FACTCHECK.ORG

A False Accusation About Energy

An RNC ad claims Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem, when he actually proposes $150 billion worth.

By Emi Kolawole | factcheck.org
Jul 9, 2008 | Updated: 11:58  a.m. ET Jul 9, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:22:29 PM

    Comment: So, as I see it, Obama's plan is to spend money on research and development and to oppose development of proven technology like nuclear power, and to oppose drilling where we know there is oil.

    Spending money on research isn't change and it certainly won't make a difference in the next decade. The Bush Administration has already been doing this. Check out the Energy Department's website at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ some of the grants already funded at http://www.doe.gov/sciencetech/grants.htm and in particular the biomass research already being funded, listed at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/

  • Posted By: americancitizen200 @ 07/17/2008 11:21:30 AM

    Comment: dtraffas did you read this article to know why...the answer is it would take 20-30 YEARS or so to see resolutes

  • Posted By: dtraffas @ 07/16/2008 9:22:02 PM

    Comment: Why is Obama's 10 year plan to bring about technology breahthroughs in wind, solar, and etc. an incredibly brilliant plan, while a plan to drill won't bring about results soon enough to make it worthwhile?

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:26:51 PM

      Comment: because we are already doing all we can to bring about technological breakthroughs that will lead to reliable, viable alternative fuels.

      BTW, Solar and Wind are not only prohibitively expensive to install and maintain, not generating enough energy to pay for themselves even if they remain in use for decades, but they cannot be used everywhere and are not reliable even where the wind and sunlight are available because wind and sun aren't available during peak use hours at night. Check out Denmark's failed effort to go green. They are LOOSING MONEY selling their off peak green electricity to other countries while their use of fossil fuels has increased, not decreased.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 07/16/2008 8:08:51 PM

    Comment: I just wish Obama would be a little bit more open and desisively in favor of Nuclear power, The reason contruction died was two fold, One people at the time were paranoid about anything "nuclear" equating it with a weapon, when the reality is it is more closely related to a tea kettle.
    The Power companies were burn badly by the "best value no bid contracts" put forth by Bechtal, Yes the same Bechtal that was in Iraq on "best value" no bid contracts along with Haliburton and KBR.

    We are already seeing a significant drop in miles driven and the push for higher milege vehicles has reduced oil demand, the likely hood of battery powered cars within the next ten years is probable.

    With this movement we will reduce our dependance on oil foreign and domestic, and clean up the air at the
    same time.

    Oil is a depletable resource and the day will come when people will look back with nostagia at the good old days when oil was "only" $140 a barrel, and it,s only about 50 years away. with the total dissapearance of oil in about 70 years.
    But we do have to have the means to charge up that battery and nuclear is the best and cleanest way to do that, even with the disposal problem yet to be solved.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/24/2008 5:21:36 PM

      Comment: Obama is not against nuclear power, as long as it has sufficient safeguards, and the waste can be properly disposed of. Of course, nuclear reactors do present a tempting target for terrorists. Wind and solar present no terrorist target, is renewable, and is completely clean and effecient, with no waste.

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:29:00 PM

        Comment: So we've been using it safely in our subs, and France has been generating most of its power with nuclear power for decades, so what other proof of nuclear power's safety is Obama waiting for?

        Wind and Solar are unreliable, and do not produce power to meet peak demands even where there is enough wind and sunlight to make them viable supplementary sources of electric power.

  • Posted By: fiber artist @ 07/16/2008 7:37:13 PM

    Comment: Less than 20% of our oil comes from OPEC, the majority comes from Canada. The 3% that we'll get by 2030 is no where near going to replace "middle east" oil. The myth has been propagated that all our oil is coming from hostile countries when in fact, it isn't the bulk. If we need to be drilling for more oil, how come the oil companies export the oil they are drilling right here at home?

  • Posted By: joneskd @ 07/11/2008 11:51:46 PM

    Comment: Every time someone suggests anything that would increase our ability to produce our own oil rather than rely on the Middle East, the opposition (i.e. Democrats) always say "but it won't help for years and years and even then it will only help a little." Well, if we would have done all these little things years and years ago when they were first proposed, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:35:31 PM

      Comment: So if it is going to take years, and we cn't afford to wait, why isn't Obama in favor of opening up the OCS?

      The federal government estimates the nation's outer continental shelf might hold 85.9 billion barrels of crude. For comparison, the United States consumes about 7.56 billion barrels of oil per year. The nation's sea floor also could hold 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, equal to U.S. consumption for 14 1/2 years.

      If we wait a year, then it would be eight years before this supply was tapped. If we wait two years, then it will be nine years. And in the meantime Cuban and China are tapping into this supply off the coast of Florida. How does that help us address the energy crisis in our country?

  • Posted By: jericho4119 @ 07/11/2008 11:38:16 PM

    Comment: Offshore drilling is a waste of time and money and we have not either to spare.

    in the year 2008, to spend any time or any money attempting to find the miniscule percentage of oil - as compared to the world market - is the worst idea possible. Carbon-based fuels are destroying our habitat. Its not about saving the planet - its about saving us.

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 8:54:57 PM

    Comment: Supply must be increased, and that will require more drilling.

    We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless drillers will fear tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline ??? and war induced by basic resource struggles ??? are greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.

    Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer ??? and will thus have no effect on prices today ??? is incorrect. Unlike past oil crises, where the spot price of oil (that is, today's price) rose more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in 2012 is trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a clear price signal that our problem is in the future ??? because we do not have the will to curb demand or increase supply.

    How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the price would not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices that fuels the mania.

    The oil market, however, has more than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal. This is a key component of the added $25-$40 per barrel in current oil prices. Congressional hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop that. Demonstrate the national will to address the supply and demand issues now and it will.

    As forward prices decline, watch how quickly the spot price comes down.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 9:11:44 PM

      Comment: Got this from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
      A great article you should check it out.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 7:06:53 PM

    Comment: Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It is not just because of Gramm's recent obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" and that unemployed Americans are in "a mental recession." In fact, those remarks were so obnoxious that I wonder if they were engineered just to provide McCain an excuse for publicly distancing himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was chair of the Committee on Banking, and in that capacity he was able to push through the legislation now known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass the Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why the investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm was a member of McCain's campaign team, but now Gramms' name is turning to mud. In addition to the Enron loophole, Gramm pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. Essentially, this Act did away with all of the good laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, Wall Street is highly unstable, and we are in the midst of a recession.

    Now you could say that this is not Gramm's fault, that he didn't know what the outcome of his actions would be. However, it turns out that the same investment banks that benefited from the Enron loophole and from the Gramm Act gave more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign. Uh oh. A Congressional hearing is going to be convened to investigate this. And McCain wants to have noting to do with Gramm, wants us to forget that Gramm has been a key player on McCain's campaign team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISER.

    With Gramm in the driver's seat as his leading economic adviser, now you know why economists and analysts are saying that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 8:50:03 PM

      Comment: Found a new article to copy paste everywhere huh? Of course if its true or lies doesn't matter to you right?

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 5:57:44 PM

    Comment: Here are a couple of websites about clean renewable energy solutions:

    http://www.apolloalliance.org/resources.php

    http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/solutions

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 8:52:36 PM

      Comment: Obama proposes 150 billion worth of new research and development....so to use his own phrase...Will that lower gas prices in the next 5 years?

  • Posted By: composer433 @ 07/10/2008 2:43:17 PM

    Comment: Vote for McWar. Billions and billions will be killed.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 8:50:22 PM

      Comment: Wow I didn't know McCain was the new Pol Pot.

  • Posted By: getzel @ 07/10/2008 9:24:40 AM

    Comment: Energy independence = The minimum price for gas at the pump = $1.75/gallon. The investors and inventors will break OPEC if price protected at the pumps. As long as OPEC can drop the price to .80 cents per gallon, and make obsolete the alternative fuels, the alternatives can not get off the ground. Obumer has not got a clue.

    Intelligence analyst: Getzel

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 6:01:56 PM

      Comment: Getzel, you are beyond stupid. If gas went down to 80 cents a gallon, that would be a huge boon for us. If Obama's energy plan caused OPEC to drop the price of gas to 80 cents a gallon that would be GREAT. But it would not make clean, renewable energy sources obsolete. Obama's plan keeps us safe for the future when the oil runs out, and it protects the environment for the generations to come.

      Wake up and join us in the 21st century.

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/10/2008 8:51:32 PM

        Comment: How long will it take for Obama's plan to produce a real effect? How long after Obama is President will we be energy independant?

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/10/2008 1:09:18 PM

      Comment: Alternative energy sources, and alternative technologies were made obsolete a long time ago... most were shelved when gasoline was 25 cents a gallon. Those days are not coming back.

      With new research, and pulling some of the old technologies off the shelf, we can be energy independent (see Brazil). Fossil fuels are finite, that's a fact. I don't see dinosaurs running around our streets today.

      One thing is for sure. Drilling for more oil is NOT the long-term solution. In fact, it is not even going to help in the short-term.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/09/2008 11:25:40 PM

    Comment: Posted By: martin_gray @ 07/09/2008 9:39:28 PM
    Comment: Every square inch of our municipal busses is covered by advertising. Chicago is trying to sell the Chicago Skyway to a corporation, any corporation. United Arab Emirates has is about to acquire 75% ownership of the Chrysler building in Manhattan. A foreign corporation now owns the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

    Eight years of Republican rule and I see out country going out the door piece by piece. The amounts owed on our China and Japanese credit cards is staggering. If they demanded repayment within 90 days, we could not meet their request and would have to give them Washington and Oregon.

    Where in hell does it all end?

    *****
    And the Governor of New York is a Democrat or Republican? Democrat.
    And the Governor of Pennsylvania is a Democrat or Republican? Democrat.
    And the Governor of Illinois is a Democrat or Republican? Democrat.

    Who has control of Illinoi's advertising, the bus lines? The local government.

    Please realize that it is not JUST the Republicans who are adding to the foreign take-over. It took the combined effort of both the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives to get CFR Globalization in full swing. This has been going strong since the 70's, when the neo-liberals controlled both Houses.

    It's only recently that the public is noticing that manufacturing jobs are gone due to the trade policies set in place during the 70's and 80's. Amazing how Congress just keeps exporting more jobs.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 11:45:15 AM

      Comment: they have the title or deed to those properties but if and when push comes to shove thats all they got is the deed if war breaks out then that paper gives them no promise of being able to allow any damning policy on the u.s. on its soil so that being said any other counties that own buildings or businesses here on u.s. soil will have only the deed to the building or business and that is it they will be free to move thier proprety off u.s. soil and we will give them fair market value for the land they can not own the u.s. !

      • Posted By: americancitizen200 @ 07/17/2008 11:29:23 AM

        Comment: Willnotvoteobama..... You seem to be everywhere we get the point that you won't vote Obama,,we. get. it. Now keep your negative comments to yourself Mr. Republican MAN/Woman

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/09/2008 11:10:53 PM

    Comment: Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:47:26 PM
    Comment: For all the money we would spend on clean coal or nuclear energy we could develop actual solutions like the multiple renewable forms of energy. The estimated amount of coal in the US is about 250 years. That number was tallied before anyone ever mentioned using coal reserves for gasoline. We use coal mainly for electricity. The use of coal for gasoline would drive up the cost of coal and possible cut the supply for electric use by half.
    ******

    Coal gasification has been in place since the 80's in North Dakota. The coal in ND is soft coal, too soft to be used as heating or electricity, so it had little value. The solution is utilize the soft coal was for coal gasification. And, with the high price of gas, it has revitalized the gasification plants and the west is booming again. Between the oil drilling and the surface coal mining for gasification, ND is thriving. At least some of the working class people are benefiting in this lousy economy.

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 07/09/2008 9:39:28 PM

    Comment: Every square inch of our municipal busses is covered by advertising. Chicago is trying to sell the Chicago Skyway to a corporation, any corporation. United Arab Emirates has is about to acquire 75% ownership of the Chrysler building in Manhattan. A foreign corporation now owns the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

    Eight years of Republican rule and I see out country going out the door piece by piece. The amounts owed on our China and Japanese credit cards is staggering. If they demanded repayment within 90 days, we could not meet their request and would have to give them Washington and Oregon.

    Where in hell does it all end?

  • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 07/09/2008 8:00:01 PM

    Comment: I agree with Apostasy on the subject of stupid Republicans. There is nothing you can do for a quick fix for the gas problem because you Republican idiots have been asleep at the wheel for eight years. The oil companies already have 90 million acres of which 70 million acres are untouched. Why can't you persuade your oil company pals or your Saudi pals to drill more? Because they are smart unlike you, and are going to milk the American people for every penny, thats why.
    So their solution is to give more land to the oil companies and transfer the few cents gas tax from the goverment to the Saudis. Sell the Whitehouse to the Saudis too (Oh wait! that has happened already). The only thing that might save this country is if we get out of the clutches of the Republicans. I know most people wont admit but this but at some point I supported the Republican idiots falling for their false promises. If another Republican becomes President even God wont be able to save America. That is though I have never given money before I am giving money to Democratic candidates at every level in this election even if it bankrupts me.

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:47:26 PM

    Comment: For all the money we would spend on clean coal or nuclear energy we could develop actual solutions like the multiple renewable forms of energy. The estimated amount of coal in the US is about 250 years. That number was tallied before anyone ever mentioned using coal reserves for gasoline. We use coal mainly for electricity. The use of coal for gasoline would drive up the cost of coal and possible cut the supply for electric use by half. This is not a solution. Instead it is creating a slow moving blood clot that will eventually reach the brain and end in stroke. Nuclear power is not any better. It is another non-renewable energy. Uranium supplies are estimated at around 150 years. The cost will continue to rise just as with coal or oil. Therefore nuclear is not a real solution either. You might ask, ???What are the solutions,??? there have been so many renewable sources of energy. Many are very creative. Like the use of Ocean currents, Ocean wave movement, Tidal movement, Wind, Solar, Biochemical technology and other Biological Engineering concepts show promise or are already in development and production. That is where our money should go. But the real solutions free individuals from being attached to large energy companies. Oh, that is just awful, for them, but liberating for us. Imagine a source of energy that will never go up in price due to the fact that it is renewable. I already have, can you?

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:47:06 PM

    Comment: 7,925 gallons of uranium solution spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site in France. Let us time travel back to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or the Incident in Ohio. This is not a good record. Proponents of Nuclear Power like to claim that with modern advances it is very safe to expand its use. Well, two of the four incidents I mentioned both occurred with modern advances in technology. There is no guarantee that even with new technology another Chernobyl would not happen here in the USA. What we do not realize is the fact that even with all the technology in the world Human Error is always a factor. Building more Nuclear Plants is not an answer to the price at the pump. It is not a Renewable Resource. So the price will increase as Uranium becomes scarce. There is the waste issue and potential devastating accident factor, which make it a very unstable source of power with multiple thousand-year storage costs. A lot of people are unaware that some of the same energy companies that deal in oil and gas also deal in Nuclear Power Plants. Solar energy is permanent or renewable, cheap, and can be installed on an individual basis. That is why large energy companies are not in any rush to push that form of energy. We could all be independent of an electric bill if solar technology is funded with the money that would have gone to Nuclear power plant development. But that would leave the electric companies out of business. If we put dollars into producing affordable solar panels or nano-solar technology we could allow each individual citizen the ability to produce their own energy and use as much of it as they wish with no reliance upon any outside monopoly. The proponents of Nuclear are either greedy or blind to the potential in other much safer forms of energy.

  • Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 7:46:26 PM

    Comment: For all the money we would spend on clean coal or nuclear energy we could develop actual solutions like the multiple renewable forms of energy. The estimated amount of coal in the US is about 250 years. That number was tallied before anyone ever mentioned using coal reserves for gasoline. We use coal mainly for electricity. The use of coal for gasoline would drive up the cost of coal and possible cut the supply for electric use by half. This is not a solution. Instead it is creating a slow moving blood clot that will eventually reach the brain and end in stroke. Nuclear power is not any better. It is another non-renewable energy. Uranium supplies are estimated at around 150 years. The cost will continue to rise just as with coal or oil. Therefore nuclear is not a real solution either. You might ask, ???What are the solutions,??? there have been so many renewable sources of energy. Many are very creative. Like the use of Ocean currents, Ocean wave movement, Tidal movement, Wind, Solar, Biochemical technology and other Biological Engineering concepts show promise or are already in development and production. That is where our money should go. But the real solutions free individuals from being attached to large energy companies. Oh, that is just awful, for them, but liberating for us. Imagine a source of energy that will never go up in price due to the fact that it is renewable. I already have, can you?

  • Posted By: DoTheMath @ 07/09/2008 4:08:02 PM

    Comment: Thanks for providing some real balance. That's very difficult to find lately. It's not surprising that the RNC is running misleading ads, despite assurances from the media that Obama was all wet when he noted that the ability of 527s and national parties (like the RNC) to raise money outside the public finance system cancels out the effectiveness public financing.

    What surprises me is the blatant favoritism most of the "news" media shows toward McCain. What's their motivation? Are they catering to their corporate sponsors? Are they tring to protect their jobs by making sure this election is a "horse race" that generates a lot of interest, instead of the easy landslide for Obama that would occur if all voters knew the facts and voted in their own best interests - in the country's best interests?

    • Posted By: ApostasyUSA @ 07/09/2008 4:29:31 PM

      Comment: WoW! Great post. I don't get it either.

      I heard a commentator on MSNBC describe why Obama gets more harsh treatment.....the answer:

      "because he is the front runner"

      I don't know how that makes sense but the media needs to do a better job informing viewers on WHY Obama is the "front runner" instead of nitpicking everything he says and does, while practically ignoring gaffs from McCain.

      Are the BIG FIVE in collusion? Hmmmmm........

  • Posted By: ApostasyUSA @ 07/09/2008 3:40:24 PM

    Comment: After years of attacks and insults from Republicans, I am really going to enjoy watching their implosion. The Republicans have only themselves to blame for their fall from grace. The childish manner at which they insult anyone who disagrees with them, while they rubber stamp any policy that Republicans create shows a true lack of cognitive ability that I think should be required for a position in government.

    I???m going to do everything in my power to see that Republicans LOSE in the next elections. I mean across the board, state legislatures to the White House, there is no longer a place for Republicans in the world I want to live in. The Republican of today is an indefensible talking point repeating polarizer of nations, which in my mind no longer deserves quarter.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/09/2008 3:31:00 PM

    Comment: Is it better to be lied to while being stabbed in the back? Or being told the inevitable truth?

    One gets your hopes up only to be dumped on with the same old politics as usual. The other lets you know what's coming.

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/09/2008 2:14:54 PM

    Comment: Obama is pro Nuclear he just doesn't want the Left Greenies to know about it...Excelon is a big campaign contributor.
    Illinois has the most Reactors in the country and how many meltdowns? It is safe....and with newer tech it's even safer...so lets build more....just like McCain wants. Lets build more and by doing so create JOBS. Jobs in construction, manufacturing and operation of these new Plants. Does Obama want to build new plants...who knows he will never tell you.

    Obama proposes 150 billion worth of new research and development....so to use his own phrase...Will that lower gas prices in the next 5 years?

  • Posted By: akhajawall @ 07/09/2008 12:48:26 PM

    Comment: Dear American Voters, reporters, media. professionals, political parties, and our hon. Presidential Nominees,

    Subject: Presidential Temperament
    Please talk about and "Compare And Contrast" the " Presidential Temperament" of our Presidential presumptive nominees. I will also request and plead to the nominees themselves [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama ].

    Our nation has been applying this yard and stick tor the appointments and confirmation process of our Supreme Court Justices nominees.

    Our Greatgrand Nation Foundations are as under:
    Family, friends, fellows, faith, funds, fun, with fairness & freedom And without fear, favor, and failure.

    It will be disgrace and shameful if the nominees and media will not look into this critical and crucial aspect under current challenging times and circumstances within our country and all around the Globe.

    America wake up and the discuss the " Presidential Temperament" of our presumptive presidential nominee's [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama].

    Yours sincerely,

    COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret].
    Disabled American Veteran
    Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas, Nevada

    PS: RNC= Rancor, negativity, and confabulation.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 07/09/2008 2:09:30 PM

      Comment: Thanks for keeping to the article and not making personal attacks on McCain.

      Lt. Gen Zombie Hero
      Veteran of Call of Duty 4
      Pain in the butt, Las Vegas NV

 
 
Reply
Cancel
 
 
Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

Cancel
 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS
Johnnie L. Roberts and Andrew Murr

Luxury stadiums are on the rise. A top seat can cost $150,000. Beer costs extra.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
VIEWPOINT
Steve Tuttle

The vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country. So who are the 10 percent who think everything is A-OK?

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu