September, 22 2008,  02:43pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact: 
Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x115
Offshore Drilling and Automobile Fuel Economy: The Relative Impact on Oil Production
WASHINGTON
Last
week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that lifted some
restrictions on oil drilling in America's outer continental shelf. The
bill was supported by many Democrats but was criticized by many
Republicans for not going far enough and for not opening up enough
areas to drilling. Senator John McCain supports lifting all
restrictions on drilling in the outer continental shelf. He argues that
increased offshore production will reduce dependence on foreign oil, in
addition to lowering gas prices. 
However, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that
even Senator McCain's proposal for comprehensive drilling would have no
impact in the near-term, since it will be close to a decade before any
oil can be extracted from the coastal areas in question. The EIA
estimates that actual production would not begin until 2017 and would
not reach peak production until 2030. Further, the EIA projects that
this will only increase domestic oil production by 200,000 barrels a
day (0.2 percent of projected world production), an amount too small to
have any significant effect on oil prices.1 
It is interesting to compare the potential impact on oil prices of the
proposal to remove restrictions on offshore drilling with the impact of
the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This
legislation included regulations designed to increase production of
renewable fuels and increase energy efficiency. Most significantly, the
measure raised the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for
automobiles. Under the legislation, the minimum CAFE standard for
passenger vehicles must average at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by
2020, up from the previous minimum standard of approximately 27.5 mpg
at present.2
CAFE standards were first implemented in 1975 at 20 mpg and increased
to 27.5 mpg in 1985. The CAFE program had the direct effect of reducing
national oil consumption by compelling automakers to produce more
fuel-efficient cars. The Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
estimates that without CAFE standards, gasoline consumption (and crude
oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels a day greater.3  Currently, our consumption of oil is estimated at 20.8 million barrels a day.4 
Figure 1 shows the relative impact on oil production of lifting
drilling restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf, compared with the
impact on oil consumption of increasing standards of automobile fuel
efficiency.
FIGURE 1
The Relative Impact of Offshore Drilling and Increasing Fuel Efficiency Standards in 2030
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 should have a similar
impact on fuel efficiency and oil consumption, also lowering
consumption by approximately 2.8 million barrels per day by 2027, the
year when the EIA projects that peak production could be reached from
drilling in the currently protected offshore area.5
  If this is the case, then the increase in fuel economy standards
contained in the recent legislation will decrease oil dependency by an
amount fourteen times greater than any comprehensive offshore drilling
effort. 
Senator Obama has proposed a slightly more ambitious fuel efficiency
schedule which would increase mileage standards at the rate of 4
percent a year. This would lead to somewhat greater energy savings,
especially if the increases are continued beyond the 2020 date. In this
case, the mileage standard will reach 52 miles per gallon by 2027,
which will raise the average for all cars driven to just less than 42
miles per gallon by that date. In this case, the savings in oil
consumption would be equal to 4.2 million barrels a day by 2027.6  This amount would be 21 times as large as the impact of opening up the protected offshore areas to drilling.  
While Senator McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, his running mate Governor Sarah Palin strongly supports lifting
the restrictions on drilling. The EIA has estimated that drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have no effect in the
near-term. Production would not begin until 2018, and in 2030,
production would plateau at 710,000 barrels a day. This amount of oil
is projected to decrease the price of oil by about $2.00 a barrel,
which would bring down the price of gasoline by less than 5 cents a
gallon.7 
In conclusion, the increase in CAFE standards signed into law by
President Bush will have four times the impact on oil dependency as
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and fourteen times the
impact as drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. The addition of
Senator Obama's conservation proposal to the increased CAFE standards
would have 21 times the impact of opening up drilling in protected
offshore areas and 6 times the impact of drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The impact of opening drilling in either area
will be zero for close to a decade. Even when these regions attain peak
production in close to twenty years, the potential impact on gasoline
prices will still be negligible. 
________________________________
1.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030. Washington: GPO, 2007. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html. Accessed September 8, 2008.
2. White House. Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Washington: White House, 2007. https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html.
Accessed September 9, 2008. The current 25 miles is a rough average of
the 27.5 MPG requirement for cars and the 22.2 MPG requirement for
light trucks.
3. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington: National Academy Press, 2002. https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=3. Accessed September 9, 2008. 
4. Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Rank Order - Oil - Consumption. Washington: CIA, 2005. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html. Accessed September 11, 2008.
5.
This calculation assumes that the efficiency of the fleet of cars sold
increases at the rate of 0.85 MPG per year between now and 2020. It
also assumes that each year a car is on the road it is driven 10
percent less (e.g. 2005 cars are driven 10 percent less than 2006 cars)
and that it is pulled off the road altogether after 20 years. It also
assumes a baseline where gasoline consumption rises by 10 percent from
9 million barrels per day in 2008 to 10 million barrels per day in
2027.  
6. This calculation makes the same assumption about the rate at which cars are pulled off the road.
7.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf. Accessed September, 9 2008.
By Matthew Sherman and Dean Baker
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Question' More People Will End Up With Fake Insurance If ACA Subsidies Expire: Expert
"This is what happens when we design systems for insurance companies instead of humans."
Oct 31, 2025
Time on Thursday published reporting about "how fake health insurance is luring people in," and along with sharing stories of Americans tricked into paying for plans that aren't compliant with the Affordable Care Act, the article features an expert's warning that more could be fooled if Congress lets ACA subsidies expire.
The ongoing federal government shutdown stems from congressional Democrats' efforts to reverse recent GOP cuts to Medicaid and extend the ACA tax credits, which set to expire at the end of the year. Open enrollment for 2026 plans sold on ACA marketplaces starts Saturday, and Americans who buy insurance through these platforms now face the looming end of subsidies and substantial monthly premium hikes.
"Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance," Time reported. "They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name."
ACA plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, the outlet detailed, but consumers who leave the official website may instead sign up for short-term plans that don't span the full year, fixed indemnity plans that pay a small amount for certain services, or "healthcare sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples' medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions."
Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Time that "there's no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended."
According to the outlet:
These non-insurance products "have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance," Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites... that ask for a person's name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
To avoid paying for misleading plans, Heyison advised spending a few days researching before buying anything, steering clear of companies that offer a gift for signing up, and asking for documents detailing coverage to review before payment.
On the heels of Time's reporting and the eve of open enrollment, Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative published polling that makes clear Americans across the political spectrum are worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
The pollsters found that 75% of voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the spikes, including 83% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 66% of Republicans. While the overall figure was the same as last week, the share who said they were very concerned rose from 45% to 47%.
As the second-longest shutdown ever drags on, 57% of respondents said they don't believe that President Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are focused on lowering healthcare costs for people like them and their families. More broadly, 52% also did not agree that Trump and GOP lawmakers "are fighting on behalf of" people like them.
A plurality of voters (42%) said that Trump and congressional Republicans deserve most of the blame for rising premiums, while 27% blamed both parties equally, and just a quarter put most of the responsibility on elected Democrats.
"While President Trump focuses on the moodboard for his gilded ballroom and House Republicans refuse to show up for work in Washington, a ticking time bomb is strapped to working families’ pocketbooks," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's managing director of policy and advocacy, in a Friday statement.
Pointing to the Trump administration's legally dubious decision not to keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown, she added that "healthcare premiums are set to double and food assistance benefits are on the brink of collapse in a matter of hours, and voters know exactly who's to blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


