Now it is quite clear why the We campaign so enthusiastically embraced Newt Gingrich for an advertisement sitting next to Nancy Pelosi. Yes, that Newt Gingrich who is working so hard for [false] “American Solutions for Winning the Future”. We would think that might actually include thinking seriously about moving forward on Global Warming legislation. Yet, Newt’s misleading and deceptive calls on people to support efforts to “Drill Here” and “Drill Now” also includes a broadside against the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act that could have come straight out of the mouth of a polluting industry spokesman. (On reflection, perhaps it did). Gingrich’s truthiness about solutions to gas prices is potentially inticing but misleading, at best, and, fundamentally, false.
Advertised as “tri-partisan”, Gingrich is seeking to wrap himself in some form of post-partisan sainthood, a repackaging enabled by the We Campaign’s embrace.
Gingrich’s DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! mantra argues that by blocking action on Global Warming and opening up all of America for drilling, gasoline prices would be magically reduced. Hmmm … let’s consider some facts, Newt:
In this discussion, of course, is nothing about real solutions, about things that might actually have an impact in the near terms. These include efficiency measures (properly inflated tires, more efficient driving style, to buying more efficient tires to a more efficient car) to changed behavior (such as riding public transport, driving less aggressively) to policy programs (such as supporting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, increased/improved rail, electrification of rail). These forms of measures would have a far greater impact on the suppply of liquid fuel over the coming decade than Gringrich’s siren’s call of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!
Of course, Newt doesn’t get into a discussion of the catastrophic climate change implications of a path that focuses on feeding the addication rather than curing it.
As per David Roberts, Grist,
the We campaign people and all the other earnest politicians and enviros out there trying to convince us that climate and energy are bipartisan issues should wait until they are actually bipartisan before celebrating. Gingrich is using a green fig leaf to push the same corporate-friendly policies the GOP has been pushing for decades, and rather than getting smacked down, he’s being helped by greens. It’s stupid.
It is not enough for someone to mouth words admitting to reality. Wow, Newt Gingrich acknowledges that there is such a thing as Global Warming and human action is contributing to it. Time for a standing ovation? Absolutely not. Unless he is willing to come to the table with serious paths for solving the problem, Gingrich remains part of the problem.
Hat tip David Roberts, Grist; and, just after I posted, Joe Romm posted an excellent piece on “eco-Gingrich’s new energy strategy for America”.
the Administration’s own Energy Information Administration explained in 2004 how ineffectual this strategy is. In a 2004 Congressional-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR”:
It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oilprices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025].
As Joe reminded Gingrich: “There are 42 gallons in a barrel.” Yup. Newt’s strategy might (MIGHT) lead to up to a 1.2 cent per gallon reduction in the price of gasoline. McSUV drivers: don’t spend your savings all at once.
31 responses so far ↓
1 Paul Hambrick // May 28, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Our only immediate solution to the oil crisis is to drill here and begin to build refineries here. Our most logical alternative fuel is atomic energy.
2 A Siegel // May 28, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Paul,
How is it an “immediate solution” if it might take a decade plus to get this oil online?
What about energy efficient measures, such as electrifying transport (including rail)?
And, how does nuclear power help in anyway with “the oil crisis” unless we are electrifying transport?
There is no Silver Bullet solution as you are suggesting.
And, I would guess, by the focus on feeding the addiction, you are totally ignoring that minor little issue of Global Warming.
3 Rob // May 29, 2008 at 8:33 am
How about searching for alternative energy sources. We have had such wonderful advances in the past from technology and science but there seems little appetite for at the moment.
This will take time, and we are already severly disadvantaged by starting late, but if we keep on saying that we will do nothing (because it can’t make a difference) then there will never be a solution.
I put my money on Science and Technology.
4 A Siegel // May 29, 2008 at 11:49 am
Rob,
Personally, I am a big believer in Silver BB approach (not “a Silver Bullet”).
We should be aggressively doing what we can do today in terms of moving forward on energy, with energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. (And, this includes building practices such as smart growth, agricultural practices to enrich the soil while capturing carbon (such as biochard), etc …)
We should be working hard to deploy from the shelf (from R&D) already developed options.
And, we should be investing heavily in R&D for tomorrow’s technologies.
And, we should be developing societal practices / approaches that also assist in ending our fossil fuel addictions and turning the tide on the rising seas of Global Warming.
I put a lot of my money on Science and Technology … but not just on S&T.
5 Jeanne Mudry // May 29, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Drill now. Build refineries.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that
will last forever.
6 A Siegel // May 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Jeanne
Does not fossil fuel also “produce … waste that will last (essentially) forever”?
Again, you are focused solely on supply, as if we can produce our way out of the problem, and your few words suggest that you reject Global Warming.
7 rickeagle // Jun 8, 2008 at 11:03 pm
If it will take 10 years to drill in the US, and produce fossil fuel, for US consumption, imagine what 10 years of an Apollo project for alternative energy would look like. 10 years from now, with no effort in this area, will only be disastrous and 10 more years behind.
As a certain presumptive nominee for president said (who will remain nameless):
“the fierce urgency of now!”
8 $4 Gallon Gasoline: Who would’ve thunk it? « Energy Smart // Jun 10, 2008 at 6:26 am
[...] Drilling. Yes, they argue (disingenuously) that, considering how deep a hole we’re in, the answer is to drill the hole even deeper. As John McCain just explained McCain was more gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic [...]
9 A. Siegel: $4 Gallon Gasoline: Who would’ve thunk it? | green economics report // Jun 11, 2008 at 8:08 pm
[...] Drilling. Yes, they argue (disingenuously) that, considering how deep a hole we’re in, the answer is to drill the hole even deeper. As John McCain just explained McCain was more gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic [...]
10 Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Blog Archive » Beware the Silver Bullet … // Jun 17, 2008 at 5:46 am
[...] called our oil addiction and empty America’s limited oil reserves through a crash program of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! (Of course, they won’t mention that this drilling program will have no influence on prices [...]
11 Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Took me out to the ballgame … // Jun 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[...] different crowd perspective. Walking past were those who parroted Republican talking points to Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less (maybe, 20 years from now). More than one person claimed to work for Exxon-Mobil. Anonymity, of course, works both ways, with [...]
12 Took me out to the ballgame … « Energy Smart // Jun 21, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] different crowd perspective. Walking past were those who parroted Republican talking points to Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less (maybe, 20 years from now). More than one person claimed to work for Exxon-Mobil. Anonymity, of course, works both ways, with [...]
13 A. Siegel: Beware the Silver Bullet … | NewsMeToday // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:15 pm
[...] called our oil addiction and empty America’s limited oil reserves through a crash program of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! (Of course, they won’t mention that this drilling program will have no influence on prices [...]
14 Jeff Przybyla // Jun 26, 2008 at 6:00 am
So we shouldn’t drill because it will take 10 years to get the product to market? Are you out of your mind? If Clinton had signed the drilling in ANWR bill in 1996 we would be 2 years into that product being on the market. You can’t snap your fingers and solve this problem, you have to look down the horizon. Of course, with elections being every 2 years most politicians can only look that far.
15 A Siegel // Jun 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jeff,
Thank you for you thoughtful discussion and opening.
My point is that (a) this is a truthiness comment, suggesting that drilling will immediately up a flow of oil that would have an impact on today’s prices and, more importantly, (b) that we must have a balanced energy policy. And, to be quite clear, energy efficiency and electrifying (ground) transport should have the highest priorities. We can have multiples (by far) of the impact on the level of oil imports (and oil requirements) via those approaches than we would see via drilling in ANWR.
If Newt were proposing a serious package (incorporating efficiencies, electrification, and potential paths toward increased production) for reducing the US addiction to oil and providing a patch as our demand falls, then I could take this seriously. What Gingrich’s entire process is is misleading truthiness rather a serious effort to propose serious solutions to serious problems.
16 L Anders // Jul 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I agree there needs to be change in the way use energy. Even Socialist Obama made the comment that he expected the price of fuel to rise but not this fast. I remind you that gas prices have increased 75% since the Democrats took over
Congress. Its the Democrats way of forcing the environmental issue. Bottom line! Government is responible for the high prices we see now for the inaction on drilling at home because the Polar Bear may be harmed or the salmon may not
spawn or the moose and caribu may not breed. This is a ridiculous argument. I will choose humans surviving over
animals any day. Because Government takes 25 years to approve permits to oil companies and the building of new
refineries and nuclear sites we are so behind the French in this technology. They have even got a way to recycle the
waste produced by the nuclear reactors. Democrats have a long history of imposing their brand of social responsibility
on society by blocking the use of known available oil reserves here. Democrates demanding the use of ethanol which is
less efficient that gasoline as caused world wide food prices to skyrocket! Come on! Just a little common sense here!
17 L Anders // Jul 3, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I also have read some of the comments that it will take 10 years to bring the oil to market and that the effect on the oil prices will not be effected maybe by only 1.2 cents. Where did that magic number come from. Must be an Engineer!! I can say this from a free market society, which the Democrates cannot stand!!! just the mere drilling alone in our own country will effect the world prices. Look at the Saudis! just recently making statements that they have discovered a new oil field in the desert that is bigger than any one they have now. Think free market!!! If the prospect of us cutting back on oil imports because we will have our own will drive prices down. They don;t have a choice. I do not have anything against new energy resources like battery operated cars, hydrogen cars, and wind/solar power, but the problem is that no one will be able, at a middle class income, will be able to afford these vehicles for years. And what are they suppose to do, stop uses gas operated cars immediately and start uses buses until it affordable. We need our own oil and energy resources available now to be available to us until that new energy source can be mass produced at an affordable cost. Hey! I think it was the Democrates that said we just can’t load up 12 million illegal immigrants on buses and send the home! Same difference! We cannot end gasoline operated cars right now and everyone buy a hybrid or new vehicle. I know the the rich politicians can with the salary they get from our tax dollars. Its we the people! Not we the government! Just use some common sense! Stop thinking too hard about it.
18 A Siegel // Jul 4, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Socialist Obama …” “Democrats …” Nice to know where 100% percent of the globe’s problems are coming from. Phew. Glad to know that all our probmes are solved.
By the way, L Anders, Global Warming is about survival of humans and humanity.
19 Mark Fradl // Jul 9, 2008 at 11:39 am
I have to take issue with a small point - you repeat the the falsehood that “It would take roughly 10 years for any opened areas to contribute to US production in a serious way.”
Not true.
According to the Department of Energy’s own study, off shore drilling will NEVER contribute to US production in a serious way. And it will be 2030 before even that small amount is fully up and running-
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Even saying it will be a help in ten years allows the industry to make the argument that opening the off shore drilling will eventually help us.
It won’t.
20 A Siegel // Jul 9, 2008 at 11:57 am
Mark,
Interesting point. In my mind, I was not thinking solely “OCS” but also additional Alaska areas. And, the question is ‘what is serious?’
In any event, the key point is that drilling does not provide any near term solution of any import. Efficiency (such as having a national inflate tires) and conservation (getting people to drive more efficiently, drive less) can have immediate impact. And, that immediate impact would be multiples greater than anything that could be achieved in a decade+ via drilling and trying to increase supply.
21 Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Blog Archive » Lying to Drill the Hole Deeper // Jul 14, 2008 at 7:05 am
[...] push is on, big time. The solution to all of America’s problems, evidently, is to drill, drill, drill. This is now the Republican mantra as they seem to believe that they have found a winning [...]
22 Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Blog Archive » Offshore Drilling: We Can Choose Simple Confusion or Outright Lies // Aug 2, 2008 at 9:48 am
[...] Gingrich has put forward a campaign calling for Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! The campaign aims to gather millions of signatures for a petition to deliver to Congress, amid much [...]
23 Kenny // Aug 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm
You Liberals are a bunch of idiots when it come to energy “Independence”. Wake up!. Probably most everyone on this blog is a Obama or Pelosi supporter, and that makes me sad.
We can become energy independent by not having such a tunnel vision approach. The visionary republicans, democrats & independents want to approach this energy from a try all approach. Start drilling our own oil; give incentives to create alternate energy sources(not like Hussein Obama and hope that a solution might just surface, which it probably won’t because he will be taxing the daylights out of the companies that could more than likely find the solutions); build nuclear power plants,etc…
I find all this negativity about us becoming energy independent hard to believe. This just isn’t the American way. We can’t continue to be at the whims of these foreign oil cartels. If our oil supply gets cut dramatically, then you are looking at a war of wars. We must have oil to function and we will get it one way or the other. But of course all you Liberal Obama supporters, can just continue to hope that a solution might just be found and pay $10/gal while you wait. You Liberals are so negative because it is a great idea, a Republican idea and they can’t stand it.
24 A Siegel // Aug 22, 2008 at 5:52 am
Kenny,
Nice to see your rational engagement.
Hmmm … “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! (Maybe, a quarter century from now)” was not proposed, in any way, as a “do everything, try all approach”. To suggest it was is to, well, engage in deceit.
This site is about solutions, real solutions. Newt Gingrich saw a political tool/device, this was not presented as a real solution, but a political gambit.
25 Taking Deception to Extremes: “Drill Now! Pay Less! Vote Republican!” | Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! // Sep 15, 2008 at 3:21 pm
[...] 3. Pay Less? Okay, the analysis suggests that opening up drilling would contribute to a to about a 1.2 cent reduction in gasoline prices … twenty years from now. [...]
26 Vote Grand Oil Party! Multi-layered deception coming to a street corner near you - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics // Sep 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm
[...] 3. Pay Less? Okay, the Department of Energy analysis suggests that opening up drilling would contribute to a to about a 1.2 cent reduction in gasoline prices … twenty years from now. [...]
27 Vote Grand Oil Party! Multi-layered deception coming to a street corner near you | Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! // Sep 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm
[...] 3. Pay Less? Okay, the Department of Energy analysis suggests that opening up drilling would contribute to a to about a 1.2 cent reduction in gasoline prices … twenty years from now. [...]
28 DC // Oct 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm
ANWR can be drilled and brought to production in less than 5yrs. That’s a fact.
29 Reid on Fox News: “Coal makes us sick …” // Dec 17, 2010 at 5:23 am
[...] the Republicans didn’t continue their their efforts to dig the hole deeper with the dishonest “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!” 20 years from …. They doubled down in their climate denial and embrace of fossil-foolish ways — even in the [...]
30 Bob // Sep 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Drill Here, Drill Now does NOT prevent anyone from seeking alternative energy solutions. It is part of the “All of the Above” approach.
If we used the absured “10 year” argument in the 60’s, we’d have never made it to the moon. Even so, there would be instant job creation there too (again, assuming the 10-year excuse for the sake of argument…which is invalid).
We are not going to eliminate oil from the U.S. economy — probably ever. However, we are far more likely to have serious impacts — in the 1, 2, 3, … 10, 20, 30 year periods — from energy efficiency and substitution options than from drilling.
There is much misleading going on here…but not from Newt.
31 The Republican Agenda To Raise America’s Gas Prices // Mar 16, 2012 at 9:09 am
[...] “Drill, Baby, Drill” will have minimal impact in the mid-term while raising prices in the long-term [...]
Leave a Comment