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.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Summary
A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe.

And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production "here at home" (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a "solution" for the problems at hand.

Analysis
The RNC made a $3 million buy for its ad, titled "Balance," which is airing in the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It began airing July 5 and is scheduled to run through July 15.

"No New Solutions"?

RNC Ad: "Balance"
Announcer: Record gas prices. A climate in crisis. John McCain says solve it now with a balanced plan: Alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax and more production here at home. He's pushing his own party to face climate change. But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes, no to nuclear, no to more production. no new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line. The RNC is responsible for the content of this message.

The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain's, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.

No to "Nuclear"?
We've been through this. Obama has not said a flat-out "no" to nuclear, as the ad claims. Instead he has said he is in favor of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe, saying in his energy plan that "it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table." But it's true McCain is more aggressive in his support of nuclear power, giving it a prominent place in his energy plan, with the goal of creating 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and as many as 100 total. Obama's energy plan contains no such initiative.

No to "Lower Gas Taxes"?
The ad claims Obama is against lowering the gas tax, which is true enough. However, McCain's original proposal to eliminate the federal tax for consumers would only have covered a portion of this year – from Memorial Day to Labor Day – and much of that period is already past. Obama and many independent analysts have argued that such a plan would do little to lower costs for average consumers and, if it did, would only lead to higher demand, leading in turn to higher prices down the road.

No to "More Production"?
It's also true Obama is against lifting the ban on increasing drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, and it's worth noting that both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  As for the Outer Continental shelf, more drilling could indeed produce more oil, but not right away. The Energy Information Administration says that there are "substantial resources of crude oil" offshore. However, it also notes that both time and money would be required to produce any oil from areas that are currently off-limits. Specifically, it estimates that no production would begin until 2017 and that it would take until 2030 to reach peak production, increasing total domestic production by 3 percent.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
NEWSWEEK's 20/10
NEWSWEEK's 20/10

Our decade-in-review project recalls the highs and lows of the last 10 years.

Obama's Promises
Obama's Promises

Is the new president fulfilling his campaign pledges? Or falling short?

The Decade in 7 Minutes
The Decade in 7 Minutes

Video: A fast-paced review of the best and worst moments. Don't blink.

Accidental Celebrities
Accidental Celebrities

From Levi Johnston to Elian Gonzalez, these people never expected to be in the spotlight.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

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

    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: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:29:00 PM

    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: pearsoncrz @ 08/07/2008 1:26:51 PM

    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.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

 

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.