Now, 'Prius Republicans'?
A spirited debate brought out opposing views--and shared goals.
The timing of our NEWSWEEK-Shell Oil forum on energy politics was exquisite. On the very day we discussed energy's emergence as a key issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain made headlines by abandoning his support for the 27-year-old ban on oil and gas exploration on the outer continental shelf (OCS).
Much of our bipartisan discussion centered on just that topic. One of our Republican panelists, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, very much wants to drill in the OCS, but thought it would be a bad idea for McCain to say so. Why? Because he thought McCain would be portrayed as a flip-flopper and that McCain's most precious resource is his reputation for strong, even hard-headed, commitment to his beliefs.
Cole may be right, but McCain clearly calculated that, politically, it was worth the risk as Americans struggle with the consequences of soaring energy prices in their lives.
Besides Cole, who also happens to head the GOP's House campaign committee, the panelists were Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and my NEWSWEEK colleague Eleanor Clift. We also heard from Marvin Odum, a Houstonian who is the new head of Shell. We all fielded a number of thoughtful questions from the audience of about 200 Washington officials and executives.
If there was a bottom line, it was this:
- Americans must do everything, within reason, to grapple with both the cost and the growing scarcity of easy-to-use fossil fuels. That means conservation and exploration, but above all it means a commitment to using our nation's ingenuity and technology.
- The goal must be a "post-carbon" energy future, however hard to image that may be at this point.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: misterharban @ 06/25/2008 12:19:41 PM
Comment: Everybody seems to have a solution to our energy problems. One solution. The only solution. And if it won???t amount to much, as opponents of drilling the OCS suggest, we shouldn???t consider it at all. Unless it is something like encouraging geothermal electric generation, in which case it should be subsidized and encouraged. I spent ten years of my career developing geothermal electric resources, ending in 1986. We discovered and developed a few geothermal sources. They were small and remote. Surely many more exist, but they too will likely be small and remote relative to our overall electric power needs. In the years since I left that endeavor there has been impressive progress in developing new geothermal sources for geothermal electric generation. But geothermal electric generation will never furnish as much energy to this country as drilling in the OCS. Yet in the great debate we will not hesitate to encourage (correctly) further geothermal development nor will we hesitate to turn our backs on other options which may similarly contribute to solving our problem.
The point of this is not so much an advocacy of drilling the OCS as illustrating the contradictions that are part and parcel of the silly arguments we use to justify our One Solution to the energy problem. Don???t develop the offshore OCS because it is too small to make a significant contribution but subsidize even smaller sources because they make us feel good. And these discussions go on with the entire array of One Solutions as if straying from our own individual understandings of the One true path would so distract us that we would be doomed to environmental and economic disaster. This kind of thinking is silly, selfish and ultimately destructive.
The solution (if such a term is even appropriate) will entail many efforts, some big and some small. In transition it should reasonably include the useful value of the old with the expected useful gains of the new. And more than anything else, it will require something from everyone including the ability to compromise and reasonably consider the merits of someone else???s One Solution.
Posted By: jath123 @ 06/25/2008 8:46:00 AM
Comment: If global warming is THE most urgent pressing environmental concern over the next couple of decades, then why not implement more nuclear energy? Will storage and disposal of radioactive waste be a concern? You betcha. But isn't that difficulty worth saving the planet, which exactly what nuclear energy could help do if you believe in the urgency of climate change? I just don't get it. The ugly truth is that life can throw you some pretty tough choices, and sometimes there are no good solutions; only less-bad ones. Nuclear energy is a less bad choice than the environmental destruction of our planet from cataclysmic climate change.
But nuclear still won't do the trick in the short-term, since it would take 10-20 years to design, build, and start all those nuclear plants. By contrast, we could make significant carbon/fossil fuel reductions in the next 5 years by drastically ramping up CAFE mpg standards (essentially forcing everyone into small or mid size hybrids) starting with the next re-tooling of auto factories which usuually happen every 5-6 years anyway, and saturating our power grid with wind and solar sources. The government can also take other interventionist measures such as forcing all appliances to have higher energy ratings, forcing higher insulation standards on homes/windows/doors, and eliminating the sale of incandescent lighting. Each measure may only have a modest impact, but the combination of efforts adds up.
And hey, let's start re-investing in mass transit! America has become much more spread out over the past couple of decades. So sure, trains and subways are great. But let's not forget buses. Build up some of those old railroad rights-of-way into dedicated transit express ways to get buses through te city faster, and then let the buses fan out in the suburbs for maximum coverage. They do this very effectively in Pittsburgh right now. And many middle class, white collar folks take the bus in Pittsburgh, which is usually the sign of a successful transit system. Come on folks, there are a million steps we can take!
Posted By: dukeitout @ 06/21/2008 10:48:51 PM
Comment: Howard: I am an ex-democrat, but now an independent. Misguided energy policy espoused by the democrats is one reason for my switch. After hearing that McCain is now encouraging oil extraction from of our shores, you say Obama said "there were better, more immediately beneficial ways to deal with the crisis, such as tax rebates and new tax cuts for lower-income Americans." This can't be a serious answer. We will need more energy in the future. Additional energy must include nuclear ("nucular" to some), solar and wind and the traditional ones. Obama must support a position that encourages prompt expansion of our nuclear power facilities. Democrats cannot but the kabash on nuclear and artic oil development simply because it will not be productive for a few years. This is childish rationalizing just to make an outlandish point.