Hard Flop

Ambinder says of John McCain's flip-flop in favor of offshore drilling:

Criticizing the policy is an appropriate way to approach it if you're an Obama supporter, but why begrudge the man for changing his mind as conditions (our general awareness of climate change, the Iraq war, gas prices, etc) have changed? Perhaps he changed his mind for the wrong reason... but that's an argument that one has to make, not just assume.

The point I would make is that McCain's new view undermines an important larger argument he's trying to make. His latest ad features the idea that he broke with the president over climate change -- i.e., he wants to do something about it. Specifically, McCain says he wants to reduce carbon emissions. But you just can't reduce carbon emissions without burning less oil by, in effect, making it more expensive. Offshore drilling is a way to get more oil in order to make oil cheaper. If McCain wants to say that high gas prices have made him abandon his previous views on climate change, fine. But what he wants to do right now is simultaneously get credit for standing up to Bush on climate, while also agreeing with Bush about the particulars.

Comments

Does Ambinder play dumb on purpose? Is that his schtick?

Posted by Chris | June 18, 2008 2:02 PM

Marc misses the point. Of course politicians can change their position as circumstances change -- as the current president shows, an unwillingness to do that is a major flaw.

The problem with McCain is that his changes seem to be coming especially quickly, and they all fortuitously seem to place him in the Republican mainstream. It's almost as if there was and is a concerted strategy for him to take "maverick" positions from 2000-2007 in order to attract independents, and then once he had that reputation, to move hard to the right to attract the traditional GOP base.

Posted by Joe | June 18, 2008 2:03 PM

Chris: I think he has a bad case of mainstream journalistitis. Plus, he totally wishes he could hang out with the cool journalists on the Straight Talk Express--and go to BBQs etc.

Posted by David | June 18, 2008 2:04 PM

It's not necessarily inconsistent to believe in more oil now as an economic policy, and less oil later as an environmental one.

Not saying that I think this is Conflict John's rationale, just that it is possible. If he came through with a real, substantial (and near-term, not "someday") plan for phased in reductions, then wanting a short term boost to soften our recession now.

Posted by Brad L | June 18, 2008 2:06 PM

This is a losing issue for Democrats, and I think the Republicans know it. Everyone except hard core liberals are in favor of lower gas prices, and while this may not be a short term solution, it would at least make a difference down the line.

Trust me, I know (and agree with) the counterarguments -- high gas prices are painful short term/good long term, environmental impact, global warming, etc. etc. etc. And I think it's a principled stand to be against offshore drilling and in Alaska. But Obama is going to pay a political price for it.

No matter what peak oil people say, we'll have plenty of oil for the next 50 years at least, and in that case, why shouldn't American companies reap some of the benefit? Why should we let the Saudis and Russians pump all the oil? etc. etc.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | June 18, 2008 2:08 PM

"It's almost as if there was and is a concerted strategy for him to take "maverick" positions from 2000-2007 in order to attract independents, and then once he had that reputation, to move hard to the right to attract the traditional GOP base."

An editing suggestion: replace "in order to attract independents" with "in order to woo journalists to point where their critical faculties were no longer working"

Posted by David | June 18, 2008 2:09 PM

I don't think John McCain understands his own positions, their real wold impact, or the contradictions of his own statements.

In other words, he's dumb as a stump. Do you really want 4 more years of a president who is "intellectually incurious" but always certain?

Posted by LFC | June 18, 2008 2:09 PM

Ambinder is a hack who hates Obama and will criticize any chance he gets. Especially when it's his opponent who is being a hypocrite.

Fire. Amvbinder. Now.

Posted by Intern Angling For Ambinder's Job | June 18, 2008 2:13 PM

McCain has, as far as I can tell, no real opinion on anything other than the Iraq War. For a man of principles he seems to have an amazing shortage of principles other than a general fondness for all things bellicose.

Posted by Michael Foody | June 18, 2008 2:14 PM

Ambinder gives McCain the benefit of the doubt each and every day. It's like clockwork. And it sucks.

Posted by tinisoli | June 18, 2008 2:16 PM

McCain also talked about 21bn barrels of domestic reserves as if that were actually a big number -- as opposed to, say, three years' supply for the nation, with the same extraction curve as all other drilling.

Now, frankly, I think John McCain would be able to say 'we can bring down the price at the pump by converting the entire population of Malawi to gasoline' and have it given consideration by 'mainstream America', because that's the mindset of petroleum crackwhores. Anything that might stave off the withdrawal symptoms becomes politically expedient.

Brad L: new drilling isn't a short-term solution to anything.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 18, 2008 2:20 PM

No matter what peak oil people say, we'll have plenty of oil for the next 50 years at least, and in that case, why shouldn't American companies reap some of the benefit? Why should we let the Saudis and Russians pump all the oil? etc. etc.

This is a very questionable claim. If we start really running out in 20-30 years, there will be hell to pay. But this is also an issue that you could easily be right at the wrong time on.

Posted by mpowell | June 18, 2008 2:24 PM

McCain's reaction to the Boumediene decision went from "it obviously concerns me" to "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" - in one day. This from a man who has vowed to close Gitmo on his first day as POTUS. (The entire logic of holding detainees at Gitmo, of course, being that the Bush administration could argue that such pesky formalities as habeas corpus don't apply). So yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say McCain is in full "say whatever it takes to win" mode at this point. He sees the enthusiasm gap. He sees the polls and the Electoral College. He knows about the lack of money. I think one can safely assume that any policy shift from here on out is 100% fake.

Posted by south side | June 18, 2008 2:25 PM

But you just can't reduce carbon emissions without burning less oil by, in effect, making it more expensive. Offshore drilling is a way to get more oil in order to make oil cheaper.

We went over this yesterday, but I'll repeat that this kind of argument does not hold up. According to this logic, if we suddenly discovered a huge reservior of oil, our proper response would be to pretend that it was not there. And, we should stop extracting oil from existing oil wells. That sounds like a winning position!

Through our policies (carbon tax or cap and trade), we can effectively make oil as expensive as we want in order to stimulate alternative sources of energy. We can even do this while extracting more oil from the ground.

Another factor to consider is that oil is cleaner than coal in terms of greenhouse gases. I am not saying that we should do offshore drilling. I am saying that opposition to it should be based only on the financial and environmental cost of the drilling itself.

Posted by Jim W | June 18, 2008 2:26 PM

Can anybody point to some evidence that the price of gasoline at the pump has ever gone down? I can't see a case where Oil Execs have any incentive to make gas cheaper at the pump.

Posted by craig | June 18, 2008 2:27 PM

"Can anybody point to some evidence that the price of gasoline at the pump has ever gone down?"

I know that when I was in high school (77-81) was when gas went over $1/gallon for the first time. I also know that in the early 90s was the first time I paid less than $1/gallon since high school.

Not actual evidence, but it did really happen.

Posted by John | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM

not to mention, making offshore drilling legal and allowing it to happen does not provide any rapid relief at the pump. It provides less rapid relief then the stupid idea of ending the gas tax. What it does, is in the long run provide oil companies with more oil so that the world as a whole isn't forced to switch to alternative fuel, thus creating larger wealth disparity and worse effects to the global climate. John McCain it seems, is a really terrible candidate, the republican voters apparently did what was in the best interest in 2000 by going for Bush, because McCain is going to get blown out.

Posted by Rob Eaton | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM

Sadly, Ambinder's coverage has become a little odd lately. I think he feels it's his duty to counterbalance any positive media coverage Obama gets, regardless of the facts. I wonder if he turned off his comments again because the pro-Obama responses were hurting him with the McCain folks.

Posted by Gwendy | June 18, 2008 2:47 PM

not to mention, making offshore drilling legal and allowing it to happen does not provide any rapid relief at the pump. It provides less rapid relief then the stupid idea of ending the gas tax. What it does, is in the long run provide oil companies with more oil so that the world as a whole isn't forced to switch to alternative fuel, thus creating larger wealth disparity and worse effects to the global climate. John McCain it seems, is a really terrible candidate, the republican voters apparently did what was in the best interest in 2000 by going for Bush, because McCain is going to get blown out.

Posted by Rob Eaton | June 18, 2008 2:48 PM

Hey Matt, tell Ambinder to give our comments back.

Posted by fumphis | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM

The commenter above is right: everyone wants lower oil/gas/etc prices. Which is why we're going to get smacked with the full force of whatever climate change has in store. Nobody wants to suffer now for something 20-30-80 years in advance. We're simply not wired that way. I'm a firm believer in AGW and believe that what's in store will be grim, but no scientist can assert that without venturing into Non Science. (AGW is the ultimate gotcha test for human rationality: can we sacrifice on the basis of compelling evidence of the likely or must we be tasered by circumstance? I think we flunk. As a species, we need to be tasered. Repeatedly and probably on high.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 2:51 PM

Can anybody point to some evidence that the price of gasoline at the pump has ever gone down? I can't see a case where Oil Execs have any incentive to make gas cheaper at the pump.

Posted by craig | June 18, 2008 2:27 PM

=================================================
Of course it has. Take a look at the chart here

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2006_fcvt_fotw426.html

Posted by Campesino | June 18, 2008 2:54 PM

One more thing I must add... "How insane is John McCain", you sir are an idiot. No offense, but I'm just saying. Do you have any idea about world petro-politics? At all? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Because there is this little company called "exxon mobil" that has posted record profits pretty much every quarter for the last few years including this last quarter. This company "exxon mobil" posted a bigger profit then any other company in America last quarter ... I think American companies are already getting a share! And you're right Americans do want cheaper gas and going against that would be a politically bad move, unless that cheaper gas involves waiting several years to build offshore drilling rigs and then believing that the oil companies will begin drilling at maximum impact which would lower there profit and if you know anything about oil companies... nothing stands between them and there profit.. so if we're talking about cheaper gas in the long term, then we could say that switching to alternative fuels and making higher mpg standards on vehicles would also inevitably lower the cost of gas.

Posted by Rob Eaton | June 18, 2008 2:56 PM

Ambinder is a hack, and a cowardly one at that.

In answer to a question above:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/real_prices.html

Real gasoline prices generally trended downward during the 20th Century, with the notable exceptions of the 1930s and late-70s/early-80s. However, the recent runup erased all of those gains and now real prices are higher than they have ever been before in the automobile era.

Posted by DTM | June 18, 2008 3:01 PM

One more thing I must add... "How insane is John McCain", you sir are an idiot. No offense, but I'm just saying. Do you have any idea about world petro-politics? At all? Or are you just talking out of your ass? Because there is this little company called "exxon mobil" that has posted record profits pretty much every quarter for the last few years including this last quarter. This company "exxon mobil" posted a bigger profit then any other company in America last quarter ... I think American companies are already getting a share! And you're right Americans do want cheaper gas and going against that would be a politically bad move, unless that cheaper gas involves waiting several years to build offshore drilling rigs and then believing that the oil companies will begin drilling at maximum impact which would lower there profit and if you know anything about oil companies... nothing stands between them and there profit.. so if we're talking about cheaper gas in the long term, then we could say that switching to alternative fuels and making higher mpg standards on vehicles would also inevitably lower the cost of gas.

Posted by Rob Eaton | June 18, 2008 3:02 PM

Brad L: new drilling isn't a short-term solution to anything.

and

making offshore drilling legal and allowing it to happen does not provide any rapid relief at the pump.

I'll admit my ignorance: How long does it take to get from authorizing drilling to pumping? Cite?

Posted by Brad L | June 18, 2008 3:24 PM

Ahem. Matthew on Friday:

A reader [me] wants to know: "I know you read Ambinder's blog. Do you think it's balanced? If not, which way does it incline?" I think it's very balanced. I have no idea what Marc thinks and, indeed, I sometimes think Marc is so committed to reporting and balance that he doesn't know what he thinks.

Duly noted. Marc Ambinder today:

You know what I like?
I like it that John McCain refers to drilling for oil offshore as drilling for oil offshore, and not "deep sea exploration," which is what the Frank Luntzes of the world would have him say. It's more honest that way. Straightforward.

Care to revise and extend your remarks?

Posted by southpaw | June 18, 2008 3:27 PM

How did Ambinder get his job anyway? It is fairly easy to predict what he will write.

Glad he can't turn off comments about himself in other blogs.

Posted by Rob | June 18, 2008 4:04 PM

I'm amused at how quickly you leftists turn on each other when you sense one straying from the accepted dogma.

Posted by Don't Tase Me Bro | June 18, 2008 4:38 PM

The time from drilling for oil to pumping oil depends upon whether or not the drilling finds any oil.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 4:42 PM

The question of opening the OCS and ANWR to drilling will be moot if the price of gas continues to rise. If we have $7 a gallon gas, as some are predicting, all bets are off, politically. The Democrats won't be able to hold the line for the environmentalists. That may a cynic's view, but in this country politics is all about the short-term. Keeping the OCS off-limits is easy if gas is $2 or $3 per gallon. Not as easy when it's $4 or $5, but still doable. If it hits $7+, the public reaction will be so intense that, in the interests of appearing to "do something", the Dems will cave.

Posted by Claudius | June 18, 2008 5:01 PM

"How long does it take to get from authorizing drilling to pumping? Cite?"

Short answer: 1-10 years. It depends a lot on how easy it is to connect to existing infrastructure and what kind of platform you need. Offshore drilling platforms take years to build and are difficult to connect to the existing infrastructure. The only oil lease I ever bought would have pumped in 18 months (had it not been dry). But it was an existing set of land-based wells that needed to be drilled deeper, and it was only 5 miles from an existing pipeline (the wells had been connected to the pipeline, but that pipe was removed and sold as scrap metal in the 70s). The biggest delay was just finding a drill rig that wasn't already drilling somewhere else. Fortunately, someone else drilled nearby first and came up dry, so I never had to get the rig. And I only lost the cost of the lease.

Posted by fostert | June 18, 2008 5:02 PM

The question of opening the OCS and ANWR to drilling will be moot if the price of gas continues to rise. If we have $7 a gallon gas, as some are predicting, all bets are off, politically. The Democrats won't be able to hold the line for the environmentalists. That may a cynic's view, but in this country politics is all about the short-term. Keeping the OCS off-limits is easy if gas is $2 or $3 per gallon. Not as easy when it's $4 or $5, but still doable. If it hits $7+, the public reaction will be so intense that, in the interests of appearing to "do something", the Dems will cave.

Posted by Claudius | June 18, 2008 5:05 PM

Here's an interesting article written by Sen. Bob Menendez. It turns out that the oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of leased land that they aren't exploring. So if they can't get around to exploring this vast area, why should we expect them to explore offshore where conditions are much trickier? Do you have an answer for that, Mr. McCain?

Posted by LFC | June 18, 2008 5:20 PM

If it hits $7+, the public reaction will be so intense that, in the interests of appearing to "do something", the Dems will cave.

With a heavy heart, I tend to agree. Which makes me look to the longer (legislative) terms of other countries and think that if you're looking for constitutional reform, the two-year House term is one place to look. Two years was longer in the late 1700s.

But here, the point would be that no expansion of domestic drilling actually delivers at the pump within sufficient time to deliver electoral payoffs. I honestly can't think of a short term solution to deliver that sweet, sweet gasoline to the addicts other than massive subsidies combined with nationalising ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 18, 2008 5:21 PM

It seems that there is a shortage of drilling ships:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?hp

It will take several years before we can even test drill the new offshore sites. Yet McCain thinks we will get a short term price drop. Is McCain even tethered to reality anymore?

Posted by fostert | June 18, 2008 5:22 PM

I don't know about the politics--I think if you explain to people the likely delay and the limited effect on pricing even after pumping starts, they may not care that much. And that is all it takes--even if those who oppose offshore drilling (e.g., people in Florida and California) are in the minority, as long as they care a lot more about the issue than the majority (e.g., because they live in Florida in California), then they may have the political advantage.

Posted by DTM | June 18, 2008 5:52 PM

Let's get this straight: a pragmatic flip-flop by McCain is to be lauded, yet a similar one by Kerry earned him wingnuts flailing around in dolphin costumes?

I don't understand politics.

Posted by really? | June 18, 2008 6:42 PM

The huge Brazilian field that has been discovered is constrained by the lack of deep water drilling equipment and personnel.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 10:09 PM

Long thread ... but nobody has pointed out that reducing the use of gasoline (through measures like conservation, alternative fuels, a carbon tax) is just another way of saying you're reducing the demand for gasoline ... and when demand drops, so does the price. (A carbon tax would still make gasoline relatively more expensive compared to fuels with less carbon content, but it doesn't go without saying that the relative increase would necessarily be greater than a market-driven decrease in price.) Of course OPEC or other producers could try to constrain supply to keep the price up, but in a climate of falling demand it would be very hard to maintain that discipline.

So if conservation & alternative fuels are compared to new drilling as a way to reduce the cost of gasoline, I think they pretty clearly come out on top in terms of cost-effectiveness & speed to take effect (especially conservation).

Then we should frame a carbon tax (with a progresssive offset to protect middle- and lower-income families) simply as a way to reflect the true cost of all fuels - to level the playing field - and conveniently as a way to fund the investments we want to make in conservation & alternative fuels.

I also think we should consider eliminating excise taxes on gasoline & other fuels once we implement a carbon price, both as a way of softening the blow on people who'll have the hardest time making the transition & to be consistent with the idea that a carbon price levels the playing field among different fuels, by capturing their true cost. By the same token, we should state up front that we foresee all of the fuel-specific subsidies going away once we've completed the overhaul of our energy infrastructure so that we're not so dependent on carbon fuels. That is, once we've established a level playing field, the rationale for special excise taxes & subsidies should diminish.

Posted by TW | June 19, 2008 6:37 AM