As usual Samuelson does not think beyond the box.
Obama is right. Off-shore drilling will not solve our problem. According to Newsweek???s own fact checkers it will take about 22 years for any one obtained from off-shore drilling to reach the market.
In addition, off-shore drilling contains risks that no one, especially Samuelson has ever imagined. First, it will pollute the ocean. The ocean is a source of food for millions of people. We may need to turn to the ocean at last as a source for ???gray??? water. If permit we turn the ocean into a toilet bowl of toxic wastes, we are, in effect, poisoning our own children???s futures.
Furthermore, drilling platforms, especially int in the Gulf of Mexico, are subject to hurricane damage. As the globe warms, the number of hurricanes and their severity is increasing. The oil industry still hasn???t fully recovered from the damage of Hurricane Katrina. Furthermore off-shore drilling rigs are inviting targets for pirates and terrorists. And piracy is already alive and well. Because oil companies love to recruit cheap off-shore labor from contracting companies in Asia, the chance of pirates and terrorists infiltrating our oil platfomrs ie excellent
Finally, as Air America talk show host Rachel Maddow observed, the oil from off-shore drilling does not belong to the U.S. It belongs to the oil companies that own the rigs. They may decide to pocket the generous subsidies that John McCain is proposing to give them, but sell the oil somewhere else. Also, there is no guarantee that American oil companies will remain American. They may follow the lead of that All-American Halliburton, once chaired by that all- American hero Dick Cheney, and re-locate to Dubai. They may even go to Moscow, the new mecca for multi-billionaires, provided the Russian government, also dominated by multi-billionaries provided them a ???deal??? they can???t refuse.
The rich do not owe any allegiance to America. They only thing they owe allegiance to is their own money.
Although Obama has moved towards ???limited??? off-shore drilling, he???s more than right when he points out the short-comings of off-shore drilling than either McCain or Samuelson
These are only some of the facts that Samuelson ignores. He ought to read his own magazine Newsweek, more carefully. About two months ago, Fahreed Zakaria interviewed genome pineer Craig Venter, who asserts that we can produce a fuel from bacteria. Samuelson ought to read the October 2007 issue of National Geographic which examines all the possible biofuels. Algae, produced from the exhausts of coal-burning power plants offers a lot of possibilities. There???s also a massive field of algae off the coast of Oregon, created by global warming, which is destroying Oregon???s fishing industry. That field could be our Saudi Arabia and Iraq if we had the right ledership.
JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
The Great Energy Confusion
Judged by their rhetoric, you might think McCain and Obama differ dramatically on energy. But their agendas overlap substantially.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Forget about a candid national conversation on energy. As John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned last week, that much seemed clear. To lower oil prices (which were already dropping), Obama proposed releasing 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is an atrocious idea. The SPR was intended as insurance against a catastrophic loss of oil from wars, embargoes, terrorism or natural disasters. It should not be manipulated cynically for political advantage. Earlier, McCain suggested suspending the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax; that was another bad and expedient idea.
No doubt Obama and McCain want to relieve Americans' discomfort at the pump. The trouble is that Americans should feel discomforted. We want a return to cheap, secure oil; we want painless pathways to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. These are fantasies; they should not be indulged.
In 2006, coal, oil and natural gas provided 85 percent of U.S. energy. In 2025, regardless of what we do, they will almost certainly remain the leading energy sources. We will still import huge volumes of oil and face global disruptions. And any serious effort to curb oil use and greenhouse gases will require high energy prices—whether imposed by the market or taxes—to induce conservation and switching to nonfossil fuels.
Judged by their rhetoric, you might conclude that McCain and Obama differ dramatically on energy. Actually, their agendas overlap substantially. Both advocate a "cap and trade" system to reduce greenhouse gases; that's essentially a tax on fossil fuels, though neither describes it that way (candor grade for both: D). Both hold out, in similar language, the vision of resurgent American technology riding to the rescue.
Here's Obama: "Energy independence will require an all-hands-on-deck effort from America—effort from our scientists and entrepreneurs; from businesses and from every American citizen … All of us will need to buy more fuel-efficient cars … and find ways to improve efficiency … We can do this because we are Americans. We do the improbable."
Now, McCain: "Venture capitalists, corporate planners, small businesses and environmentalists [are] all working to the same good purpose … Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States … That is what this country can do when we see a danger, and declare a purpose and, find the will to act."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss