Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJohn McCain Wants to Drill in Your Tolilet: Part II
Two months ago, I wrote a column saying that John McCain wants to drill in your toilet. I was joking at the time, but that comment turned out to be pretty much accurate. The Republicans' top slogan going into the fall elections is "drill here, drill now." It all depends on your definition of "here."
Anyhow, the basic point is straightforward. There is very little oil potentially available in the areas in which the Republicans are anxious to drill here and now. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) - remember, these people work for President Bush - tells us that the oil in the offshore-protected areas will eventually add about 0.2 percent to world's oil output. This would be sufficient to lower the price of gas by 3-4 cents a gallon.
Furthermore, even with the best efforts to drill here and now, it will still take many years to get any oil whatsoever from these protected areas. Regardless of how anxious Senator McCain and the Republicans might be to damage the environment, oil companies will not just spend tens of millions of dollars blindly drilling deepwater wells. They first have to survey the terrain carefully and then dig test wells. The EIA projects that it will take ten years before we get the first drops of oil from drilling in currently protected areas and close to twenty years before we get our full 3-4 cent a gallon savings. That won't do a lot of good for people trying to make ends meet this year.
The remarkable story here is that all the people who follow energy policy know these basic facts. Yet, the Republicans are pushing the "drill here, drill now" line because they are betting the public can be kept in the dark. Just as tens of millions of people supported the war in Iraq because they thought Saddam Hussein was tied to the attack on the World Trade Center, the Republicans are betting they gain votes in November because tens of millions of people will believe that they are offering a credible plan to substantially reduce gas prices in the near future.
In this respect, they are counting on the fact that the major national media, outlets like CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times and Washington Post are completely incompetent. The job of the media is to inform the public. If the media effectively informed the public on this issue, they would be telling people the Republicans are proposing an energy policy that can at best have a very modest impact on oil prices in the distant future, and no impact whatsoever for the near-term future.
Few, if any, news stories have made this point thus far. As a result, polls show the majority of voters believe that drilling in offshore protected areas can have a substantial impact on oil prices in the very near future.
Perhaps, we can introduce a system of merit pay for reporters and news producers in which their pay depends on their success in educating the public on key issues, just as many school districts make the pay of schoolteachers dependent on how well their students perform.
Schoolteachers whose students perform badly don't get raises and could even get fired. Imagine that we applied the same standards to CBS, NBC, NPR and The Washington Post. If their audience couldn't answer basic questions about important public policy issues, then the reporters responsible get their pay cut. If the audiences are especially poorly informed, then the reporters get fired.
Unfortunately, this sort of accountability in the media doesn't exist. Most political reporters sound like high school drama coaches as they spend their time talking about candidates' appearance and speaking mannerisms. They almost never bother to discuss the positions advocated by the candidates - that might require a few minutes of real work.
Of course, the candidates know the reporters won't ever bother to verify the claims they make, which gives them incentive to make whatever outlandish claims are most convenient. This is why we have Senator McCain promising to drill for oil in our toilets and most voters actually believing it will lower the price of gas.
56 Comments so far
Show AllSpot on Dean Baker!
I've noticed the love of drama thing. The mainstream media wouldn't know what to do without it of course. Their job is to obfuscate and sometimes their obfuscations can be very elaborate and challenging - while there's no paint to watch dry. The work that we society-builders, with and without great skill, have before us is to parse and penetrate and illuminate. And hey, We enjoy it!
The problem with the energy issue is that both Republicans and Democrats are too worried about a few billionaire's profits to really do anything. If we nationalized the oil companies, then we the people would have more money to begin going totally green. Instead this money winds up in the pockets of speculators and big wig oil men. One thing we need to do is stop using so much gas to begin with. Why are we still peddling trucks and vans that get 5 or 6 miles to the gallon? Get rid of them. Encourage people with tax rebates to get something else or just ban the darn things. People need to be encouraged to ride the bus. We need more mass transit. We could take all the cow crap and garbage right now and run whole cities off of methane. We won't do it. Why? Someone needs profits. Whole states could go totally green with state vehicles being run on electricity. We can do this now! Why won't we do this? Someone's got to make a profit. The billionaires have kept us tied to oil. We need to make really clear that we run the country--not billionaires. It won't work to sit around being ignorant about the issues, and swallowing one liners from these politicians.
Nationalize the oil companies? Because of their obscene 6-8% profit margins? Why not nationalize Apple Computer! Its current income sheet shows a 9.3% profit margin, so using your logic, they should be nationalized first!
Speaking of cow crap; why would anybody propose the outright ban on any type of vehicle? Those who drive them ARE paying the price, and ARE paying the taxation necessary to drive them. Who am I to tell somebody what kind of clothes to wear? What house to live in? What kind of car to drive?
Apple computer does not affect National Security the way oil does. It's not 6-8% profit margins, it is quarterly the largest profits ever made in history. And it is made possible by our tax money which Big Oil doesn't pay, so I have to.
Seems like the Republicans, who want to tell me what kind of books to read and which kind of god to follow would have no trouble with that. If they were serious about "National Security" they would ban or at least prohibitively tax gas guzzlers - the current taxation is nowhere near enough. They would set stricter mileage standards and encourage investment in alternative energies. But they won't, because they are not serious about weaning us off foreign oil for our national security. They are only serious about keeping us scared and pliant, and keeping their filthy rich pals feeding from the trough of Federal funds. All Republicans are scum.
"Apple computer does not affect National Security the way oil does."
Actually computers have huge national security implications. What do you think controls modern militaries? Utilities? Hospitals? Traffic systems? Watch Live Free or Die Hard, fun movie :-)
I;m just busting your balls, but at least Apple is investing its profits into inventing new products, such as the newer cheaper faster and better iPhone which I still won't waste my money on. Seen any new types of gas lately? Such as an oil-refined gasoline that has increased efficiency on the scale computers have? If so, a 30 year old beat up van would get, oh, maybe 3 million miles per gallon by now.
I'm just trying to see the world in the "National Security/War Mode" of the Republican faithful. I guess war profits mean more to them than "National Security".
"All Republicans are scum."
Geezzzz WC give em a break. Give em a break. They can't be all bad!
When they all vote in a block for virtually every Bush appointment, request or proposal, they are all scum. Just one who didn't put party first might get me to change my tune.
Or what plant I can or can't smoke?
Excellent comment.
Methinks the author has wrongly framed the role of the media in the current debacle which is America. He states that they (the media) are "completely incompetent."
That they are, on this and many other issues. But, the real problem is that they are COMPLICIT!!
If you are currently a consumer of gasoline or oil products, then you should consider well your stance on oil drilling. I drive a small, economical car, and do everthing I can to save energy costs, but unless I can somehow work a 45 mile bike ride each way to work into my daily schedule ~ it will remain so for the foreseeable future.
With everything that's happened over the last decade, I'm tired of the idea of importing oil.
A realistic comment. We need to explore any and all ways to diminish imported oil that we can. Now.
The more ways we produce energy the more time it buys us to explore better ways of using and producing it. But it will take some agreement to do. The "my way or the highway" bunch on both sides will have to be awept aside or we will muddle along.
McCain made the argument that merely demonstrating a willingness to drill would cause oil prices to fall, because it would send a signal to speculators. 'Course the problem with this take: if high prices are CAUSED by speculation, if you regulated the speculation, you would see a larger and faster drop in price.
Is anyone going to say it? Maybe I missed it, but Soon-To-Be Emperor Obama is on record saying he would consider drilling "here and now' (i.e., in these environmentally sensitive off-shore areas) if it was part of a "comprehensive" (whatever that f*&%ing means) energy plan.
Wake up people. It isn't just the Repugs who are talking this cockamamie crap. The Dumb-it-down-ocrats are peddling the same crack (just the lite version).
They want major Oil spills in New England and Northern Canada as a favor to the Beef, Pork, Chicken etc. industries.
And their stock portfolios will reflect it.
"Few, if any, news stories have made this point thus far."
But Jon Stewart did a great bit a couple of weeks ago - strung together a bunch of Red talking heads: the first suggested drill now meant oil in ten years, the next says 5 years, the next - a few years, then one year, then six months and finally Drill Now - Oil Tomorrow!
Amazing how clear the lying is when you can see it evolve in one montage.
Notice how, instead of a national discussion about Peak Oil theory and the need to focus on alternatives now before the wells really start running low, we're talking about should we drill a little more, or a whole lot more?
Toilets, gas-----------there's a link there---------------lizard
Oo--ahhh, I know how we can cure the energy crisis. We feed John McCain and all the rest of the "supply side" Republicans and their Democratic party allies lots of beans and stick rubber hoses up their collective asses and extract the "natural" gas for whatsoever and wheresoever it is needed! If these guys and gals have as much hot air coming out of their colon as they do coming out of their mouthes, we would enter a new age of energy abundance and material prosperity.
Let's all send a can of beans and a 2-3 foot length of rubber hosing (like they used in science classes to connect Bunsen burners--remember?) to our favorite Republican or blue-dog Democrat office holder today!
Poet
I don't watch TV unless I am visiting somewhere and the MACHINE is on. But I had the displeasure of seeing some news pundits discussing the big election shows and they were all so self-congratulatory, sitting there among the gliterati as if the EVILS perpetrated by our nation in its wars of choice and empire were mere distractions, the broken lives of no consequence. The BANALITY OF EVIL is the American brand name, and the ONLY course of action to mitigate the karmic blowback would be if enough citizens showed GENUINE spiritual understanding, asked that the nation be forgiven, and put some of their personal and collective fortune towards rebuilding what has been taken by blood and force. What a tragedy that our pre-selected candidates act like this type of behavior, cum foreign policy, is legitimate.
It seems the only way Americans will wake up is through the upset weather patterns--floods sending thousands from their homes in the Midwest and now Louisana, again; fires in California, hurricanes in my state. When WE experience what it feels like to be without security, electricity, food we begin to gain empathy for those who are forced into those conditions as a direct result of US foreign policy.
No Siouxrose: Poverty and misery don't make people open minded, education does, as does moving away from the magical thinking exemplified by religions-----------------------------------------lizard
LOCUST/PAUL REVERE: Right on! Like the run-up to war didn't have (F.A.I.R reported the exact statistics) about 85% more pro-war conservative "experts" interviewed on major networks, then voices that raised legitimate questions. Our media is in the hands of the major industries of which the Military-industrial complex maintains a HUGE and influential presence. It's not about getting truth out there, it's about selling policy, policy that's good for the most amoral elites. Look at what passes for food? The disclaimers on the latest drug medications, as if symptoms are being marketed as diseases so that drugs can be administered. "Restless leg syndrome"? Get the fuck up and talk a walk is what the LEG is showing in "being restless."
This whole masquerade is so depressing when REAL issues are not being addressed, like CLIMATE change, more like disassociation! Things are increasingly left out of joint, and we're at the onset of this COMING apart phase.
The world is not coming to an end due to global warming ok? Take a look at graphs of global temperature versus time in hundreds of thousands of years. It shows that we are actually overdue for a warming trend.
The edge of our atmosphere receives 1400 watts per square meter from the sun. The earth absorbs about 200 watts per and the greenhouse effect from water vapor adds another 200 watts.That's 400+ watts. A 1% increase in solar radiation (can we measure that?) would add 14 watts at the periphery and about 4 watts to the earth (absorption + greenhouse)
The estimated heat retaining contribution of the increased green house gases TODAY
(methane and CO2 mostly) is 1.6 , from the data Gore keeps quoting. 1.6 watts per meter squared.
Just look at the scales here.
Temperature is 280 degrees Kelvin, produced by 400 watts per square meter of energy.
The equation is linear for water. Neglecting earth-generated heat, you need 1.5 watts to raise 1 degree. That is what we are adding right now, but not before, and the earth has warmed by 1 degree over more than 100 years. Also, the increase in greenhouse gases CO2 and methane is likely due to warming, and not the reverse, so accepting that 1.6 figure as man made takes a leap of faith. BUT EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE 1.6 IS MAN MADE: We are adding 1 degree,AT THE PRESENT TIME but something else has been adding before us and still.
Yes, it is the next warming period of earth. Good times, bad times. Cross your fingers and hope for the best. And yes, stop defecating where you eat. And by all means, keep that human contribution down as much as possible. 1 degree sounds like enough, ESPECIALLY DURING A WARMING TREND FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!!.
Humanity isn't that important. Humanity can't control the weather. Humanity will be a blink in history if it keeps crapping in its nest, but it isn't bringing down the planet. This is called delusions of grandeur-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lizard
You are correct, Lizard - the world's not coming to an end, just humanity's time on it. The warming will contribute to a big die-off, wiping out everything high up on the food chain, like man, and a reshuffling of life forms and evolution as Mother Earth tries once again to find a fitting steward for herself.
Drilling in ANWR isn't the question - what the Republicans want to do is sell the RIGHTS to drill on Federally protected land (ie, your land and my land) to their pals in big oil. The truth is, the oil companies already own the oil rights the millions of acres of Federal land which they are currently NOT drilling on. Why should they when their profits are so high? If they find more oil their profits go down.
If Alaskans get a windfall profit from oil pumped there, why don't we all get the same kind of deal for oil taken from our Federal lands? Tax that crude oil at removal, not at sale. Have Big Oil pay back something for their exclusive use of Federal lands. Think any Republican will back that?
Yes, Sarah. That's her point. That's why she got a better deal for Alaskans----------------------------lizard
She won't back it for Americans, I'll bet, just Alaskans. She didn't get that deal for Alaskans, it was there long before she was. She just secured the very pork-barrel earmarks for her town and state which McCain rails against when it suits him.
McCain's welcome to drill in my toilet-- but he'd better bring the same equipment they used on Project Mohole if he expects to penetrate the crust and reach the porcelain mantle.
eewwwwww...Thanks for the visual
It isn't so much that the sky is falling as it is that the national debt and political BS is piling up higher and higher.
"In this respect, they are counting on the fact that the major national media, outlets like CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times and Washington Post are completely incompetent."
Thankfully, the MSM are being made obsolete by the Internet.
"Everyone but the acutely information-challenged knows it."
I don't consider myself acutely information-challenged and I don't know that. If we drilled we don't evem know what the circumstances would be. No one seems to know how much that production would decrease our importation of oil. They only seem to quote world wide figures. Wasn't planning on our production to go anywhere myself.
As far as 10-15 years till it helps, perhaps we should have done it 10-15 years ago if thats the argument.
Brilliant! Then we could be paying $3.95 a gallon today instead of $3.99.
And how did you arrive at that brilliant figure?
Thomas;
Those numbers are from the Bush Administration. Actually, 3-4 cents might even be high. It could be as little as 1-2 cents per gallon 10-30 yrs from now.
Teri
But is that figured world wide amounts or Nationally? If we drill then if the oil doesn't stay here, why bother. So I'm looking for National effect only and I'm darned if I can find any.
Thanks for the info.
it was in a Democratic talking Point...I think Nancy Pelosi said it
Two months ago, I wrote a column saying that John McCain wants to drill in your toilet . . .
A month ago I noticed a very small hole in my toilet and thought the Repimplicans were drilling for oil, as you suggested. Then I looked closer (the hole was toward the top of the tank) and saw there was a camera and microphone behind the hole. I presume the FBI put them there because I say disparaging things here about the government. I ripped them out but then the tank started leaking, so I had to buy a new toilet. I'm writing it off my taxes next year. We'll see if the IRS challenges it.
Even if they don't challange that, when you hock the camera and microphone they will make you declare it as income.
The Republicans aren't offering solutions, they're marketing themselves. There's nothing shocking about the notion that Repubs know drilling doesn't solve the cost or availability of oil in the U.S. Everyone but the acutely information-challenged knows it. This is all about marketing the Republican paradigm. Would you buy a used car from these people? The sad fact remains, lots of people will.
Sara Palin seems to be THE qualified expert on ANWR. Lets see what she comes up with. Who knows? Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
Blugie; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With all due respect, ANWAR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge) is a Wildlife Refuge.
It's was created as a REFUGE so Wildlife can thrive and live in peace WithOut the destructive and life threatening activities of Humans. Who Cares What Palin Says about ANWAR. She doesn't give a damn about the environment, or wildlife, and doesn't beleive in global warming. She championed bills allowing Alaska to ariel shoot innocent animals. Palin is a pretty face with a cold heart.
And by the way, even if we did drill in ANWAR or off shore Bush's own scientist say we would see a drop of oil for 10, 20, or even 30 years and only at a measley 2-4 cents savings. The Quickest and Only Way to lower gas prices is to conserve, AND
to Support Clean Renewable Energies. Plus, the Renewable Energy Market will create millions of new jobs and training for those jobs!
Teri
When "qualified experts" stand to gain a ton of money from a project, they are usually disqualified or dismissed because of conflict of interest. Wait a minute, scratch that, these are republicans.
Almost all Alaskans support drilling because that is where their bread gets buttered. Duh!
It is their state. Some of us just visit, and I never have. They live there. If they think it is worth it why do we oppose that? Maybe they have a point. If we wanted to drill where the people don't want it, then I could understand. If they thought that drilling would leave them without moose to hunt they wouldn't want it would they?----------lizard
It may be their state, but it is our land - Federal land. They don't get to call the shots there.
"The Energy Information Agency (EIA) - remember, these people work for President Bush - tells us that the oil in the offshore-protected areas will eventually add about 0.2 percent to world's oil output."
I am curious to know how much this drilling would add to our output? How much would it decrease our importation of oil?
It won't. There's no spare refining capacity in the U.S. Don't forget, the oil market is global. It would be shipped to China or some place that has been investing in new refineries. And check out this article about offshore drilling ships...there are simply no ships available to drill offshore for at least 5 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?scp=1&sq=drilling%20ships&st=cse
Oh, and before I forget about ANWR, the roads that tanker trucks depend on to ferry oil from the drilling sites to the pipeline (at least I think that's what they're used for) is becoming usable for less and less days each year, thanks to the permafrost thawing from increased temperatures. So no getting more oil out of there either, count on less oil from Alaska. I can't supply a link about this, but I remember readings about it months ago.
Thanks for the information. Sounds like we need more refineries first then.
That's what the oil companies are supposed to be doing with their tens of billions in profits, but they aren't. Actually right now they're betting on natural gas. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/business/25gas.html?sq=louisiana%20drilling&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=2&ad...
This article is a bit dated, but yeah up until at least 2005, there haven't been any new refineries built inside the U.S. for nearly 3 decades.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm
"The job of the media is to inform the public."
I disagree. It should be but it ain't.
The job of the media is to sell product in order to maximize earnings for the owners.
Informing the public? Where's the profit in that?
If the media is not doing what it should be doing then let's change it. We need strict government regulations against telling well-documented lies. I loved the idea of firing journalists who repeatedly tell lies.
Opinion jockies (bold-faced liars) could be spared (Rush Bimbaugh and O"Really) as long as they disclose regularly that their views are not meant to represent the truth, but the rest of the news needs to be standardized.
There is an unwritten public trust between the media and the people; they must not deceive us or they must pay serious consequences. I hate being lied to by anyone. However, these bastards in the Think-Tanks and the Pentagon and the CIA actually use our taxdollars to study our weaknesses (via PR firms) and then exploit our prejudices by crafting the news against us. It is nearly brainwashing on a mass scale.
Abolish federal funds for PR firms and abolish the CIA and other spy programs or make them 100% transparent to congress annually.
First you need to have the rule of law. It is already a crime to publish well-documented lies. It is also a crime to wage war against a sovereign state that has not attacked you. It is the supreme crime according to US law. Many more laws have been broken. We have a long way to go before we get to little crimes like lying in the press. I don't care about propaganda as much as I care for the rule of law and war. We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the laws that already exist. That is far more serious.-------------------------------lizard
Actually, in a wrongful dismissal suit against a FOX station in Florida I believe, the court ruled that the station has no obligation to broadcast the truth as news.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
" Perhaps, we can introduce a system of merit pay for reporters and news producers in which their pay depends on their success on educating the public on key issues". That will never happen because most of the MSM is owned by the wealthy, elite which is almost 100% very, conservative. So, the majority of the people that make a very good salary are nothing more than media whores who have sold out to their publishers and editors to keep their pay and they understand the parameters if they want to merit their current income.
The Republicans want to drill you in the ass.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats