TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.08.2008
Fact-Checking...Paris Hilton...on Drilling

Ahem. Paris Hilton has just released a pretty funny "campaign ad" in response to the now infamous "Celebrity" spot circulated by John McCain's campaign:

Hilton's "energy policy" (@ 0:57):

Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don't we do a hybrid of both candidate's ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved. [my emphasis]

I write this in full knowledge that I am fanning the flames of this distracting devolution into the realm of actual celebrities--but as long as millions of people are going to be listening to Paris Hilton on energy (far more than might have tuned in for McCain's remarks here or Obama's here), and because this is important stuff--we may as well run it through the Vine fact-checker.... 

In reality, experts--and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin--repeatedly acknowledge that it would take 5-10 years for any tangible effects of offshore drilling to take hold; new oil production would only amount to 1 percent (200,000 barrels) of projected US demand when it does become available; and if new oil in 2015 or so could lower the price of gasoline, it would only do so by a few cents.

So there's no "carrying" over anything until technologies "kick in." Many clean energy technologies are extant, but have limited reach because demand for dirty enery remains so high. And in fact, the "tiding over" could be better accomplished by releasing oil from the US strategic petroleum reserve--not something you want to be doing regularly, but which President Bush did in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and for which Obama and other Democrats have begun advocating.

On that note, Joe Romm has an excellent scorecard on Obama's "new" energy plan here. Money grafs:

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. By comparison, the plan of John "Nothing but Nukes" McCain is a joke, with nothing on energy efficiency and a pointless $300 million battery prize and long-standing opposition to renewable energy. In contrast, Obama's plan has real depth and breadth...

As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously The only cheap power left and a limitless resource and THE core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear.

The real hybrid plan, it seems, backed with the seriousness of purpose to actually get something done, is Obama's. But close enough, Paris.

--Dayo Olopade

Posted: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:34 PM with 17 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

PH + drilling? paging Mr Yard...

August 5, 2008 8:52 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

The study suffers from the proven reserves fallacy that ignores the contant pattern of finding more oil during drilling.

This is the same reasoning that says OMGZ WERE RUNNING OUT OF OIL IN 1970, 1980, 1990, COUGH, "peak oil", 2000, 2010 ect...

August 6, 2008 12:33 AM

jet said:

Hmmmm....low information voter...

This:

"In reality, experts--and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin--repeatedly acknowledge that it would take 5-10 years for any tangible effects of offshore drilling to take hold; new oil production would only amount to 1 percent (200,000 barrels) of projected US demand when it does become available; and if new oil in 2015 or so could lower the price of gasoline, it would only do so by a few cents."

Nice, cogent, analysis from Dayo, or

Paris (in a fashionable swimsuit).

Hey, you said it first yourself Dayo...

August 6, 2008 12:56 AM

JEFF FREY said:

I thought Paris Hilton was an expert only in the sort of drilling that did not produce oil.

Cthulhu, "proven reserves" are counted as "money in the bank" for oil companies and thus are required to be lower bounds on the amount of oil recoverable. To get more you would need to ask an accountant familiar with the industry. The only "fallacy" can come in using the figure in an inappropriate way. Based on the numbers I have found for offshore oil estimates, they are NOT using "proven reserves" so you are wrong that this is the "proven reserves fallacy".

Also, Peak oil refers to production rate, not reserves. Unlike reserves or other estimates of oil in the ground, production rate is easily measured and hard to fudge.

August 6, 2008 1:12 AM

teplukhin2you said:

"the sort of drilling that did not produce oil" -  what, you mean she's dr--. oh, never mind... paging YARD, william yard, please call ni-yun-fi-yive one, nine five one

August 6, 2008 2:54 AM

Robert Powell said:

While waiting for Yard's drilling plan for Paris, I'd just like to point out that experts have said we will run out of oil "in about thirty years" consistently every few years since 1862, when the first Western Pennsylvania strikes began to peter out because of over-drilling related pressure loss on Drake's original site.

August 6, 2008 11:58 AM

singlespeed said:

Hmm...aside from the fact that Paris felt the need to respond to McCain this might be the first time I can recall where a person used in a political attack ad (aside from the candidate themselves) has responded with a response attack ad. That Paris and her ghost writer came up with a far more cogent energy policy than John McCain, Douglas Holtz notwithstanding, says alot about the actual thought process that goes through the minds of most Republicans when it comes to any common sense and forward thinking energy policy.

Sure you could spend lots of money on off-shore drilling with the expectation that the estimated reserves to be drilled would meet 1/10th the consumption demand that would exist in 10-15 years. I've posted before that the issue of high oil prices has little to do with actual drilling levels but the actual refining capacity. The US oil companies haven't built a refinery in the US since the 1970s. HELLO?!

So instead of fucking up our coastlines, fisheries and ANWR with off-shore drilling, how about spending that time and effort on expanding refinery capacity, moving energy demands to extant renewable and efficiency technologies now and maybe even expand that white elephant we call nuclear.

Meanwhile...I'm waiting for Mr. Yard's Youtube response video to drilling Paris

August 6, 2008 1:13 PM

williamyard said:

[cracks knuckles]

Okay, let's start with the lubrication angle [drum roll]. After all, Paris is no stranger to francs. Or franks [ping shot]. And frankly [removes cigar from mouth, taps off ash, replaces cigar] I can think of an angle or two on Paris that lubricate themselves, if you know what I mean, and I think you do[crash cymbal].

But let's give her the benefit of the doubt. She's a friend with benefits. Whereas I'm a fiend-like pinniped. Don't give her a hard time. But it's better than a soft time [rimshot]. You be the judge. Like Zappa said, cover that girl in chocolate syrup. Speaking of packing the fudge, it's nice to see Paris bend over backwards to address our oil shortage. In fact if she bends over any further, I'm out of oil [kick drum]. She can check my dipstick. That's the long and short of it. But you gotta admire the girl's can-do attitude. Or just admire her can [flam]. Me, I do what I can. And I do cans when I can [short roll, crash cymbal]. I once had a milkshake at a little place outside Paris. But I'd rather drill in a little place inside Paris [crash!]. And she can drink my milkshake! She drinks it up! [kazoo arpeggio!]

[scattered applause]

Thank you... Oh, yerthebest... [swabs neck with hankie]... The porterhouse is very good here... Thankyou, yertookind... Just the best...Please tip the waitress--she's having John Edwards' baby!...Oh, gee, so very kind...

August 6, 2008 7:20 PM

cheesedip.com said:

Garrison Keillor on the craziness of the current political attack ads: It's an amazing country where an Arizona multimillionaire can attack a Chicago South Sider as an elitist and hope to make it stick. The Chicagoan was brought up by...

August 7, 2008 12:52 AM

teplukhin2you said:

*<(:o)

Hey, did you arrange the "cheesedip.com" cameo as well, Mr Y? You've outdone yourself today.

August 7, 2008 1:34 AM

twodox said:

Fact-checking a parody?  C'mon now.

Of couse offshore drilling cannot "carry us" until we have the new technologies, but so what.  Lighten up!

August 7, 2008 10:29 AM

jhildner said:

Yard:  Outstanding!

August 7, 2008 6:02 PM

GSpinks said:

Yard: awesome!

Dayo: thank you!

August 7, 2008 10:23 PM

cspencef said:

twodox: you're assuming the big wide world out there actually gets parody...

August 8, 2008 2:49 PM

GSpinks said:

I was browsing the internet, and I saw the funniest thing. This was tagged on at the end of an article I found titled "Sketchy Imagery":

Dayo Olopade is a reporter at The New Republic. She has spent the last year *staring at Barack Obama*. [emphasis mine]

ROFLLOL

August 8, 2008 4:21 PM

elliesch said:

"In reality, experts--and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin--repeatedly acknowledge that it would take 5-10 years for any tangible effects of offshore drilling to take hold; new oil production would only amount to 1 percent (200,000 barrels) of projected US demand when it does become available; and if new oil in 2015 or so could lower the price of gasoline, it would only do so by a few cents.'

"So there's no "carrying" over anything until technologies "kick in."

The former president of Shell oil recently appeared on television to explain that the rapidity with which new finds can be converted to use depends upon the infrastructure in place at the time of the find.  By infrastructure, he meant pipelines. ANWR, for example, has the pipeline in place now.

If we keep making the argument that it will take five years, and then we do nothing, five years from now we will be where we are now:  Stupid. On many fronts.

The price of oil isn't the only factor that is important.  Availability of oil on our own soil is exceedingly important, and the more we have  of it the better, because, for one thing, oil can be used as a weapon against us by any number of countries (Iran comes to mind) who are in a position to create a stranglehold on our supplies.  The strategic oil reserve would be in better shape if all of our potential oil were available. All oil produced here is strategic.

Economics ought to inform all of us who are interested in the development of alternative energy that the longer the price stays HIGH, the greater the incentive is to develop alternatives. Bring the price down and that incentive diminishes.  Just look at our automakers. People flocked to SUV's when the price was low; now that it is high they want energy- efficient and alternative- energy vehicles., and Detroit is busting its gut trying to comply.

I can recall years ago studying fuel cells. The company in which I was interested explained their predicament like this:  "the cost of electricity now is cheaper than the energy we can produce with fuel cells. When that cost goes up higher than the energy we can produce, we will be in business."

Once they are in business their price will come down because they will have sufficient capital to invest in improving efficiencies.

Kinda like the computer chip. Remember the first computer and how it took up the size of a room? Same with alternative energy.  So by this logic, no one interested in alternatives should fear current attempts to shore us up with available oil reserves. If anything, more oil will reduce the price, and increase alternative's chances, as well as our own, should our enemies strike first.

August 10, 2008 3:53 PM

elliesch said:

Dayo, I don't mean to sound punitive because that was a very-well reasoned comment, and I regularly ask this of everyone who believes in taking advantage of the strategic reserves, but here goes, generically:

What part of "strategic" don't you folks understand?

Can't you all  come up with a few nightmare scenarious whereby, after we have depleted our "strategetic "reserves, and before we have enlightened ourselves sufficiently to produce what we can on our own lands and seas, the enemy strikes?  I challenge you all to think about this and post some scenarios that would elicit comments from Americans like, for example, "Oh, my god, what were we thinking?"

August 10, 2008 4:10 PM