In our local paper in Greenwich, a reader has written several letters saying "hug a Democrat if you like $4.50 per gallon gas because the Democrats are responsible for it."
My thoughts on the matter:
The reason most Democrats, and intellectually honest Republicans, oppose lifting the ban is because it will have no impact on oil prices in the short term, and only a negligible impact in the very distant future, yet has clear environmental risks. According to a report by the Energy Information Administration (the official source of energy statistics from the U.S. Government), expanded offshore drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil or natural gas production or prices before 2030.” Even after 2030, “any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant”, because oil prices are determined on the international market, for which U.S. production accounts for less than 10%.
That hasn’t stopped Republican candidate John McCain from claiming that offshore oil drilling “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” Although let’s give credit where credit is due. When confronted by the facts, McCain has since backpedaled (flip-flopped?) to say that expanded drilling wouldn’t provide short term relief, but would have a positive “psychological impact”. Perhaps it doesn’t take much to get McCain’s spirits up, but gas prices being a few cents lower 22 years from now doesn’t do much for me.
The demagoguery about relieving the energy crisis through expanded offshore drilling and suspending the federal gas tax seems merely a convenient way for McCain to reward his big oil patrons—who have donated more than $2 million to his campaign. It’s hard to trust McCain’s independence on energy policy when he has more than 33 former oil lobbyists advising him or raising campaign funds. More than 300 economists, including several Nobel laureates, came out against the gas tax holiday, in part because “research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers.” Of course, consistent with his oil-friendly policies, McCain does not support a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Casting more doubt on Mr. Dadakis’ accusations are the facts about what energy companies aren’t doing with the federal oil and gas resources already available for development. The House Committee on Natural Resources has documented an extensive array of statistics showing the vast quantity of land and water for which federal leases have been issued—68 million acres—but that are not in production. According to the Minerals Management Service, four-fifths of the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf (the offshore area where Bush and McCain want to lift the ban on drilling) are currently open for leasing.
When it comes to energy conservation, McCain apparently thinks ribbing Obama about painless fuel-saving measures such as maintaining proper tire inflation, a position endorsed by AAA, NASCAR and the U.S. Department of Energy, will boost his popularity. Until he realized that once again he was wrong, and recanted.
And then there are the political facts. As McCain himself has said, our “dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making". Mr. Dadakis might be interested to know that over the past 30 years, Republicans have been in the White House for roughly twice as many years as the Democrats, and have controlled the Senate for 16 years compared to the Democrat’s 12 years. As far as who is up for election this year, McCain has been in Congress for 25 years, six times longer than Senator Obama. And closer to home, Republican Representative Chris Shays has 22 years on his Democratic challenger, Jim Himes.
While America’s failed energy policy goes beyond the political failings in Washington, surely the Democrats are not alone to blame, and have more coherent solutions than either McCain or Edward Dadakis.
