McCain: I'm Both For More Oil Exploration And For Conservation
John McCain will deliver a speech today in Houston on energy policy, seeking to satisfy the goals of both environmentalists and those who want a more plentiful oil supply.
"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States," McCain will say, according to pre-released excerpts. "But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."
McCain will also say: "In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue. Conservation serves a critical national goal. Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources."















Does that mean he backs drilling in ANWR?
June 17, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
People in Florida will be thrilled to hear that!
G'wan, McSame, shoot yourself in the other one.
June 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Obama response to McCain's speech:
June 17, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all..." Same thing Bill Clinton said about ANWR 14 years ago. Just think, we could've had production online for 4 years by now. So much for "change."
June 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know the beauty of ANWR? Have you seen the reserve? My great-grandfather used to hunt in Alaska, and he loved the environmental wonders of Alaska. He actually died while hunting a polar bear in Alaska, so he went out doing what he loved.
June 17, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah alaska is great, its number 3 on the places i want to visit (japans numero uno). you can't be for drilling and for conservation because drilling destroys the environment. but, mccains record doesnt even match his so called straight talk. http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/mccains-pro-environment-talk-not-matching-his-record/
June 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually yes. ANWR is 19 million acres. 1.5 of which is the coastal plain area that is inhabited by civillian and military installations. In one of the coastal villages there is already an operational oil well. 70% of Alaskans approve of developing the coastal plains area. The dire predictions of the left, about the impact the Alaskan pipeline would have, proved to be false. The proposed area for drilling and exploration is less than 2,000 acres (that's .013% of the coastal plains area and .00105% of ANWR). There are no endangered species native to the North Slope of Alaska.
June 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't enough oil in ANWR to make a dent in world oil prices. And there isn't a cost-effective way to get it out of the ground and to the US. I'm not going to mention that 10+ years it would take just to bring the first field online. Wait, I just did....
Seriously, you are making cogent arguments. Unfortunately, you are dropping out the facts that significantly undercut your argument. Maybe that's your goal. Like McCain, present half the story as the full story. Dismiss obstacles by ignoring their existence.
When he gets a real energy plan, get back to me. Until then, this is just a regurgitated version of Bush's plan.
June 17, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't enough oil in ANWR to affect the global price of oil.
June 17, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wallace doesn't know that because he is an ignorant Republican. He understands these issues about as well as Bush.
There is a reason the Republicans are facing near extinction as a political power.
June 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just me...
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/06/our-view-on-ene.html
June 17, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
We knowin dat.
If dere wuz only a hanful of you Loyal Bushies, we wuddnt be in such deep doodoo.
June 17, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call the Oil Companies and demand that the build a new refinery in your backyard. Put up or shut up. The refineries are running at full capacity, so more oil will not solve the problem. You are just another one of those NIMBY types who keeps urging solutions that are always located in someone else's backyard, but never your own.
June 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that's a very intelligent position. Try to cut use of fossil fuels, but what we do use should come from our own resources.
June 17, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, our own resources wouldn't even yield that much oil, and it would take a decade for us to see actual results.
June 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, yeah, yesterday McCain called offshore drilling a "short term solution" to relieve gas prices. I don't think McCain really understands how oil drilling works.
Or anything for that matter.
June 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually a winner for McCain. Politically, I don't know how Obama can make "Hey, let's not drill for more oil!" work in the current environment. But I'll try to take a stab at it - open up all possible exploration sites to bids from the major oil companies, and tax the hell out of the new sites and the new refineries. Like, 80%. The tax goes to alternative energy research. But Obama will be holding a loser if he tries to shut down new exploration.
June 17, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...tax the hell out of the new sites and the new refineries. Like, 80%. The tax goes to alternative energy research."
When will y'all realize that companies and corporations don't pay taxes? Raise their tax $100, they raise their prices to offset it. You pay the tax. Wake up.
June 17, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you aware of how international oil companies operate in South American, African, and Middle East countries? They operate at tax rates higher than 80% but are incredibly efficient. Too, a plan of excessive taxation is not really meant to boost production but the illusion of production while boosting tax revenue. Der.
June 17, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is you pay the boost in revenue, not the company. They just raise the price to cover the cost...Der.
June 17, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
All very true, corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do. But then that could be said about everything related to costs borne by corporations. Explain to us how corporate tax cuts actually benefit the consumer....
June 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has the exact opposite effect. By increasing the potential profit margin for a product, you give the corporation the ability to lower prices, invest in inovation/research, upgrade equipment, any number of things. One of the things they will need to do is lower prices, because a competitor will and consumers will follow.
June 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very familiar with the theory that corporations could reduce their prices, but it rarely occurs in practice. The oil companies have not reduced prices notwithstanding the billions of dollars in tax cuts they've received. And you'd think they would since taxes are paid by the customer and not them.
But they don't. Because they are maximizing the interests of their stockholders. And given the way the supply-demand curve works, it's clear that tax cuts do NOTHING to reduce the price at the pump.
June 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and tax increases do nothing but raise the price paid by the consumer. So again, how does taxing the corporation punish them or increase their burden in any way?
June 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's an idiot, you are wasting your time. Probably one of those paid McCain trolls.
June 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just someone who hopes to enlighten at least one person a day and eventually change the world.
June 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States...
That's less than 33 months' worth of U.S. consumption. And how much of that is already being tapped, anyway?
We have no untapped reserves that will make more than a short-term difference in our energy situation. We're simply going to have to use less petroleum because less of it will be available over time. And we're also going to have to use less coal if we want to reduce our CO2 pollution.
To replace coal, we can switch over to some mixture of wind, solar, nuclear, whatever - but designing our society to use less energy is the quickest and best first step.
To replace petroleum, the only solution is to use less - by replacing existing vehicles with more efficient ones, and by designing our cities so we don't need to use cars nearly as much.
June 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep (if your numbers are correct), if we used exclusively our oil. If we used half it would be 66 months, 25% 132months, 10% 330 months...that would allow us to have a major impact on global supplies and help control price of oil futures for more than 27 years...that's plenty of time to increase nuclear power usage in this country to further offset the oil usage and extend stocks we have...not to mention any new deposits discovered between now and then.
June 17, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we have any video of Obama's speech from last night? Did he discuss environmental stuff at all?
Oh yeah, here is McCain not knowing what cap-and-trade means:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/16/124515/466
June 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
McFlip-Flop: "My friends, I was against drilling before I was for it. I'm against global warming but for more extracting and burning more oil. You know what my friends? Coherence is for pansies. I have no fucking clue what do to, but I'm going to try to be everything to everybody because that's what Charlie Black tells me I need to do."
June 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Increasing domestic production and conservation aren't mutually exclusive. It's called a "comprehensive energy policy."
June 17, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Increasing production -- and hence consumption -- of CO2 producing fossil fuels is the exact opposite of what we need to fight global warming. It's called "an energy policy Big Oil can love."
June 17, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing production with "domestic production." With increasing global demand, supply will continue to tighten. Increased domestic production allows for a lower percentage of our consumption to come from foreign sources. It doesn't increase over-all consumption.
June 17, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more oil that is pumped and burned -- from wherever, it doesn't matter if it's from under the Atlantic Ocean or the sands of Saudi Arabia -- the more CO2 enters the atmosphere and the worse global warming will be. Instead of drilling, we need to focus all of our energies on increasing efficiency, and finding and using non-CO2 producing energy sources ASAP.
June 17, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
...that is fine...focus the enery...work towards clean renewable sources, but you can't stop the rest of the world while you do it. Oil will have to be burned between now and then. Why not use our own instead of Chaves' and Ahmadinejad's?
June 17, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can -- IF we reengage with the rest of the world and develop a successor to Kyoto that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and that everyone -- the U.S., China and India, most notably -- signs onto.
June 17, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
China and India are exempt from the restrictions in the treaty, and we're not talking 2050, Obama and his minions can't see 10 years down the road...remember? Just like Clinton couldn't. We can do alot by 2050, not using our own resources and relying exclusivly on OPEC between now and then doesn't make sense. We can meet your goal of meeting the treaty standards by 2050 and still produce more of our own energy supplies, they are not mutually exclusive events.
June 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the perfect McCain stance on this issue for Dems/Obama to exploit. McCain has been selling himself as a maverick, a pro-conservationist republican. But this stance is the same as Bush :
- more oil is the answer
- we'll worry about solving the problem later
- who cares about America's natural environment
- who cares about global warming
- lip service, lip service
Fits nicely in the box titled "Bush's Third Term".
June 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain: "I'm for whatever side of the issue you're for."
June 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if we could find oil off our coasts to help oil prices until we can find a environmentally friendly renewable energy resource that works cost efficiently we should. But the problem is if we have cheap oil again are people just going to ignore the problem like they were until it started effecting their money? Honestly, can we as a nation say that we plan out our future very well? For example look at social security, people who are contributing now who are 20 to 30 probably are not going to have it. Also look at the national debt, the younger generation are going to be paying our debt. We as Americans don't address these type of situations until it escalates into an almost unmanageable problem. And while I do believe in global warming and would like to escape fossil fuels as quickly as humanly possible, I really don't believe its going to happen until the price of energy forces our wallets to make us do so. This article I read called The Oil “Melt-Up” and Why the U.S. Economy Won’t Run On Windmills Alone... explains why we are going to be dependent on oil for a certain amount of time longer. Why it would be a good idea to drill in North America.
While I believe it could take a long time to get the oil, like Obama said. I figure if we need it bad enough we could probably get it soon. I don't know now but, theres probably a lot of red tape that is preventing it now. So I am assuming thats why it could take 10 years.
June 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"While I believe it could take a long time to get the oil, like Obama said. I figure if we need it bad enough we could probably get it soon. I don't know now but, theres probably a lot of red tape that is preventing it now. So I am assuming thats why it could take 10 years." Yep, and this was Clinton's argument 14 years ago and will be someone elses argument 12 years from now probably.
June 17, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://lcv-ftp.org/LCV/mco.pdf
League Of Conservation Voters
Chart McCain and Obama's actual records on the environment.
As usual, McCain is lying again, when he claims that he is strong on protecting the environment, and putting a brake on global warming.
JOHN McCAIN HAS A GEORGE W. BUSH MINDSET.
June 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody help me out, here. On the video about McCain and Big Oil, what in the hell is he doing with his tongue 17 seconds into the video?!?!
June 18, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4eeQzDlgM&eurl
June 18, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink