Yes, Virginia, There Is A Climate Change Bill

Reports of the demise of the climate change bill are highly exaggerated. A large, 63-member coalition called Clean Energy Works has been formed to get the bill over the hump in the Senate. They have ground troops in 28 states and coalition members have run multiple national ads. My favorite is this one from VoteVets, positioning climate change legislation as a national security issue:



Two can play at the "demagoguing about foreign policy" game. And VoteVets have the benefit of being accurate. Sending our tax dollars to Saudi sheikhs who fund extremism is not wise or sustainable, and most of all it's not necessary. The resource wars are just about to begin, if we do not start converting more renewable resources to power our economy.

The energy and climate debate is divisive, but it's possible for the government to devise a "clear, comprehensive, realistic and broadly bipartisan plan to address our role in the climate change crisis," declared the Partnership for a Secure America, a group that seeks a centrist, bipartisan approach to security and foreign policy.

It broadly sketched a plan for emissions reductions, less dependence on foreign oil, more renewable energy and aid to poor countries that will be hard hit by inevitable climate changes. "Doing so now will help avoid humanitarian disasters and political instability in the future that could ultimately threaten the security of the U.S. and our allies," the statement said. Failure to lead, it added, would give the U.S. little leverage in pending international negotiations for a global emissions reduction agreement.

Among the 32 who signed the statement were former Republican senators Howard Baker of Tennessee, John Danforth of Missouri, Slade Gorton of Washington, Nancy Kassebaum Baker of Kansas, Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and John Warner of Virginia.

None of these old fogies will move one Republican in Congress toward supporting the bill. But House Democrats are working their Senate counterparts. And a new analysis showing that the benefits of the Waxman-Markey bill, being used as baseline legislation for the Senate, far outweigh the costs, could spur the chamber to action.

I think it's extremely positive to have the health care debate overshadow the climate change bill, for now. They should try to pass as quickly as possible to keep the opposition off guard. I'm not optimistic about that happening, but in the meantime, at least liberal groups are starting to show some of their muscle.

...I get the concern that Blanche Lincoln will be a tougher sell on a climate change bill, but with her up for re-election and the threat of taking that gavel from her made explicit (ironically, the person pushing that the strongest is none other than Tom Harkin, who just gave up the Ag Committee seat), I think there are actually some pressure points here.

Ahmadinejad's Inauguration Day

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term yesterday amid much protest and even more defiance.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term as Iran's president Wednesday while security forces battled hundreds of protesters chanting "Death to the Dictator" in the streets around parliament where the ceremony was held.

Key opposition leaders, moderate lawmakers and all three of Ahmadinejad's election challengers boycotted the swearing in ceremony. State-run Press TV said more than 5,000 security forces were in the streets around parliament and police with sniffer dogs patrolled the area after the opposition called for demonstrations to coincide with the inauguration.

Hundreds of protesters chanted "Death to the Dictator" before security forces broke up a demonstration near parliament, striking people with batons and blasting them with pepper spray, witnesses said.

The opposition has vowed to continue rolling protests. Iran society will never be the same, at least not until the regime either restores its legitimacy (through concessions or official violence), or is driven out.

And then there's the issue of engagement with the West, obviously strained even further by the arrest of three American hikers along the border with Kurdistan, who the Iranians have designated "spies." I do not hold high hopes for engagement, which is probably why the Administration is foregrounding the big stick in their public diplomacy right now:

The Obama administration is talking with allies and Congress about the possibility of imposing an extreme economic sanction against Iran if it fails to respond to President Obama’s offer to negotiate on its nuclear program: cutting off the country’s imports of gasoline and other refined oil products.

The option of acting against companies around the world that supply Iran with 40 percent of its gasoline has been broached with European allies and Israel, officials from those countries said. Legislation that would give Mr. Obama that authority already has 71 sponsors in the Senate and similar legislation is expected to sail through the House.

In a visit to Israel last week, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James L. Jones, mentioned the prospect to Israeli officials, they said.

I wonder whether this will actually backfire and punish those in the street who are battling the regime, while the hardliners manage to keep what refined oil can get produced and shipped for themselves and their cronies. A country that is already beating and imprisoning its own people shouldn't have much difficulty causing them more suffering. There's also the question of getting the world to go along with this.

The promise of Iranian engagement has been really wounded by this internal strife.

Cash For Clunkers Extension Sails Toward Senate Passage

A rare bit of good news from the Senate, as an extension of cash for clunkers looks primed for passage.

The Senate will approve another $2 billion for the popular "cash for clunkers" program, probably by the end of the week, confident Democrats predicted Tuesday as Republican efforts to block the funding faded.

"We'll pass cash for clunkers. Before we leave here," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The vast majority will be voting for this," added Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. The Senate is scheduled to begin a month-long summer recess Friday.

Many Republicans, realizing that constituents and auto dealers were pushing hard to continue the program, reluctantly agreed.

"I don't get a sense anyone will block it," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

I don't know who would stand in the way of a wildly successful economic program and the first sustained benefit to the manufacturing base of this country in over 30 years. And the statistics on fuel economy are far, far better than anybody thought they would be. Sure, this is not the entire answer to the climate crisis. That's not its intention. The intention is to leverage $5 billion dollars into the economy, and extending the program would leverage another $10 billion. The fuel efficiency issue concerns adding 10mpg to a not-all-that-trivial 750,000 cars. But that was never the main goal.

The country needs a stable economy and job creation. This program provides it, with a reduction in foreign oil as a side benefit. Win-win.

The Rise Of The Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Back in the days before George W. Bush, we had these things called "regulators," who independently sought to enforce the nation's laws and protect the public from waste, fraud, abuse and outright criminal activity. The regulatory agencies have been so gutted that it's going to take a while for them to regain their institutional memory and recall their core mission. In particular, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is making some serious noise. They are out-and-out blaming the speculators for spiking oil prices in 2008 for their personal benefit. That's a shocking admission for a regulator to make.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission plans to issue a report next month suggesting speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices -- a reversal of an earlier CFTC position that augurs intensifying scrutiny on investors.

In a contentious report last year, the main U.S. futures-market regulator pinned oil-price swings primarily on supply and demand. But that analysis was based on "deeply flawed data," Bart Chilton, one of four CFTC commissioners, said in an interview Monday.

The CFTC's new review, due to be released in August, adds fuel to a growing debate over financial investors who bet on the direction of commodities prices by buying contracts tied to indexes. These speculators have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts that were once dominated by producers and consumers who sought to hedge against oil-market volatility.

The review also reflects shifting political winds. Under Chairman Gary Gensler, appointed by President Barack Obama, the CFTC is departing from the more hands-off approach it took under its previous head, a George W. Bush appointee. The agency is widely expected to adopt new rules to limit the amount of investments in commodities by big institutions betting on their direction purely for financial gain.

Gensler was savaged by liberals when he was nominated by the President, particularly because of his history as a Goldman Sachs partner and a Rubinite crony. Releasing a report like this will not fit the profile. What's more, the CFTC is talking about severely limiting trades in energy futures.

The country’s top regulator of commodity markets said Tuesday that the government should “seriously consider” strict limits on the trading of purely financial investors in the futures markets for oil, natural gas and other energy products.

Opening the first of three hearings on proposals to curb “speculative” trading and reduce volatile price swings in oil and gas, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission made it clear that he favored tighter volume limits on “non-commercial” traders — banks, hedge funds and other financial institutions — that account for a big share of trading in energy contracts.

“The C.F.T.C. is in the best position to apply limits across different exchanges, and we are most able to strike a balance between competing interests and the responsibility to protect the American public,” the commission chairman, Gary Gensler, said. “I believe we must seriously consider setting strict position limits in the energy markets.”

Mr. Gensler, who was nominated by President Obama, made it clear that he was sympathetic to complaints from Democratic lawmakers and some industry analysts that purely financial traders, who usually never take delivery of a product, have aggravated the violent swings in energy prices in recent years.

We absolutely need this kind of sensible regulation to end the skimming of wealth off the top of the consumer and into the pockets of financial traders. A robust regulatory apparatus is simply vital to the future of the nation and protecting the middle class.

There's Bankrupt And Then There's Bankrupt

It was practically the same scene at the White House today, the same anxious tableau behind a President making the claim that the bankruptcy of an American auto giant actually signals a new beginning and a road to profitability and respectability.

General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, submitting its reorganization papers to a federal clerk in Lower Manhattan in a move that President Obama said marked “the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new General Motors.”The bankruptcy of a once-proud auto giant that helped to define the nation’s car culture and played a part in creating the American middle class immediately rippled across the country, part of a process that the president said would take “a painful toll on many Americans” but lead ultimately to a strong company ready to compete in the 21st century.

Then comes the fine print. General Motors apparently had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. $172.8 billion! I don't know how you rack up that much debt without it carrying over through years if not decades.

We're still talking about the closing of over a dozen plants and factories, which will ripple through the supplier market. 21,000 union workers will lose their jobs. 40% of the dealers will close. The retiree health care fund will now be partially composed of stock that right now is trading for pennies.

The government will drop another $30 billion into the car company on top of the $20 billion already dropped, winding up owning 60-70% of the company, and while officials predict a recoup of that investment within five years, I don't think anyone would stake their life on that. With a collapse in wages and wealth, and no more home equity ATM, new car sales just won't rebound without serious prodding from government (like a cash for clunkers deal).

This has been coming for a long time, of course. Michael Moore, who owes a lot of his prominence to GM, in a weird way, with his first major film Roger & Me about the shuttering of a plant in Flint, warned about this 20 years ago.

It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete. It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh -- and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers. And it was hell-bent on punishing its unionized workforce, lopping off thousands of workers for no good reason other than to "improve" the short-term bottom line of the corporation. Beginning in the 1980s, when GM was posting record profits, it moved countless jobs to Mexico and elsewhere, thus destroying the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars? History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes [...]

Let's be clear about this: The only way to save GM is to kill GM. Saving our precious industrial infrastructure, though, is another matter and must be a top priority. If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need. And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?

Moore has some very smart suggestions, including one I've made for a while - converting the auto production lines to create clean mass transit vehicles and high speed rail cars, fighting climate change while funding a real economic recovery that is tangible and creates infrastructure. Other factories could be retooled to produce wind turbines and solar panels. He wants a massive increase in the gas tax to pay for it, but we could do just as well using the $30 billion we're about to dump into GM and profiting from the economic growth of added production and jobs.

To the extent that there's any hope from this bankruptcy, it's that we can at least start to move away from the obsessive car culture that has poisoned our planet and cannot sustain itself. Any increase in economic activity will be accompanied by a spike in oil prices - heck, we're already seeing a spike because of less bad economic news. We need to start adjusting away from the oil-based economy, and the collapse of two major car companies can provide at least an impetus.

Slaps Five With Other Dudes Back At The Frat House

Joe Barton thinks he stumped a Nobel Prize winner with his question straight out of a Dr. Seuss book.



This was my favorite response video. Someone took the time to upload this to YouTube and I'm glad they did:



The sideshow that is the GOP continues; outsmarted by a piece of paper.

Incidentally, if you want to read an actual smart person's smart comments, here.

...Brad Johnson actually offers the science on this.

United Front Against Climate Change

In what is some big news out of Poland, developing nations are agreeing to sharp emissions cuts in the next Kyoto-style agreement.

POZNAN, Poland -- Several major developing countries that had long resisted making specific commitments to combat global warming are laying out concrete plans to curb their greenhouse gas emissions at the United Nations climate conference here, a shift that could mark the most positive development in the slow-moving negotiations.

Getting the emerging economies -- such as China, Brazil and South Africa -- to limit their escalating carbon footprint has been seen as crucial to the prospects for a future global climate pact. For years these nations have argued that the industrial world must first own up to its historic responsibility and commit to binding cuts, while the United States and other developed countries have countered that they cannot afford to limit emissions until their international economic competitors do the same.

The past two weeks, however, have seen an easing of that impasse. Brazil has pledged to cut its annual deforestation rate by 70 percent by 2017 -- which could reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 to 45 percent over the next decade -- and Mexico has vowed to bring its carbon emissions to 50 percent below their 2002 levels by 2050.

China, South Korea, South Africa, India and even Kazakhstan are also planning cuts (I like!).

Now, in some ways, the lower emissions are a fait accompli given the global economic slowdown. Global oil use was down this year for the first time since 1983, and will probably continue to fall in the near term. But it's important that the slowdown be used as a moment to increase competitiveness along green energy lines, and spur the kind of innovation needed to maintain a carbon lifestyle without carbon usage. This can be done through increased energy efficiency and hard emissions targets. Thankfully, we will have a President committed to those steps, and an Energy Secretary who understands the science and technology needed to make great advancements, and who knows the engineers can do it if the lobbyists get out of the way.

Add in a little environmental activism and you have the ingredients for a very real global focus toward mitigating the worst effects of climate change. In these bleak times, at least this is encouraging.

UPDATE: The EU put together a big climate change pact today as well.

Foreign Policy Triumphs

So the Sunnis in Iraq aren't talking to us anymore because US military forces killed a man who allegedly opened fire on troops as they attempted to arrest someone they considered as an insurgent leader (the Sunnis retell the story differently). The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, has suspended all contacts with the US.

Pakistan has suspended all military action against militants along their border with Afghanistan and passed a resolution calling for dialogue with those groups. The near-unanimous opinion of the Parliament was that Pakistan was paying too heavy a price for "America's war" and that "We need to prioritise our own national security interests."

And OPEC, a cartel that includes Iraq - that country we "liberated" and is supposed to, in George Bush's mind, hold some sort of gratitude for us - is cutting oil production by 1.5 million barrels a day because the price feel unacceptably to around $65/barrel.

Um, does anybody still think that the Russian invasion of Georgia was the greatest foreign policy crisis since the end of the Cold War?

More Backward Thinking

This is bad news for my array of green energy stock portfolios:

For all the support that the presidential candidates are expressing for renewable energy, alternative energies like wind and solar are facing big new challenges because of the credit freeze and the plunge in oil and natural gas prices.

Shares of alternative energy companies have fallen even more sharply than the rest of the stock market in recent months. The struggles of financial institutions are raising fears that investment capital for big renewable energy projects is likely to get tighter.

Advocates are concerned that if the prices for oil and gas keep falling, the incentive for utilities and consumers to buy expensive renewable energy will shrink. That is what happened in the 1980s when a decade of advances for alternative energy collapsed amid falling prices for conventional fuels.

“Everyone is in shock about what the new world is going to be,” said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology, a California advocacy group. “Surely, renewable energy projects and new technologies are at risk because of their capital intensity.”

I can confirm that the stocks are falling off the cliff.

It would be a catastrophic mistake to let renewable energy projects to go unfunded. The minor fluctuations in oil and gas prices belie the very major upward trend that is certain to continue as we reach peak production levels. The fact that natural gas-producing nations are considering the creation of a cartel shows you that these markets will remain artificially high to prop up the price, and that the interests of consumer energy needs or the environment will be the last thing on the list.

We can replace the trouble in the venture capital funding with a serious investment at the federal level in green projects. And you can combine that with energy efficiency policies like we have in California - and there's a legitimate economic benefit in doing so, because the job-creation possibilities are great:

OAKLAND, Calif. — California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000, according to a study to be released Monday [...]

“Consumers were able to reduce energy spending,” the study said, adding that “these savings were diverted to other demand.”

“When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries,” the report said, they create jobs among retailers, wholesalers, food processors and other businesses.

If we let the renewable industry fail, we imperil jobs in this country, we cut off the one area that can bring us out of the economic slowdown, and we consign ourselves to a deindustrialized shell of a nation, losing power and losing time. We cannot chase the golden goose of cheap energy anymore. It's time for a change.

Drilled

They're still fighting this bailout, but Democrats have given up on trying to reinstate the offshore drilling moratorium.

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

"If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

This was inevitable given how the moratorium had to be renewed every year. It would have required a 2/3 vote to overcome a Presidential veto and the votes for that weren't there. It's still annoying, especially because prices have gone down dramatically from the peak, and because of conservation, not drilling. Also, Democrats tried to make the argument and then dropped it. Makes no sense.

There's still a chance to fix this, however. It'll take years to put drills in the ground, so the next President will play a role. Plus, the coastal states could still deny leases, and I'm certain that's what will happen in California.

UPDATE: This is kind of interesting:

Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE: CHK) announced plans to reduce its drilling capital expenditure (capex) budget during the second half of 2008 through year-end 2010 by approximately $3.2 billion, or 17%, in response to an approximate 50% decrease in natural gas prices since June 30, 2008 and concerns about the possibility of an emerging U.S. natural gas surplus in advance of increased demand from the U.S. transportation sector. Of the $3.2 billion drilling capex reduction, $0.8 billion is attributable to the drilling capex carry associated with the company's recently closed Fayetteville Shale joint venture with BP America (NYSE: BP), $0.5 billion is attributable to the drilling capex carry anticipated in a Marcellus Shale joint venture and $1.9 billion is attributable to reduced drilling activity. The company plans to reduce its current operated drilling rig count of 157 rigs to approximately 140 rigs by year-end 2008 and expects to keep its rig count relatively flat through 2009 and 2010.

So Republicans may want to drill now, but the corporations don't think it's profitable enough. There also isn't enough equipment to do the drilling. This was all about getting oil contracts that companies could use to prove to stockholders that they have the reserves. Nobody wants to drill anything.

Ugh, Part II

Instead of forcing Republicans to make a bad vote on SCHIP, the Democratic leadership is likely to force their own party to make a bad vote on energy.

Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said the majority is prepared to back "responsible" offshore drilling through a bill that could be brought to the floor as early as [this] week.

But the Democratic energy bill will also include past provisions pushed by the party – but that failed to pass the House with the two-thirds majority required under the procedural rules that Democrats chose to use – including the "use it or lose it" provision and a release of oil from the strategic reserve.

"We will consider responsibly opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling while demanding that Big Oil companies use the leases they have already been issued or return them to the public," Larson said Saturday in the Democratic response to the President’s radio address.

At least on this one, I understand the play here. They're going to try and force the Republicans into voting against drilling because of their fealty to Big Oil. I just don't have a lot of confidence that they can make that argument to the greater public. Republicans will just say that "the Democrat leadership hasn't given us an upperdown vote on drilling now" or something. And because the moratorium on drilling offshore has to be reinstated every year, and I fully expect the GOP to vote no on anything including that moratorium, I fully expect the cave to be coming along any day now.

Meanwhile, our side is at least using our activist tools.

As many as 100 protesters stormed a press conference by House Republicans on the West Front steps of the Capitol Monday, as GOP lawmakers argued that the American public supports their plan to address the high cost of gasoline.

The press conference came at the end of a six-week long energy protest on the House floor, with Republicans occupying an empty chamber and demanding Speaker Nancy Pelosi hold a vote on their energy plan that includes increased domestic drilling [...]

At one point, a protester interrupted, yelling “you’re an idiot!”

The protest was organized by Environment America, the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups.

Meanwhile, anything that's done on the domestic side will pale in comparison to the rumblings at the OPEC meeting that the cartel will ease production in an effort to grow the price. Oil has dropped 30% from its height due to lowered demand (somehow that never gets mentioned in this debate), and OPEC needs that number back to $140 a barrel or else their citizens will have to forage for berries to eat. The idea that any domestic production would matter in 10 years when OPEC can turn off the spigot today is ludicrous.

...Democrats in Congress ought to pounce on this.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's public transportation systems logged a 5.2 percent jump in ridership in the second quarter, according to industry figures to be released Tuesday, as record-high gas prices pushed people to take millions more trips on buses and rail systems.

Mass transit here, mass transit now.

What's The Story?

Katie Couric puts on her serious face and talks to bloggers, who then post about her talking to bloggers, and the universe explodes on itself.

Meanwhile apparently this is the Hillary Clinton convention and the Democratic Party is at war, although none of us know it.

And oh by the way: Pakistan's government has collapsed (which is probably as it should be after Musharraf was dumped), Iraq's Prime Minister reaffirms the need for a hard timeline for all US troops to leave Iraq, the Prime Minister has also cut oil deals with China and Russia, the Russians have recognized independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and in the wake of yet another airstrike killing dozens of civilians in Afghanistan...

Frustrated by the mounting toll of civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan, the government of President Hamid Karzai called Tuesday for a full-scale review of foreign-led military operations in the country.

Our foreign policy is literally blowing up in our faces on multiple fronts, but the media is dead-set on whether or not someone with a sign somewhere is a PUMA or not.

grr

Just Another Day On A Rig

My belief is that this McCain boomlet in the polls is largely due to his acting Presidency during the fighting in Georgia while Obama was on vacation. Perception is often reality, and when one guy looks the part and the other guy is chomping on Hawaiian cheeseburgers, there's an effect. Never mind that McCain completely overreacted and such hotheaded-ness is the last thing we need in a President.

But that's generally over now, and now McCain is back to the same old politics, yesterday jumping on an oil rig to make the point that... they can bear his weight? What?

Senator John McCain finally headed out to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday morning to sound his call for more offshore drilling, a refrain he has repeated almost daily in this summer of gas-pump sticker shock. Hurricane Dolly had forced Mr. McCain to cancel a trip to the rig planned in July.

“Americans across our country are hurting because of the cost of energy,” Mr. McCain planned to say on the rig,” after an hour and 15-minute helicopter flight from Kenner, La., a suburb of New Orleans. “Gas prices are through the roof. Energy costs have seeped into our grocery bills, making it more expensive to feed our families. And now, as people prepare for the winter, they are going to be hit with higher costs for home heating oil. It is time for America to get serious about energy independence, and that means we need to start drilling offshore at advanced oil rigs like this.”

It's weird that the 70-cent drop in oil prices due to falling demand hasn't been mentioned since conservatives started up the Mighty "drill now" Wurlitzer. The fact that there's a way to continue to reduce demand, lower emissions and cause less damage to the environment goes down the memory hole. Increased drilling adds to our dependence on oil, the opposite of what's needed.

This rig McCain was on, by the way, is partially owned by Exxon, but at this point, what isn't, right?

There's the long-version rebuttal, from the Obama campaign:

“For three decades, as our energy crisis grew, decision-making in Washington has been rigged against our national interests and the interests of American consumers. And for almost that long, Senator McCain has been part of the problem. For decades, he has stood with the big oil companies and voted against the development of the alternative energy we need. When a critical proposal came before the Senate late last year that would have provided tax incentives for the development of alternative energy by revoking $13 billion in giveaways to the oil companies, he was the only Senator who didn’t vote - and we came up one vote short. And now he’s standing with the oil companies in opposing a bipartisan compromise in Congress that would expand offshore drilling and, at the same time, make serious investments in alternative energy to break our dependence on foreign oil. When it comes to solving our energy problems, John McCain is just more of the same and America can’t afford it.”

And the short version, from surrogate Tom Vilsack:

"[McCain] continues to reject bipartisan compromise because it would roll back massive tax breaks for the oil companies," he said. "That is not putting the country first, it is putting the interest of oil companies first."

This feeds directly into the coming floor fight in Congress. Republicans simply won't repeal tax breaks for Big Oil, not even now, after years and years of record profits. They won't establish a renewable standard. Their "all of the above" plan just means open the coasts and send money to oil companies who won't drill but will put the leases into their reserves and raise their stock price. A smart campaign (I know, wishful thinking) will reveal that Republicans are in love with Big Oil and don't want to actually lower gas prices. MoveOn is already making this bet, spending half a million dollars to tie Elizabeth Dole and McCain to Big Oil in North Carolina.



Republicans are basically trying to hide on this issue by saying that the bill should move through the regular committee process. They don't want to make the hard vote against drilling that they would make if it includes repealing the tax breaks.

The problem, of course, is that if there's no deal by October 1, the coastal drilling ban, which needs annual approval by Congress, gets lifted. (Couldn't that make for some nifty ads by Democratic challengers, by the way, calling out longtime Reps. for voting to ban offshore drilling for 25 years?)

Republicans Vote Against Lowering Gas Prices

Even though I don't think it's the entire story, there's certainly SOME speculation in the oil futures market that is driving up the price. Ian Welsh has a pretty good explanation of this. And so to see the Senate block consideration on a bill that would rein in speculation in the market, a few days after voting 94-0 to move it forward, is just embarrassing, and really shows where the loyalties of the Republicans lie - with the speculators and with the oil companies that benefit from the speculation.

The DSCC puts it all together in a press release:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted against a bill today to lower gas prices by curbing excessive speculation in energy markets. Experts have noted that speculation is driving up the price of a barrel of oil, and a recent House committee report revealed that speculators – institutional investors buying contracts with no intention of taking delivery of oil – now account for 73% of all trading of crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000.

"Mitch McConnell had an opportunity to lower the price of gas today, but instead he voted with the speculators who are profiting from Kentuckians' pain at the pump," DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. "Mitch McConnell's constituents deserve better than a politician who sides with Wall Street speculators over Kentucky families."

McConnell voted against legislation to guard against price manipulation just one day after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced its first case against a trading fund in the agency's probe of crude oil market manipulation. The bill will eliminate so-called "dark markets" to increase transparency and accountability in commodities trading, strengthen the CFTC's enforcement capacity, and close the "London Loophole" so all U.S.-based trading of American commodities is subject to American regulation.

And the only action the Republicans want to take to relieve the burden of high gas prices is more drilling and spilling, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so, that the wildlife "wouldn't care" about giant oil rigs going up in their backyard (in that case, let's put one behind John Boehner's house). Of course, that drilling and spilling will only advantage- you guessed it, giant oil companies.

It's all so transparent...

Another Campaign Trip Blows Up In McCain's Face

So John McCain has decided to head out on an oil rig in Louisiana to prove once and for all that we need responsible, environmentally safe drilling to lower gas prices (even though they won't for ten years, and even then only a nickel).

And then this happens.

The DEQ has sent out this notice concerning the major oil spill occurring on the Mississippi River in which 9980 barrels of oil were lost:

On July 23, at approximately 2 a.m., a collision between a ship and a barge occurred on the Mississippi River at mile marker 98, near Harahan, splitting the barge in half. The barge was carrying #6 fuel oil and lost all of its contents, estimated at 9980 barrels. The barge came to rest at mile marker 97 at the Crescent City Connection Bridge.

Because they're TOTALLY safe.

And now, McCain has cancelled the oil rig trip. Due to "weather." Right, either that or the 10,000 barrels of oil floating down the Mississippi River right now. Anyway, how could there be a weather problem, I thought no oil was spilled during Katrina!

They really are running the worst campaign of all time.

UPDATE: Check out this activism at the GOP's ridiculous "drill now" presser:

House Republican leaders were caught off guard Wednesday afternoon when, during the official unveiling of their "all-of-the-above" energy package, some 200 protesters showed up with pre-printed signs and in costumes to boo the proposal's call for drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The 15-minute GOP event on the West Capitol steps was overrun by members of environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

Protesters booed during the news conference and waved signs that read, "Grand Oil Party" and "Climate Action Now;" one person dressed as a polar bear carried the sign, "I love wilderness."

The GOP didn't even know about it. Here's a good point-by-point rebuttal to the Republican's plan put out by Ed Markey's group, too.

UPDATE II: Wow, this is up to 400,000 barrels of fuel oil. This could effectively end the "drill now" campaign.

Obama Is Drinking Our Milkshake!

This is just ridiculous.



Nobody on Earth actually believes that increased drilling on the OCS would lower gas prices by more than 3 cents, and not for 10 years besides. And most people paying attention know that oil executives are not the go-to source for lowering your gas prices. Blaming Obama for this is dumbed-down and completely off-topic. Which, of course, is why it appears to be working.

On the other hand, Al Gore made an impassioned challenge to commit to receiving 100% of our electricity from renewables in 10 years, which is completely negated by the fact that he sometimes flies on planes and eats meat. Loser! Fat! The MTP interview, by the way, is instructive and remarkably light on the juvenile conversations that usually define this kind of thing. Digby thinks it's a revolution in insider journalism, but I think the seriousness of Gore's project, with its marshaling of evidence and appeals to reason, has forced the media to play on his field. Also, the enormity of the climate crisis rejects the cynical, easy answers.

What's amazing is that Gore hadn't been on Meet the Press in EIGHT YEARS. We've wasted a lot of time in this country but I think we're finally coming around to the scope of the crisis. And Gore's call ought to be heeded. Pointedly, Speaker Pelosi did not quite endorse it at Netroots Nation. We need to keep pushing. Pelosi is an ally on rejecting the false choice of drilling to lower gas prices, so that's a start.

...UPDATE: Bruce Miller at The Blue Voice just reminded me that in his taped message to Netroots Nation attendees, which hardly anyone saw because it was on Saturday night and everyone was burned out, Obama referred specifically to ending "the tyranny of oil." Not foreign oil, but oil. That's significant. I think we're going to fight our way out of this one.

...UPDATE II: Well, everything has ended, because Bill O'Reilly has now cemented that Al Gore is done.

O’REILLY: Al Gore now is done. He’s done. Ok. He is not a man of respect, he doesn’t have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It’s the same. No difference. None. K, he loses all credibility with me. All credibility.

If he thinks Gore stepped into a Klan rally, what must he think of Van Jones? What kind of judgment can a black man have for mixing with us metaphorical supremacists?

...UPDATE III: This is what Gore said about drilling on Saturday, by the way:

"The idea of drilling our way out of our energy crisis is ridiculous, if not abhorrent. There used to be an old remedy for hangovers called 'hair of the dog that bit you,' where you go back the next morning and take another drink. That's sort of what this reminds me of. Have a fossil fuel crisis? Let's go back for a bit more!"

Psychobabble

George Bush is now the latest in a long line of Republican magical thinkers who truly believe that if they gaze with their steely resolve at the world's oil supply they can will the price down.

They can pass energy legislation. I readily concede that it it's not going to produce a barrel of oil tomorrow, but it is going to change the psychology.

Now, you have to go beyond the text a little bit here. Bush has to concede that opening up the OCS or ANWR won't produce a barrel tomorrow because that's simply reality. He goes to the "psychological benefit" point to try and set up this fantasy that oil companies want to drill for oil instead of sitting on reserves. If this gambit succeeded in lowering the price of gas it would not be profitable for the oil companies to drill it out of the ground OCS and ANWR leases are only profitable as pieces of paper to show off to shareholders and raise their stock price.

That's what this is entirely about. It's a giant con game, and the same companies that get rich from $150/barrel oil aren't going to be the ones to take any steps to lower the price. With demand rising in India and China, the only solution is to gradually get off the carbon economy and move rapidly to a post-carbon future. Absolutely no other option makes sense, and this has been true for 30 years since President Carter first proposed it.

Lead On Energy Now Or Follow Later

Apparently the "Drill Now! Wait Eight Years! Yell Again To Drill Now" crowd of Republicans has cowed the Democratic leadership into halting all efforts at moving on energy bills for the rest of the year. They took sensible lines of attack, like demanding that oil companies actually drill on the fields they have already leased instead of holding them in reserve to add to their stock price, and let them go.

Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills — including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.
Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar — their “use it or lose it bill” to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back — saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers.

And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back.

“We’ve taken some bold steps this week, and we’re going to build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,” Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at the press conference.

But, as of Monday afternoon, neither “use it or lose it” nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor action this week.

Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach to passing their top energy-related priorities.

The approach should be to fight back. For example, the fact that in the last two days major oil developers have admitted that there's nothing left to drill and high prices are a new reality might be a place to start. For example:

Chip Johnson, the president and chief executive of Carrizo Oil and Gas, a Houston-based company, said he was “confused” by “such wild swings.” But he added: “I can’t see oil getting cheap again ever. It’s just too hard to find, and too many people want to use it.”

Example two, from T. Boone Pickens, fercryinoutloud:

Can’t we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

So the Democrats can cede the point to the "Drill Now" crowd, and implicitly agree that more production is the answer, or they can offer a cleaner, safer, renewable alternative that will actually be cheaper over time and help save the planet from ruin as an added benefit.



One thing we can do is open up the ethanol market to all countries, and end our subsidy program for the corn industry. By the way, if anyone thinks the primary process isn't detrimental to the nation and its priorities, consider the harm done to the global food market by pleasing Iowan farmers. Illinois also has a lot of corn production, which is why Sen. Obama has been historically in favor of it. As he transitions into a national politician, he needs to allow the global ethanol market to prosper instead of the parochial one, and focus far more strongly on renewable sources rather than alternative fuels which expend just as much (if not more) energy to produce. He's starting to do that, but he needs to also educate his party. Obama's energy ad stated up-front that "McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years." So both the leadership and the candidate need to show improvement here. They both need to talk to Mark Begich.

McCain's Policies Being Brought Out Of The Shadows

John McCain was perfectly content for this election to be about Sen. Obama's readiness and to remain invisible as the alternative in the corner. Unfortunately for him, it's not shaping out that way.

He was hammered by a veteran yesterday, forced to explain his rejection of the new GI Bill and his continued opposition to improving veteran's health care.



McCain tried to backpedal and obfuscate and claim that he has "received the highest award from literally every veterans organization in America". The problem is that's not true.

The recognition McCain has received from veterans groups is not "high awards" but failing grades:

• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (By contrast, Obama got a B+.)

• Disabled Veterans of America noted McCain’s dismal 20 percent voting record on veterans’ issues. (Obama had an 80 percent.)

• In a list of "Key Votes," Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) notes McCain "Voted Against Us" 15 times and "Voted For Us" only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)

Today, McCain showed up at a meeting of the League of United Latin American Citizens, got a polite response, and then watched as Barack Obama lit into him for failing immigrants with his duplicitous votes:

Now, I know Senator McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. Well, for eight long years, we've had a President who made all kinds of promises to Latinos on the campaign trail, but failed to live up to them in the White House, and we can't afford that anymore. We need a President who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.

He also made a detailed economic argument that struck at the heart of the matter - that McCain is offering the same failed policies that have brought us to the brink of recession and created massive income inequality, and that we need a leader who will remember the common man and give them a fair chance to realize their goals. And the crowd loved him for it.

Obama also put together an ad fighting back on McCain and the RNC's dishonest claims about energy policy.

"McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won't produce a drop of oil for seven years," the announcer says. "McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time."

McCain is whining today about this being a "negative ad" because anything that actually addresses his record ought to be out of bounds.

(It's a small point, but I wish the ad said "reduce the drip of OIL" and not foreign oil. Drilling it ourselves won't solve the problem, as he says in the ad.)

This is not the calculating Obama we have seen in recent weeks, but a strong one working to draw major contrast and shine the spotlight on the terrible record of failed conservatism being put forth by this year's standard bearer.

Osama Gets What Osama Wants

He had some help from the oilmen in the White House, but bin Laden's hope has come to pass:

In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

Bin Laden's strategy didn't work, for the most part, in the Muslim world, where his goal of an Islamic caliphate is actually massively unpopular. His strategy with regards to America, to drain us economically while entangling us in protracted conflicts that destabilize the world, has been picture-perfect. By responding childishly and without reason instead of resolutely and with respect to the universal nature of the problem, understanding the importance of public diplomacy and global poverty, for example, we have given the world's top terrorist absolutely everything he has wanted. He has a new safe haven in Pakistan, the renewed ability to launch attacks and an opposing empire struggling with enormous structural problems. Oil isn't as high as it is solely because of bin Laden - rising demand in China and India is a far greater factor - but global instability absolutely inflates the price.

There will not be a new caliphate and women in Missouri forced to wear the hijab - that's paranoid crazy talk of the highest order. But there is no question that failed neoconservative policies - policies of which they are still incredibly proud - have weakened our security, our economic future and our global standing, and given a great victory to extremists. Heckuva job.