TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

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

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.08.2008
Why Are the Dems Waiting On the Energy Compromise?

Nate Silver thinks it would be a political coup for Barack Obama to sign onto the "Gang of Ten" energy compromise bill in the Senate, and Joe Romm argues that even substantively, the bill is a good deal for Democrats. They both make strong cases. There's a basic inconsistency in the liberal narrative on drilling, which is that drilling is bad because it perpetuates our dependence on fossil fuels, but also that drilling is unwise because it won't produce very much oil. But, as Romm points out, if it won't produce much oil, how much can it perpetuate fossil-fuel dependence? And is it really worth taking a big political hit and passing up some genuine liberal goodies (repeal of some special tax breaks for oil companies, increasing funding for alternative fuels) just to keep the prohibition on drilling in place? It doesn't seem like it, especially since supporting the compromise would throw the spotlight back on John McCain's position: He opposes the "Gang of Ten" bill because it would repeal the oil-company tax credit. Try selling that politically: No to drilling, no to renewable energy investment, yes to Exxon.

For what it's worth, as I've written before, I think the drilling provision can also be justified on federalism grounds. To the extent that the risk of environmental damage as a result of drilling is concentrated locally--which it is, once you accept the premise that new coastal drilling won't produce enough oil to have a substantial climate-change impact--states should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to accept those environmental risks in order to get the economic benefits of drilling. And the "Gang of Ten" bill doesn't even go that far; it apparently keeps the drilling ban in place except off the coast of four states (Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia), which would get to choose whether to allow drilling. (And the Navy may veto it in the case of Virginia.) I'd say it sounds like a good deal for Democrats even if there weren't a political imperative to take the drilling issue off the table.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:03 PM with 12 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!

prnoonan said:

Random Q: why those four states?

August 7, 2008 5:09 PM

teplukhin2you said:

More common sense. First Crowley on Maliki, now this. Progress. Thank you (seriously). Maybe TNR will avoid Weekly Standard's fate after all.

August 7, 2008 7:40 PM

aeromonas said:

Another random Q: What evidence is there that there is oil for which to drill off the coasts of VA, NC, SC, and GA?  I wouldn't have thought there was very much.  And don't deposits have to be extra-substantial to support the substantially higher extraction costs of working at sea?

August 7, 2008 7:55 PM

Gavriel Meir-Levi said:

Nate's got it right again!  Can someone tell Jason Grumet to telll Heather Zichal to tell Heather Higginbottom to tell David Axlerod to tell Barack Obama to sign on to this bill?

August 8, 2008 2:28 AM

r-ennis said:

The Dems think that they have McCain beat on the economy. But, if they lose the energy debate by stressing "renewable illusions", as Roy Innis of CORE describes them, they will lose their edge on the economy issue, as they have already lost it on the war.  

August 8, 2008 10:46 AM

Andrew Davis said:

I agree with this 100%.

August 8, 2008 12:45 PM

prnoonan said:

I'm sure the Ds are gun-shy about again preemptively compromising with the Rs to again be stabbed in the back later on in the process -- NCLB, MMA, etc.

August 8, 2008 4:17 PM

tnmats said:

Most of the prospective drilling off the NC coast, according to what I've read in the local newspaper over the years (Raleigh News and Observer), is mostly for natural gas and not oil.  Most of the opposition has come from the coastal towns/counties and their tourism/real estate mafia, er, I mean interests.  Funny thing is those areas are dominated by publican politics.

August 8, 2008 6:05 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

The inconsistency comes from the fight between party leaders who want to maintain a leftist coalition and greens who are just downright anti-economy. I say anti-economy because the cheap and safe solution of nuclear power (it is only expensive now because years of subsidies have entrenched fuel manufacturers and prevented the rise of super cheap, super safe molten salt technology).

en.wikipedia.org/.../Molten_salt_reactor

Nuclear, however, would let us have a booming economy with drastically reduced carbon emmissions. France, which has all the electricity it needs, emits in the order of 10-20$ the carbon of its neighbors.

The anti-economy crowd wants us to have neither, neither fossile or nuclear. What they really want is just less everything.

I know that most democrats are reasonable enough to wish prosperity to their constituents, I even believe that most socialists honestly believe that their ideas will result in greater prosperity the marginal refutations notwithstanding. The greens, however, are apart from those goals.

August 9, 2008 4:09 PM

cthulhu2008 said:

www.solarbuzz.com/Solarpricesworld.htm

Look at the France number. That is how "expensive" nuclear power is.

August 9, 2008 4:19 PM

elliesch said:

Why must we choose between nuclear and oil and alternative? Why not go full guns for all of them?

NOW.

I agree that the states should have final say on their coastlines, and also that since they would be taking a financial risk to a number of their coastline -dependent- industries, they should be granted some formula of financial reward when oil is utilized.  All drilling should be far enough off the coast to be out of sight of the coastline.

FYI, it is argued by the oil companies that the amount of space they would require in ANWR is equivalent to the size of a postage stamp on the front page of the New York Times. Those who oppose drilling for our own oil on our own land and off our own shores appear to me to be oblivous of the economic and military dangers associated with so much dependence on foreign oil, and oblivious to the danger of transferring so much wealth to many enemy nations.  Those considerations outweight for me the arguments against drilling offshore and in ANWR. Itis easy to put one's head in the sand; it is harder to take it out and face all of the issues head on.

August 10, 2008 4:04 PM

Environment and Energy said:

It looks like the "Gang of Ten" energy compromise that Josh mentioned last week—which would

August 11, 2008 11:28 AM