The New York Times published a strong editorial, Energy Fictions, that borders on fantasy itself. Reading (and rereading it) makes one wonder whether the NYTimes editorial board simply need new glasses as they seem not to understand some basic facts.
What are we do when the nation’s great “paper of record” misrepresents and misleads in its editorials as what is expected, day in and day out, from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times.
Some background …
Last week, Barack Obama gave a major speech (video), providing details related to his New Energy for America (note: pdf) concepts and plan.
This is not a perfect plan (for example, Less Than Dirty Coal (inaccurately called Clean Coal) has too positive a place), but an extremely strong one. Joseph Romm, a former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) in the Department of Energy, called it:
easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party
“Easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nomiee of either party …”
“Best … ever” … Coming from Joe this is pretty strong praise. And, Joe is far from the only one praising Obama’s concepts.
From the other camp, confusion and misleading words. John McCain wants us (the US voters) to believe that he is a great supporter of renewable energy while he has done nothing to foster their development. He has become a Gingrich-anointed cheerleader for drilling off the coasts, after opposing this for decades, and has been seeing the cash registers ringing with donations from the oil industry ever since. His concepts are so contradictory and two-faced that even the Wall Street Journal doesn’t know what to make of them:
Sen. John McCain is putting energy policy at the center of his presidential campaign, embracing a diverse array of positions that defies easy categorization. … “It’s all over the map,” said Bob Ebel, a senior adviser and energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I’m just sort of scratching my head.”
All in all, Barack Obama is offering quite serious potential for real progress on America’s energy policies, aiming for millions of plug-in hybrids to hit the roads, a target of ever-increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles (4% per year), renewable energy targets, etc … Not perfect, but setting us (the US) on a path toward meaningful and substantive change.
John McCain is, well, offering up Dick Cheney’s third term, with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power as the true core elements for his plan. And, along with Dick Cheney, he views ridiculing energy efficiency as more appropriate than embracing it as part of a sensible energy policy.
Ill-Informed Media Strikes Yet Again
Back to the New York Times’ ill-informed fantasies re presidential candidates’ energy policies. Let us parse this monstrocity of an editorial (Energy Fantasies):
A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.
Many things have been preventing serious discussion about energy for too long a period of time.
In many ways, the current environment might actually be fostering a more serious discussion as, with $4 (or so gasoline), it is hard for anyone in the United States to avoid discussion of energy issues.
The latest evidence comes from Senator Barack Obama, who in less than a week has reversed his stance on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), softened his opposition to offshore drilling and unveiled an out-of-nowhere proposal to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and funnel the money to consumers in the form of a $1,000 tax rebate.
Okay, these could be pointed to as weaknesses in Obama’s recent comments. All three of these have been items that have not necessarily been on the top of my agenda in the past. Two of these three, however, are items that I find understandable at least.
A limited release from the SPR offers the potential to reduce the current gas price shock while providing resources for strong energy efficiency measures that could make significant inroads into the US oil demand in the near term (even, for example, cutting heating oil demand this very winter) as recently discussed in Free Our Oil! Help Consumers! Solve Problems!.
The ‘softening on drilling’, Obama has maintained his strong statements pointing to the facts (that this will not be immediate in relief, that it won’t (ever) solve our problems (is NOT a solution), etc…) and emphasizes that he is uncomfortable with drilling but that this might be a necessary compromise to accept (eventually) as part of a holistic package to set the nation on a better path forward on energy issues.
Okay, the $1000 rebate is an item that I find far more difficult to swallow, even understanding the very real needs to provide relief to America’s working poor and, as well, to provide stimulus into the economy. Even with questioning this element of the plan, the challenges it represents were misrepresented by the New York Times … even seriously.
Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent, Mr. Obama had been making good sense on energy questions, and his recent speeches had included a menu of proposals for energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels and new technologies.
“Compared with his slightly hysterical opponent …” How about “in comparison with the Bush Administration and the rest of the reality-denying Republican Party”?
Yes, even when having problems, describing Obama’s concepts has mainly been one of focusing on strengths. And, one of those strengths has been the holistic nature of the thinking and proposals, that they will work together, reinforcing each other, to help set a better path forward toward a prosperous, climate friendly America.
Yet public opinion polls showing deep voter discontent with fuel prices — and Senator John McCain’s steady pounding on the issue, including television ads blaming Mr. Obama personally for the rise in gasoline prices — have caused high anxiety among Democrats.
Yes, the Republicans have been engaged in a unified course of promoting Drillusion while, in the face of these lies, the Democratic Party seems confused (especially with media “reporting” like the NYTimes shows here).
They also seem to have persuaded Mr. Obama, who earlier had resisted gimmicky proposals like a gas tax holiday, to strike back.
“They” … what is they? Gas prices? Public opinion polls? Democratic Party anxiety? What is this “they” that is driving Senator Obama?
In addition, Obama has been resistant of ‘gimmicks’ but, evidently, not anymore.
The Democrats’ presumptive nominee has made a poor choice of weapons, beginning with his proposal to tap the petroleum reserve, an idea that Mr. McCain has wisely resisted.
Wise old John? Unwise young Barack?
True, some usually responsible Democrats have been urging the release of as much as 70 million barrels of oil from the 700-million-barrel strategic reserve. And tapping the reserve on several earlier occasions — including the home heating oil crisis in 2000 and after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 — did in fact cause oil prices to drop.
Okay, the historical record shows that limited releases did “cause oil prices to drop”. Thus, to start with, Obama’s discussion of the SPR and impact on consumer prices is grounded in fact and truth (unlike, let us say, another party’s and another party’s nominee caught up the lies of Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! (maybe, a little bit, 20 years from now).)
But these were the kinds of genuine emergencies for which the reserve was designed in the first place. High prices — even $4 for a gallon of gasoline — do not, in our view, constitute such an emergency.
What were the past crises? That high prices (in the face of war or cold weather) were causing severe economic impacts and disrupting the society. Hmmm … is that happening with $100+ barrel oil?
(They may even be salutary: according to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 30 billion fewer miles in the first five months of this year than they did last year. Consumers are moving briskly to the more fuel-efficient cars they probably should have been buying all along.)
Oil prices will, in the absence of a major (MAJOR) downward shift in global use of petroleum products, will go up into the future. There might be momentary drops downward, but the pressure will be upwards in the face of Peak Oil and growing global demand. That is simply fact.
And, there are many reasons (economic, environmental, global warming, health, national security, etc …) for wanting to see oil use drop (even precipitously) by choice rather than physical reality (not enough oil …).
However, the best path forward is one of known and (relatively) constant price increases that include (e.g. tax) a flow into coffers to help foster energy efficiency and that enable planning and continuing adjustment. A price shock is, well, that: a shock. There can be good results from this, but the “best” decisions don’t always result in emergencies and shocks. And, there are many more ‘losers’ and sufferers in the shock environment than in a planned and controlled transition off of oil.
The New York Times celebratory words re price increases impacts implies an ignoring of, and even lack of concern for the very real suffering caused by these price increases in the United States and beyond. (Note that a limited SPR release would improve the situation not just for Americans but for those around the world suffering very real pain in the face of astronomical oil prices.)
The NYTimes critique of Obama’s SPR concept (which, by the way, would have lower quality oil being bought to replace released oil) seems shallow rather than on target.
The windfall tax idea seems exactly the kind of populist gimmick Mr. Obama has been trying to avoid, and could be counterproductive. It is true that oil company profits have reached obscene levels, largely as a result of oil prices. It is also true that oil companies receive tax benefits that they do not need and that ought to be repealed. But rebates would encourage consumption, leading to higher prices at the pump and hurting the very consumers Mr. Obama is trying to help.
Okay, let us focus just on that last sentence.
Assume that you receive a $1000 rebate from a windfall profits tax. Would $1000 of that head into the local gas pump? Some portion of it would. Some other portions would go into economic activity that demands petroleum products. Let’s say that 10% of that $1000 would go into petroleum-related use. Okay, how much would that $100 help drive up gasoline prices? And, by the way, remember that the SPR reserve would be helping to drive down prices at the tail end. As Joe Romm put it:
Somehow I suspect most Americans probably would take the rebate and not worry too much about whether their stimulus will cause price inflation that eats slightly into the value of the rebate.
The senator’s shift on offshore drilling is less disturbing and more nuanced. Having opposed it in the past, he now appears willing to endorse selective drilling in places where states allow it, and only then as a negotiating tool to win a much bigger and broader bipartisan energy package.
This is a relatively fair statement. “Selective drilling … where states allow it … as a negotiating tool … bigger and broader … energy package.” This fits with Obama’s overall philosophy of governance and he has been clear, from what I have seen, that there is a difference between avidly supporting something and regrettably accepting it as a price of business for getting something far more important done. Is this ‘compromise’ necessary is a separate debate and discussion, but that it could be a tool for getting enough support for meaningful other action seems a legitimate element of discussion.
This is far more defensible than Mr. McCain’s gung-ho, drill anywhere approach. But Mr. Obama cannot allow himself to be seen as endorsing the twin fictions (assiduously promoted by Mr. McCain’s advertising, if not by the candidate in his own public statements) that freeing up the 18 billion barrels in areas now off limits to drilling will bring quick relief at the pump and, in time, satisfy the country’s long-term needs.
Okay, this is one of the few comments that places Obama as truly better than McCain in terms of energy issues. But, this OPED is on “energy fictions” and attacking Obama. Why not a discussion of relative “Fiction”? At least Obama is basing his concepts and discussion on fact while John McCain is expecting people to abandon critical thinking and suspend disbelief in order to garner support for his discordant and destructive energy concepts.
In any even, how is Obama “endorsing” McCain’s fictions? The only way endorsement is occurring is through mediocre press reporting that Obama “supports” drilling as opposed to regretfully sees this as potentially an item (a pawn) to sacrifice to achieve a larger objective.
But, of course, Obama is at fault because his reluctant acceptance seems, according to the NYTimes editorial board to endorse McCain’s lies.
Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.
Okay, so New York Times, Obama is making this point all (ALL) the time. This is core to his statements. He even highlights that inflating America’s light-vehicle fleet’s tires to the proper air pressure would produce more nega-gallons, every day, almost immediately through efficiency than the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production ever would, even 20+ years from now.
Thus, NYTimes, are you ready to anoint Obama the “honest candidate”?
Because, based on this criteria, he certainly merits it! Will we see this as the next NYTimes editorial: Barack Obama: The Honest Candidate!? Sadly, I think not.
Glass 7/8ths full or 1/8th empty?
When focusing on a glass with water, do you focus on what is inside or on the empty space? The New York Times focused on Obama’s empty space (the glass 1/8th empty) without providing perspective on McCain’s 7/8ths empty glass. With reporting and opinion pieces like this, no wonder that voters are confused.
Thus, a note for the New York Times‘ editorial board on basic facts: