the months before Congress departed for their August recess, the Republicans repeatedly attempted to force the House to adjourn, as the Washington Post's Dana Milbank recently noted:

Eighteen times over the past 90 days, the minority tried, unsuccessfully, to force the House to adjourn. Now the House has finally adjourned -- for a five-week recess, no less -- and Republicans are demanding that the chamber be called back into session.

Of course, if those earlier demands for adjournment had been met, guess what would have happened? The lights and mics would have been turned off and the C-SPAN coverage would have ceased. Would Mercadante have raised a ruckus then?

His characterization of the pro-drilling efforts as a "grassroots movement" also deserves some attention:

So, kudos to Rep. Biggert - and the rest of our Illinois Congressional delegation who have spent time in DC to participate in the #dontgo movement.

In addition to demonstrating to the GOP base that its party still has some fight left in it … it really is demonstrating the power of social media to build grassroots movements.

Let's be clear. This is a "movement" that originated at the highest level of powers in Washington. It's a movement that, if successful, would benefit large oil companies and their rich executives far more than the average American consumer. It's a movement with protests populated by paid staffers from industry-funded organizations. In short, there is nothing "grassroots" about it.

Biggert Joins The "Texas Tea Party"

Josh Kalven — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:19:56 -0700

The Hill is reporting that GOP Rep. Judy Biggert was among the new arrivals in Washington, DC today, as House Republicans continued their effort to bring Congress back into session so that their offshore drilling bill can receive a vote. As we noted yesterday, Republican Congressmen Peter Roskam, Mark Kirk, and Don Manzullo have also been participating in this bit of political theater.

This morning, Biggert and several of her colleagues joined former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at a press conference to announce a new GOP-sponsored poll purportedly showing that the public supports their actions. From The Hill:

Pollster David Winston of the Winston Group told House Republicans at a morning briefing that 68 percent of Americans want a drilling vote before the end of the 110th Congress. He also said the GOP is winning generic ballots by 12 percent on energy policies when the Republican and Democratic plans are compared, a source in the room said.

I'd be interested to see the wording of that question.

But while we're on the subject of energy-related polling, here are some recent findings that fly in the face of the GOP assumption that the public supports their pro-drilling mantra. In a July poll by Belden Russonello & Stewart, 76 percent of respondents said that "investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient automobiles" was a more important government priority than "expanding exploration and drilling for more oil":

As Huffington Post's Sam Stein also mentioned today, 63 percent of the Belden poll respondents said that opening up public lands to oil and gas drilling was "more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers."

Roskam's Trip To Washington

Adam Doster — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:13:26 -0700

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:

Internal mp3

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.