« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

GOP Senate to DEM Senate: Drill, or go dry.

Subtext: Our base *likes* it when the money isn't flowing, bubbelehs.

You know, I understand why some people find Senate quote-unquote “Minority” Leader Mitch McConnell a bit irksome when it comes to pork generally, but he really does have a feel on the primary aspect of his current job: that is to say, how to thoroughly muck up the titular majority’s day. Via Hot Air:

Senate GOP hands Dems oil ultimatum
By Manu Raju

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

Read the whole thing. And notice, by the way, that Harry Reid wasn’t man enough to reply himself: he sent out a spokesman to complain.

Analysis after the fold… but first, a crass political observation. The Democrats really want Mitch McConnell gone, which is in itself an excellent reason to donate to his campaign. As for the NRSC… carrot and stick, people. You want them to do stuff like this, remember? Call it operant conditioning if it’ll make the medicine go down better.

Like Ed Morrissey, I like this strategy: it plays to GOP strengths (long-term rationality, pro-growth, and straightforward in-your-face aggression) and Democratic weaknesses (poll anxiety, fractured base, essential timidity when confronted with straightforward in-your-face aggression). Of all of those, the “fractured base” part is probably the most important, as the Democrats are in a heck of a bind on this one. They know that the general populace is getting hot and bothered about high gas prices; they also know that the solution that their base offers – that the general populace stops using so much energy – is simply not going to fly.

They also know that this is no longer a question of how to stop further drilling. This is a question of whether the GOP can successfully push for more drilling offshore – and for more drilling in ANWR, which would be worth it for the symbolic value alone. That region has quasi-mystical status for the Greens: sticking an oil well or twenty thousand there would be the equivalent of a collective kick in the testicles to them, and God knows that the Greens have earned the sensation. Not that compromising with the GOP on this issue – unlike FISA, which was merely a capitulation – will endear them with said Greens, including the ones that are Democrats. Instead, you’ll see a lot of anger, complaints, and general ranting and raving coming from a movement that never quite grasps why it is that they keep electing Democratic politicians, but never actually get anything from them.

In other words, no downside. So shut it down, baby.

Shut it all down.

Moe Lane

COMMENTS

  • aaronbg

    …I hope the Republicans hold their ground on this one and show the Dems for the weak players that they are.

  • pneuma

    Good morning.

    I am an unashamed liberal who enjoys a good debate. I’ve always been of the belief that intelligent people who can dialogue respectfully usually can find common ground.

    I’m taking the attitude that I am a guest in your house, and want to be respectful, so if this community would rather I leave, please say so, and I will no longer post here.

    On the subject of new drilling:

    I fully acknowledge that new drilling will positively affect the psychology of the market. In addition, it is a good hedge against the demand we might see in five or ten years. Yet, I am still opposed.

    Setting aside the global warming issue, I think most reasonable people can agree that burning hydrocarbons is a bad thing – looking at the sky in LA on a summer afternoon settles that debate. We cannot hope to meet domestic demand with domestic production, no matter how much we drill. Moreover, the price of oil is not set domestically, but on the global market. That oil will be sold to whoever will pay the most. As long as we burn oil, we will be dependent on foreign energy sources.

    So why don’t we stop? We have the technology. It would stimulate the economy like nothing short of a war. Why don’t we decide to become master of our own fate again, and change to a hydrogen economy?

  • aaronbg

    …what do we do in the interim to decrease our energy costs until this new tech that you claim we have now can be implemented? I am all for clean affordable energy but I know that I can’t afford a fuel cell car and public transport is not an option for those who don’t live in big cities. How do you suppose we bridge this gap, and if you say new tech I would like you to show how we can implement that tech today and what the upfront cost to our economy would be. Now if you answer all these questions we will know that you are here in good faith and then we can work on coming to agreement or at least compromise.

  • Canthros

    Done … and done.

    Hard to decide, though: do I want them to drill, or shut down Congress more? Can we have both? Can they shut down Congress and then drill? I bet they can!

  • ICRJCalvin
  • jimmuy8

    Have you considered the laws of physics require that the energy to make H2 must come from somewhere? Which would have to be from oil and coal since we aren’t allowed to go nuclear, yes?

    Further, assume we do begin to run our cars on H2: what of air travel?

    Last: Burning of H2 produces H2O–which far outpaces CO2 as a greenhouse gas. What of the law of unintended consequences?

  • pneuma

    Reducing energy prices is tricky. This is the free market we are talking about here, and contrary to popular belief, this liberal thinks that messing with it is a bad idea. The truth is that there isn’t much we can do; unless we fully commit to weaning ourselves off of oil.

    My answer: the strategic petroleum reserve. We burn it. Sell it to oil companies at huge discounts as long as it is used domestically. It forces us as a matter of national security to follow through with being 100% off of oil, and alleviates demand pressure.

    In terms of your car – you will eventually have to replace it. I simply propose that by the time you do, it is illegal to sell gasoline engines.

  • Moe_Lane

    Yes, I’ve used that one before. It’s very useful, though.

  • pneuma

    I think a combination of solar, wind, and French style recycling breeder reactors are the only way to go. the amount of waste produced by modern reactors that cannot be re-burned is so small, I’m all for it. It is also so radioactive that it is only dangerous for 100 years or so. Plus, we know how to dispose of it safely – baked into glass bricks. I’ve read comments from nuclear engineers that say they’d be willing to store it in their basements.

    On air travel – I must admit that I am not familiar with the problems of using hydrogen as a fuel source on planes. But it works for rockets, so I’m betting we can find a way. And even if we can’t, I bet we can produce jet fuel domestically if our cars don’t run on gas.

    On the H2 problem: trap the exhaust, recycle the water. Drink it right out of your car, it’s pure.

  • aaronbg

    That doesn’t make any sense to me…if you are opposed to drilling because of the end result being the burning of hydrocarbons why would using the SPR be an effective and acceptable solution. What we have in the SPR is not enough to bridge the gap between oil and new tech…so after we burn up our reserve then the price of oil will skyrocket even more than it has already. You are simple pushing the problem down the road and blocking the interim solutions which could give us time to implement the new tech that you want. The new tech will not come about by destroying our economy.

  • pneuma

    You posted this in response to my comment – I’m not sure what you meant. Can you please clarify?

  • rocketeer

    For jimmuy8:
    Burning oil, coal, gas also creates H20. In the simplest, cleanest case, CH4 + 2(02) yields C02 + 2(H20). Of course, there are incomplete burns (carbon monoxide), more complex hydrocarbons (oil is a nasty mixture of things) and various non-hydrocarbon things in oil and coal that get burned (nitrogen-oxides, sulfur, etc.). But H20 is a big part of the output of your car (remember all that white stuff coming out in cold weather? Water vapor.).
    Is H20 a greenhouse gas? Aahhh, technically the science is still out on that. But as you note, H2 is just an energy transfer device, as it must be manufactured using energy.

    As to pneuma: you haven’t delivered on the request to present a plan, to bridge the gap. All you have said is to force people to not use things. That doesn’t create new technology, or bridge a gap until new technology occurs.

    I’m told there are hundreds of years of natural gas down there, and vast amounts of coal, oil, etc. in places that aren’t being accessed either thru economics (which works itself out) or politics (which is a self-inflicted wound). If you are worried “about the environment”, the cleanness problem has already been addressed. Just as the Food and Drug Administration was created to improve food chain quality (after the publication of The Jungle, by Sinclair), laws are in place to make energy extraction clean. The real issue here is whether Environmentalism as a religion will prevail, for there is no (other) compelling reason for keeping those energy resources down there.

  • Mord

    Draining the SPR is a bad idea, sorry. A military without fuel is uselss, so draining the SPR isn’t an option.

    Seriously…what is wrong with Oil? I ask in a friendly way, because I am honestly shocked at liberal’s absolute refusal to see that oil is good. Nuclear power is the ONLY alternate energy source that is better than oil we have discovered so far. Wind/solar/hydro can work fine if the local enviornment is suited to one or the other of those options. I don’t think most people realize how wedded our technology is to petrolium products. Plastic, lubricants, solvents, all come from Oil. There is not a single manufactured item on our entire planet that does not require some type of petrolium product to make it.(even if it is just the grease for the machine that builds it).

    I think we could, someday far, far in the future, get off of oil. But my question is…why today? Why right now?

    Why can’t we use what is left of a supposedly limited supply of Oil to bridge the technology gap that exists between Gasoline and the mythical renewable energy holy grail?

  • pneuma

    While the SPR is immediately available, it is universally agreed that new drilling will not produce a single new drop of oil for 5 years. The SPR is supposed to be enough oil for 20 years…I propose exhausting it in 10, by which time we would be fully converted. I fail to see how this doesn’t bridge the gap, but new drilling does.

  • mbauer

    I don’t know how long it’ll be until enough realize this that it ends the debate…

    If you believe there is even a chance that man causes global warming (and I’m not saying we do) then Hydrogen power vehicles are the worst possible answer.

    Clean? Yes

    Abundant Supply? Yes

    Greatest Green house gas out there? Water Vapor. Period. Nothing holds in heat like water vapor. Not to mention that we’d create a lot more Water Vapor than one might first assume because it has a lower enthalpy of combustion than Carbon and we would thus be burning greater masses to run a vehicle.

    Until we have proved people cannot affect global warming, which most conservatives won’t even claim, then Hydrogen is off the table.

    I can’t believe anyone takes a Chemistry or Thermodynamics class without knowing this. Even all those supposed liberal college teachers I’ve had were quick to point this out.

    If you want to go cleaner, Natural Gas is the mid term solution to the problem.

  • pneuma

    Um, you trap it. And pour it out on the ground. It isn’t tough. I know fourth graders that can handle that engineering challenge.

    It terms of water, the earth is a closed system. As long as you are not pumping it into the atmosphere artificially, it is impossible to change the system. trap it, pour it into the sewer system, and let nature take its course.

  • pneuma

    One brief comment on the SPR – when Cortes arrived in the new world, he set fire to his ships, to motivate his men. There was no turning back. Burning the SPR is the same thing.

    Oil was great at one time, but today there are better solutions. The majority of our plastics come from natural gas, not oil (over 70%). I’m all for nuclear.

    As to why today, why right now: I say let’s turn the middle east into a worthless lump of sand, just by changing our energy policy. Let’s ensure our own economic stability by producing all of our power domestically.

    Why not now? It has to be done eventually. Would you rather your grandchildren do the job you were afraid to do yourself? What happened to the country that put men on the moon? We know it can be done, and that it has to be done, so let’s lead the world again and do it.

  • aaronbg

    …some estimate that it will be 5-10 years until any new drilling reaches peak production so as you said below to another poster…be intellectually honest. As far as why new drilling is different that using the SPR I would say that the oil in the SPR is already calculated into the cost of oil whereas the oil that is untapped in the ground is not. If we were able to increase the supply by drilling we could lower our energy costs which would stave off the economic perils which we currently face, the people need energy and right now there are only a few realistic options, those being oil/natural gas and nuclear. Hydro-electric and wind/solar do not produce enough net energy to sustain our needs and their are no great leaps on the horizon that will change that. You can wish all you want but at some point you must deal with reality.

  • MarkButter

    Hello pneuma,

    I think you’ll find debate here to be good. Since you referenced the LA skyline, I assume your in the neighborhood.

    I have visited the Odyssey restuarant since 1989. Back then, you couldn’t even see the SM hills lookinig south. I was just there Monday and again am amazed at the view. My point: We didn’t get here from 1989 overnite. It was a process. We have to supplement while we transition rather than we have to live with high prices of oil and high prices of other alternatives only to find out once the investment is made that they are not as “profitable” as we were led to believe….because they’re not going to be.

    If anything, I think the run up of the last several months in gas prices have convinced people that it’s here to stay, can’t go anywhere but up (with occassionaly slight decreases along the way). People are willing to make some sacrifice, but nobody is going to pay these kind of prices only to find out that the alternative is 90% of what we are paying today. People don’t “pay” for air, so unless it’s Bejing quality air, that’s far down the list of reasons for the vast majority.

  • Vladimir

    Wikipedia:

    The current inventory is displayed on the SPR’s website. As of July 15, 2008, the current inventory was 706.2 million barrels (112,280,000 m?). At current market prices ($145 a barrel) the SPR holds over $38.7 billion in sweet crude and approximately $50.9 billion in sour crude (assuming a $15/barrel discount for sulphur content). The total value of the crude in the SPR is approximately $89.6 billion USD. This equates to 33 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 21 million barrels a day.

    Of course, no one contemplates using the SPR exclusively.

  • mbauer

    So why doesn’t every car just trap the carbon it releases now instead of letting to be released into the atmosphere?
    Can you imagine how big a tank (or high pressure a tank) a car would have to carry to hold in all this vapor product.

    -closed system, yes. But as a gas in the atmosphere water will do a much better job holding heat in this system than as a liquid in the oceans/lakes. If every car doesn’t drive around holding a tank of its byproduct on board (and every other system with an engine) how are we going to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.

    If your argument actually held, we could just trap all the Carbon Dioxide cars produce now by some 4th grade magic.

  • pneuma

    If it has, then feel free to suck on your tailpipe. I’ll do the same on a hydrogen car, and we can see how long we last.

    I really don’t understand the resistance from the right. Admittedly, there have been several duck squeezer environmentalists that have been really obnoxious, so I can see why you don’t like them. But don’t through the baby out with the bathwater. Clean air and water are good things, that we would all like to have. We just don’t need to burn this stuff anymore. It won’t cost us money, it will save us money. Where is the downside here?

  • aaronbg

    ….how did that work out for the Aztecs….yeah well the American people are the Aztecs in this metaphor.

  • Moe_Lane

    Pretty straightforward, I think.

    By the way, thread-jacking ends now. You want a discussion of alternate fuels, feel free to write a diary entry on the topic. This is a thread about how we’re going to use the Democrats’ own energy policy cowardice against them.

    Understand?

    No?

    Well, do it anyway.

    Moe Lane

  • stang

    The premises you base your argument on here are faulty.

    1. “This is the free market we are talking about here.”

    This so called free market is grossly distorted by Congressional mandates restricting the development of new energy production. And then there’s OPEC. If you believe that the freemarket shouldn’t be messed with then you should be supporting the lifting of the restrictions on drilling and nuclear.

    1. “The truth is that there isn’t much we can do”

    There is a lot we can do. First and foremost is to end government interference in the functioning of this market ie restrictions on new oil production, nuclear, wind solar, etc. As things currently exist, the government has put itself in the postion of picking the winners and losers by political fiat, not the functioning of markets. Ethanol subsidies ring a bell? Allow the market to function freely.

    1. “unless we fully commit to weaning ourselves off of oil.”

    If you have faith in markets as you say, then that will happen as economically viable alternatives become available.

    What we are witnessing with regard to energy prices are the effects of the left in this country trying to manipulate the energy market to provide what they consider to be the most desirable outcome, which is state control of one of the most crucial elements of our economy. When they fail to acheive the desired outcome, they blame the markets and then claim that further government control is required. Antithetical to the function of free markets, don’t you think?

  • Achance

    it will take five or more years. Of course, it is safe for them to agree because they’re the ones who will tie any drilling up in litigation for five or ten years. The whole North Slope field and the TransAlaska Pipeline were developed in less than five years of ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION time, the rest of the decade that it took was consumed in litigation and redesign as the result of litigation.

  • aaronbg

    …this may be a tiny threadjack but it is always nice to have the oil/alt fuels discussion and the original post was partially about that subject. This subject gives us the opportunity to show why the dems are wrong and why the Republicans should hold the line. We are merely educating pneuma on the subject matter and why the Republicans have taken a principled stand.

    But if you are really closing it down I will respect your decision.

  • mbauer

    Just saw your comment Moe

  • Moe_Lane

    Look, I know that a lot of our readers love having debates on alternative energy and global warming, which is why we typically don’t heavy-hand them… in user diaries, or when the topic is specifically about either one in a front-pager. But here it’s a distraction from the main point, which is Here’s some things that the GOP is doing to make the Democrats’ lives miserable! Huzzah!

    Besides, I told him that he could write a diary. That’s actually a concession from us, given that he’s a liberal and everything. :)

  • Mord

    I for one will not allow my govornment to “burn my ships”! What arrogance, are you crazy?

  • aaronbg

    …not to me of course, but to pnuema…;^)

    I will quit now…it seems pnuema met his/her match and left of his/her own accord anyhow.

  • Haley37

    Remember a few weeks ago when McConnell said the Senate GOP would hold up any business until 3 Circuit Court nominees were confirmed?

    Anybody? Anybody?

    No circuit court nominees were confirmed but Reid and company did confirm 3 District Court nominees (one a Democrat) and nothing else was done as long-stalled nominees await their confirmation votes.

    The GOP will fold on the issue of oil drilling just like they fold on everything else.

    You watch.

    Hey Senator McConnell, how about those 3 Circuit Court Judges you promised? Sir, your words mean zero to me.

  • pneuma

    But I will have to limit my comments – we have a healthy debate going on, but my side is kinda outnumbered. :)

  • pneuma

    So much for the strategic aspect. Sheesh.

  • pneuma

    …I’ll defer to you on this one. So less than 5 years then, say 3. That better?

  • pneuma

    Please accept my apologies Moe. I did not mean to thread highjack. I’ll stop posting in the diary unless it is on topic.

  • Moe_Lane

    …will attract the AGW people – pro and con – like apple blossoms attract bees.

  • rj1913

    So, hold the Senate hostage until the Dems agree to hand Big Oil their every whim? It might be a good plan considering the majority of people want to think it will relieve their burden at the pump. Of course, as Bush and McCain have both conceded, it’s just a sugar pill and will do nothing to give any realistic relief. Common sense says that as well. It will likely work considering the Dems don’t have a hair on their ass and governing isn’t exactly their cup of tea. The sad thing is, once again, the Rep’s contributers will win big time while the Americans people get nothing but a lie. You would think that this administration would find a happy medium. They’re certainly testing it for all it’s worth. We’ll see how it comes out in November. If they can pull it off, no problem. People are such forgetful creatures.