Forgot About Aura

The LA Times has a well-argued editorial about the Bush/McCain proposal to destroy America's coastline:

Enter Bush, who on Wednesday said he would end his father's 1990 presidential moratorium on most coastal drilling if Congress would lift its own, separate ban. His reasoning was so contradictory that it's a wonder he could finish his news conference without cracking up. While conceding that the long-term solution to high oil prices is to pursue alternative energy sources, he argued that "in the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply." The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that even if oil companies are allowed to tap the 18 billion barrels under coastal waters that are currently off-limits, oil prices wouldn't be expected to fall until 2030. How is that a short-term solution?

Coastal drilling isn't just opposed by a bunch of Prius-driving greenies from Santa Barbara. Existing moratoriums were put in place at the behest of tourism interests, fishermen, small businesses and coastal dwellers. That's because drilling in these waters benefits oil companies but causes direct economic harm to everyone else by trashing beaches, poisoning marine life and ruining views.

One flaw in the editorial, however, is that it refers to Bush and McCain as "oil opportunists." This misses the fact that since David Broder likes his aura it's not possible for McCain to be an opportunist. Maybe if the LAT editorialists moved closer to DC they could see these issues more clearly. Maybe they don't realize in Southern California that McCain is a straight-talker and Broder's the Dean. I mean, this is a paper that doesn't even know that Tim Russert was 21st century America's greatest hero so clearly they can't be trusted.

Photo of oil-smeared grebe by Flickr user Wolfraven used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"the Bush/McCain proposal to destroy America's coastline:"

Hack. We could, with equal justice, (0=0) speak of the Clinton/Obama proposal to destroy the American family.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 9:32 AM

I'm glad you've moved away from the nonsensical notion that it is bad policy in general for us to extract more oil from the ground. It makes much more sense to instead make the case that offshore oil drilling is a bad idea based on the problems directly associated with said drilling.

Posted by Jim W | June 23, 2008 9:35 AM

Forget about national punditry, Matt. This is unsuitable for the highschool newspaper. "Destroy America's coastline"? Oil-soaked grebe? Cheap shots against Broder? Get a life.

Posted by robert powell | June 23, 2008 9:37 AM

Wow! Bellmore and powell in the first three posts! The troll droppings are already thick on this thread.

Posted by Joel | June 23, 2008 9:44 AM

The argument against coastline oil drilling is the following:

1)it is not a short term solution to bringing down the cost of gas (not till 2030)

2)it will not have a sizeable effect on the cost of gas when the effect (cents, not dollars, on the gallon)

3)it will imperil scenic beauty and wildlife, inherent goods that also benefit many coastline economies.

All three points are strong. If you are a proponent of offshore/coastline drilling and you wish to convince others of your policy, you will want to effectively, empirically critique points 1 & 2 (which are established by various agencies and researchers). Point 3 will likewise need to be argued (merely asserting that "it'll be cleaner this time" or "tourism will suffer more from the price of gas" -which, by the way, depends on a rebuttal of point 1- will only do for the rhetorically inept).

Posted by tom f | June 23, 2008 9:52 AM

Hack.

Oh, please. Matthew's just doing his part as an operative of the Obama campaign.

And, let's face it, Matthew's right. Only environmentally unfriendly countries that want to destroy their coastline would ever drill offshore. Those environmental pariahs like, say, Norway.

If we are going to ruin the coastline, we should ruin with environmentally friendly ruining, like with gigantic windfarms. If we could only get those Democrats who hate the environment, like Teddy Kennedy, to allow windpower.

Posted by Al | June 23, 2008 10:00 AM

The whole business of increasing coastal drilling is in part a political ploy, ala the gas tax holiday, to make sensible people look like meanies who don't want cheaper gas. The lesser part is a bid to temporarily settle the speculators who don't understand the geology and economics of gasoline production.

Notice how every proposal for American oil production involves a 10-12 year implementation plan. These projects, be it expensive off shore drilling, shale oil, tar sands, whatever, were not profitable enough to inspire the Big Oil to implement them under a rubber stamp Bush Administration with Republican collusion in congress in the early 2000s. They only become profitable if you are looking ten years or so down the line. These are not band aids for $4 gas. They are band aids for $15 gas.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 23, 2008 10:03 AM

As has been pointed out numerous times, getting the oil would take a decade or so from the time drilling is authorized, but we've been blocking drilling for more than a decade. If we hadn't been blocking it, we'd have the oil right now.

I'm not terribly impressed at people who object to incremental efforts to improve a situation, if they won't solve the whole problem.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 10:15 AM

I see where Al has joined Bellmore and powell--a troll trifecta!

"I'm not terribly impressed at people who object to incremental efforts to improve a situation, if they won't solve the whole problem."

Ah, Brett. Then you aren't impressed by the Bush/McCain proposal to lease additional land for drilling, since they certainly "won't solve the whole problem."

The "problem," young troll, is that the world has reached peak oil. More drilling off the California and Florida coasts won't change that today, wouldn't have changed that if drilling had started 10 years ago, and won't change if such wells came on line in 10 years.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Joel | June 23, 2008 10:30 AM

It makes much more sense to instead make the case that offshore oil drilling is a bad idea based on the problems directly associated with said drilling.
Posted by Jim W

Since all other nations with a large coastline and techical ability or who drew in another nation with technical ability are exploring for oil and gas on the continental shelf, ideed, lets look at the drawbacks.

1. In 1988 and 1995, when we were in oil and gas gluts, the argument was not to drill because it would take 10 YEARs, way off in like almost the New Millenium or into the 21st century. Meanwhile we see other nations using US technology only the domestic offshore industry the US is largely blocked from using, making large finds that doubled reserves and gave a few nations a half century or of surplus. Offshore of China, Indonesia, Qatar, Brazil, Canada, in the Canadian part of the Great Lakes (natural gas), the Caspian Sea hotbed. Because the US technology was ever improving thanks to places like the North Sea and 1/3 of the Gulf still allowed to be explored, no significant spills have happened in the last 20 years from rigs.

1a. The argument that we should never do something to recover from decades of willful neglect if the fix takes a long time is moronic. It would be like realizing that after several bridge collapses that we let ideology and demands of special interest groups divert funds away from absolutely required maintenance and inspection - that we had people come out and say we shouldn't fix the bridges - 80,000 in the US now rated as structurally deficient - because restoring adequate safety margin after 30 years of irresponsibility would take 10 painful years..

2. People that say it is crazy to produce as much resource internal to the US vs, sending hundreds of billions instead to hostile Muslim countries, the Nigerian dictatorship, and Venezuela completely miss the obvious economic impact of jobs creation (20,000 per billion in oil or natural gas brought up, an economic multiplier of between 9 and 11 - meaning the money stays here and grows the GNP by 9 to 11 times the value of the fossil resource itself, rather than be spent by the Arabs with only negative impact on Americans.

3. The areas most devestated by the 1973 Oil Embargo were "remote destination" tourist attractions. At a certain point, we may elect to take out a portion of the oil and gas from market price and allocate it to critical infrastructure - farmers, medical facilities, law enforcement - but not to most workers of gov't employees. This could also happen if a major supply disruption happens and you have panic and the price of gas would explode to 20-25 bucks a gallon unless the government declares an emergency and imposes rationing.
If rationing happens, several energy-producing states have said that - unlike 1973 when everyone shared and shared alike because it was the Arab's fault, such a recurrence would be more the fault of American environmental extremists from states that refuse to do their share to produce American energy. And discussions are about the legality of considering the West Coast and East Coast plus Florida as "end of the line" - who would only get domestic oil and gas if the states that make it take care of their citizens 1st, then sell excess to the highest bidder.

Posted by chris ford | June 23, 2008 10:32 AM

I find it interesting that Bush and McCain are both trumpeting the benefits of offshore drilling, but I've heard nothing from any coastal state governor. (We already know Schwarzenegger is against it.)

So what states have openly stated that they want this? What states have debated this in their legislature and have voted to support it? If there isn't a single state supporting it, isn't this just complete and total bulls*** issue? Unless, of course, McBush want to open federal waters to drilling WITHOUT state permission. They SAY they don't, but...

Posted by LFC | June 23, 2008 10:36 AM

"The "problem," young troll, is that the world has reached peak oil. More drilling off the California and Florida coasts won't change that today, wouldn't have changed that if drilling had started 10 years ago, and won't change if such wells came on line in 10 years."

"Won't completely solve the problem", and "won't improve the situation" are not equivalent. Even if oil production peaks, opening up new fields can make the downward slope on the other side of the peak less steep. ESPECIALLY when oil producing nations start reserving their output for domestic use, and we can't buy it at any price.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 11:20 AM

The argument against coastline oil drilling is...All three points are strong.
>> tom f

I agree. But why is anyone surprised by Bush's reversal? Or anything he does, anymore? He was bought some time ago -- he's paid back the foreign policy radicals and oil interests with his Little War; now he'll help line a few more pockets in the Carlyle Group. On one level, it's really that simple and obvious; it's what the level of our culture whom Bush sock puppets for are about.

And, McCain wants the backing of some of that crowd; he'll shill for just about anything, anyway, even though the idea of increasing coastal drilling and thowing open ANWAR is, typically, short-sighted and stupid.

There's one more point to be raised: Continued reliance on petrochemicals is just as short-sighted. Unfortunately, the economy of every industrialized nation (and as a result, the planet) is addicted to oil, and profits from its use. And no one wants to break the depencency because of the money it's already generated -- changing from an oil-based economy would be... costly, and the change would be wrenching.

Economics shouldn't be the first consideration, though -- if the American government and the oil industry admitted that global climate change is real and its effects may be irreversible unless industrial economies act quickly; that petrochemical use is a primary contributor to climate change; and if they agreed that the effects of global warming could cost our species the planet -- then there might be enough "national will" to make the kinds of change necessary.

In the U.S., it would take decades to absorb the dislocation of jobs, market equity, and lifestyle change. It would mean an essential sea change in how we live and work.

However, we may not have decades. Governments, industries and people don't want that kind of change. The 'Quality Of Life' we enjoy at the expense of so much else and so many others is more important... and so are the profits. The "national will" doesn't exist to do more than give lip service to something like Biofuels, and drive up the price of corn.

Sometimes, I believe as a species we're just too stupid to survive. And I'm afraid that at some point, the Elk up in Anwar will just have to get used to drilling rigs owned by good friends of the family Bush.

Jeb will probably be president by then -- and gosh; he'll do almost as well as his older brother has.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | June 23, 2008 11:22 AM

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/06/19/offshore_drilling_2/index.html

The above links to information from the Dept of Energy Info. Admin.'s 2007 report finding that

a) offshore oil drilling in the Pac., Atl, and E. Gulf will not produce significant amounts of oil until 2030

b) when oil is produced, the effects on price will be insignificant. Not slight, mind you, but insignificant. Meaning, one assumes, that normal market variability dwarfs suspected savings, to say nothing of gains to be made from conservation and alternative energy sources.

Chris Ford,

Your argument 1) is two fold. First, you allude to other countries' vast finds from new drilling. See above for response. Secondly, you report that modern technology is more spill proof. That may well be, but the whole rationale for drilling, safe or otherwise, is undermined above.

Your argument 1a) -that incremental improvement should not be ignored simply because it isn't short term- is rational. But informed opposition to drilling rests on the understanding that offshore drilling will not significanlty improve supply. Let me repeat that, because posters here are (willfully?) ignoring the point: THE GAINS FROM OFFSHORE DRILLING ARE PROJECTED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT.

Finally, the relevance of the fact that offshore oil won't reach mature production until 2030 is foremost in response to McCain's claim that it is a short term solution, not that long term solutions aren't, in themselves, attractive.

Until we see a rebuttal to the US Government's Department of Energy finding's, opponents of offshore oil drilling can ignore the imaginative arguments of supporters as so much hand waiving.

Posted by tom f | June 23, 2008 11:24 AM

Isn't now a really good time for environmentalists/ conservationists to negotiate the terms for offshore drilling and ANWR? If we really believe that we will *never* be going after those resources then, fine, hold the line, and plan to fight drilling every single day until the end of time.

But if we really are in the age of peak oil, and we're getting ready to see decreasing output from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world at the same time that demand is going up, then it stands to reason that oil prices will stay high and potentially go even higher. When those high oil prices exact their full hit on the economy, voters are likely to be even more anxious for us to do something about lowering prices, which means they'll be that much more likely to sell out the environment. And a pol backed by the oil companies will be that much more able to exploit that desire.

If I were in Congress, I'd propose "surrender with honor"- that is, allow drilling in some of these offshore places and in ANWR, but with the best environmental protections that we can imagine, such that oil companies won't even consider drilling there worth their while if oil falls back below $130 a barrel. Throw that in with some good CAFE standards and/or mass transit funding while you're at it. Get as much as you can while you're dealing from a position of strength.

I know that there's likely to be little, if any, impact on short-term prices, but sometimes you've got to evaluate the political landscape and figure out what the best outcome for your cause is.

Posted by Jeremy | June 23, 2008 11:38 AM

Jeremy,

As I have noted here before, I think the politics is likely to work the other way. Using tom f's very helpful framework, I think points #1 and #2 will be enough to convince most people that they shouldn't care much either way. And point #3 has already persuaded people who live in the states that will be directly affected to strongly oppose offshore drilling. And in situations like that, the minority tends to get its way.

To put this point in concrete terms, I think this has the potential to cost the GOP more electoral votes and congressional seats in affected coastal areas than it is likely to gain them elsewhere. And again, that is even assuming a majority still vaguely supports offshore drilling after absorbing tom f's three points.

Posted by DTM | June 23, 2008 11:54 AM

One point that few people make- there are already millions of acres in the US that are open for oil exploration and have yet to be drilled. Much of this area will now be profitable at $100+/barrel, whereas a short time ago it wouldn't have been. So there is little need for the US to open more areas for oil exploration.

Posted by nirad | June 23, 2008 12:13 PM

Because of the oil embargo (and, later, WW2) some Japanese in the late 30s and early 40s drove steam engine automobiles with little, coal-fired boilers. Easy mobility isn't exactly an addiction, but it's definitely a siren song.

Oil is going to thin-out, sooner rather than later, and most petroleum will be used by petrochemical firms and for fertilizers. So, we're all going to be switching to diesel (oil shale doesn't have the hydrocarbons to make gasoline) and, eventually, those coal-fired steam engines. And, then, little by little, bit by bit, those buggy-whip manufacturers so beloved by capitalist bromide wielders, will get a bit of their own back.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 23, 2008 1:04 PM

For what it's worth: The speed at which Brent Bellmore and Robert Powell hit this post means that off-shore drilling is clearly a Republican Talking Point.

Posted by Shine | June 23, 2008 1:12 PM

Gee, I thought it meant that I wandered by shortly after he posted.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2008 2:02 PM

Not me. I get a buzz on the Red Phone whenever there's a new Republican talking point.

There are lots of states that LIKE offshore drilling, LFC. Texas and Louisiana, for starters. Californians will learn to adjust.

I expect we'll probably need to tap these reserves eventually as we postpone developing serious alternatives to oil to the last, but at this point I really think the best strategy is to leave it in the ground. It will always be cheaper to get Persian Gulf oil due to the geology there, and we'll have another price crash soon enough--demand is currently being destroyed, and won't come back. In the mean time, American's should stop whining. Where I live gas is about $9 a gallon, and the average income is about half that of the US. No one's stopped driving as far as I can tell.

Jeremy wins the prize for the most realistic political analysis.

Posted by robert powell | June 23, 2008 2:33 PM

Oh yeah here we go:

The argument against coastline WIND FARMS is the following:

1)it is not a short term solution to bringing down the cost of ELECTRICTY (not till 2030)

2)it will not have a sizeable effect on the cost of ELECTRIC when the effect (cents, not dollars) on the kwh

3)it will imperil scenic beauty and wildlife, inherent goods that also benefit many coastline economies.

All three points are strong. If you are a proponent of offshore WINDFARMS and you wish to convince others of your policy, you will want to effectively, empirically critique points 1 & 2 (which are established by various agencies and researchers). Point 3 will likewise need to be argued (merely asserting that "IT WON'T KILL AS MANY BIRDS AS WE THOUGHT BEFORE" or "tourism will suffer more from the price of ELECTRICITY" -which, by the way, depends on a rebuttal of point 1- will only do for the rhetorically inept).

Posted by tom f | June 23, 2008 9:52 AM

=================================================

I love this line of "if it's not a complete solution right now, it's no good" thought. It's just as logical an argument for not developing renewables.

Posted by Campesino | June 23, 2008 2:54 PM

2)it will not have a sizeable effect on the cost of ELECTRICITY AND ISN'T DEPENDABLE

Posted by Campesino | June 23, 2008 3:00 PM

There are lots of states that LIKE offshore drilling, LFC. Texas and Louisiana, for starters. Californians will learn to adjust.

Look at a map. Nobody (literally nobody) lives on the Louisiana coast. Relatively few people live on the Texas coast.

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 5:23 PM

Relatively few people live on the Texas coast.

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 5:23 PM

=================================================

Guess that depends on what your definition of "relatively few" is. Houston area population is about 5 million, Beaumont/Port Arthur about 500,000 and Corpus Christi only about 300,000. But you are right there are open spaces in between.

Posted by Campesino | June 23, 2008 7:06 PM

By "living on the coast" I mean "living where you can see the ocean from your house." The only such place I am personally familiar with in Texas is Galveston. No doubt there are other such places, but certainly not any part of Houston.

By contrast, I would bet that the number of people in California who can see the ocean from their property runs into six figures. (That's the ocean, not some estuary or ship canal.) A large proportion of them are well-off and/or influential. Hence the opposition to offshore drilling in California is and will remain formidable.

I am not choosing a side here, just stating a fact.

Posted by roac | June 23, 2008 11:18 PM

Campesino:

I don't think you did a good job of clarifying the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote. If there are ethics to posting, your post borders on unethical because it would not be clear to the reader that I didn't write what you have attributed to me.

More importantly, you then implicitly attribute to me an argument that I didn't make and clearly rebutted: namely, that incremental improvements are useless because they are not complete solutions. See post at 11:24 AM.

I certainly don't know much about wind power and couldn't speak about it. You are, of course, free to cite references to your claims. In absense of references, I have no reason to trust you with any greater understanding than I myself possess.

Posted by tom f | June 24, 2008 12:47 AM