OIL

Drill Here? Why Now?

Published Aug 30, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Sep 8, 2008

Email To A Friend

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

SPONSORED BY

John McCain's proposal for a gas-tax holiday went over like a ton of bricks. But his proposals to open up the continental shelf for drilling have struck a chord. A recent CBS/New York Times poll showed that Americans back offshore drilling, 62-28; a bipartisan group of senators is at work on a compromise, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has signaled openness to the issue. Expect to hear a continuous chorus of "Drill here, drill now" in Minneapolis this week. But as a short-term fix, offshore drilling is just as lame as a gas-tax holiday. Exploring off the beaches of south Florida won't bring new supplies to the market for several years. And when offshore oil does arrive, the amounts will be so small compared with global demand that they won't have much impact on the price we pay. So why has drilling resonated? NEWSWEEK's economics expert Daniel Gross offers five theories:

• Vast right-wing conspiracy: The gas-tax holiday was derided by the economic-policy wing of the Republican Party. By contrast, the Republican noise machine—the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Washington think tanks, talk- radio blowhards, the dwindling core of Capitol Hill Republicans—has marched in impressive message lock step for drilling.

• Vast Marxist conspiracy: By sapping the highway trust fund of construction funds, the gas-tax holiday was a potential job killer. Domestic drilling, by contrast, is something akin to a jobs program for highly paid blue-collar workers.

• Screw the foreigners: Call it national security, or call it chauvinism, but drilling for domestic oil sets up a zero-sum game. Every barrel of oil produced here is one we don't have to buy from our long and growing list of enemies: Venezuela, Iran and Russia. By contrast, a gas-tax holiday just offers more opportunities to enrich Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

• Mytho-historical: Wildcatting for oil conjures up legendary fortunes (Rockefeller, Getty, Hughes) and feeds into romanticized notions of how the nation was built by pioneers who tapped into the natural bounty of this resource-rich land. Think John Wayne and "There Will Be Blood." Gas-tax holidays conjure up images of accountants. Think David Schwimmer.

• Freudian: The language and imagery surrounding the issue—drills penetrating the earth's crust in search of gushers—tap into deep-seated subconscious desires. A gas-tax holiday? Not so much.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: shane @ 09/10/2008 1:20:36 PM

It's well past the time for the Democrats and Republicans to grow a spine and win back our respect. They can be much more persuasive with honesty, rather than deception. The offshore drilling ban has been around for decades. High gas prices have not. A ban on offshore drilling is not a significant explanation for high gas prices.
The top reasons for high gas prices:

1. Lack of competition translates into paying more at the pump.(Exxon merges with Mobil, ChevronTexaco, BPArco, etc )

2. Were the diplomatic skills of this administration up to par, oil prices would be far more stable. Invading Iraq has only brought instability. Angering Russia by placing our military and our missiles at their doorstep only brings more instability.

3. If the dollar was as strong today as it was when Bush took office, $140 would fetch closer to 2 barrels of oil.

4. CAFE standards are too weak. Future technology is promising, but fuel efficiency could double using old technology.

It seems like our President wants high oil prices. But that would make him an oil man...inconceivable!

WE NEED ATTACK DOGS BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO BIG OIL! Instead we get politicians too eager to roll over. Send a message to congress and the administration that we're on to their game. We know the real reasons for high gas prices.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mb1109 @ 09/06/2008 7:09:41 PM

"Expect to hear a continuing chorus of 'Drill here, drill now' in Minneapolis this week."

Or even in Saint Paul, where the convention was held.

The Democratic position that adding to supply will not affect price is counter-intuitive and only reinforces doubts about Democrats and economics. Even worse is opposing off-shore drilling because of the years needed to bring new supplies to market. That's like opposing long years of education or long years of saving for retirement because the benefits lie too far in the future.

The case against off-shore drilling is not rooted in economics. Democrats should abandon their badly thought-out arguments about price and supply and return to their honestly held green opposition.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 09/04/2008 7:46:13 AM

Does the Democratic leadership under Barack Obama expect current electric power plants to provide all the huge electricity requirements to recharge and power all the new hybrid and electric cars that will be coming on line. There will have to be new power plants built and these must be nuclear plants. The new sources of additional electricity to charge up all these cars will have to come from nuclear energy. Why is there such an ingrained irrational fear about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans especially the Democratic leadership under the direction of Barack Obama. Importantly also why is it somehow okay for hundreds of thousands of Navy sailors to have served for nearly thirty-five years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but Democratic leadership under Barack Obama will not consider to even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. Is it okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not the Democratic leadership who oppose nuclear power. This irrational fear is particular evident with the Democrats acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings in Boston have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges or tunnels. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. Patients with cancer including Senator Ted Kennedy undergo treatment with chemotherapy and radiation treatments without fear of overexposure to radiation. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of the Democratic leadership of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.