Climate

Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More.”

gingrich-drill.gifThis is eco-Gingrich’s new energy strategy for America. Seriously. So much for Andy Revkin’s claim that Gingrich is part of a “move to the pragmatic center on climate and energy.”

Okay, the slogan is slightly different (see here). But I changed it so it would be factually accurate. After all, the Administration’s own Energy Information Administration explained in 2004 how ineffectual this strategy is. In a 2004 Congressional-requested “Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR“:

It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oilprices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025].

Don’t spend it all in one place, American public! [Note to Gingrich: There are 42 gallons in a barrel.] EIA continues:

Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount.

Curses, foiled again!

But how is drilling for more oil — and exploiting shale oil and opposing the Warner-Lieberman climate Bil, both of which are part of Gingrich’s video message — and releasing more greenhouse gases part of “”entrepreneurial environmentalism,” or a call to conservatives to “embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt”? You’ll have to ask Andy Revkin, E. O. Wilson, and the rest of the people suckered by Newt’s spin (see below).

Prices are going much higher (see links below), especially by the end of the next decade — unless we act quickly to embrace fuel efficiency and plug in hybrids. If drilling is your strategy for solving the problem, then you are guaranteeing much, much higher prices for the American public.

Shame on Gingrich for trying to fool people into believing he was anything but an old-style conservative. Shame on the media for being duped once again.

Related posts:

31 Responses to Eco-Gingrich says, “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay More.”

  1. Ben says:

    Stop shilling exclusively for plug in hybrids. People need to drive less, that is what you should promote.

  2. Chester says:

    Hmm .. back of the envelope. At .50 per barrel, ANWR production works out to a little more than a penny a gallon saved! That’s twelve cents every time I fill up my tank! ‘Course, it could be less, but I’m an optimistic kind of guy.

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Chester — It’ll be more, because the US dollar will continue to depreciate.

    Doesn’t that make you happy. :-)

  4. Michael Clarey says:

    Nothing is certain except when supply increases typically price decreases … it is the law of supply and demand. I wonder how anyone can say we will only save one cent per gallon of gas if we dirill for oil in ANWR. The subject is not just drilling for oil in ANWR but other places as well. Yes we can conserve oil and need to do more in that regard but we should not hamstring our oil industry by penalizing the U.S. with too much regulation as we are doing today. There has to be a realistic balance that is not there today. We should have started 20 years ago.

  5. Jay Alt says:

    I’ve followed some Gingrich ideas since his climate debate with Kerry and the surprising comment that he regarded climate change as an issue requiring ‘urgent’ attention.

    But unfortunately the only thing Gingrich views as urgent about climate change is the fact that the GOP is getting failing marks. His ‘remedy’ for AGW and many environmental problems is to rapidly deploy new rhetoric and support nearly identical policies.

    His concern with global warming doesn’t stem from grave threats to the planet, it’s a more fundamentally troubling idea to him – losing elections.

  6. Bob Wallace says:

    “Stop shilling exclusively for plug in hybrids. People need to drive less, that is what you should promote.”

    People need to drive less right now. That would keep gas prices from climbing so high that people who really need to drive get badly hurt. And we will all get hurt as the price of fuel drives up the price of goods.

    But in the longer term people can drive a lot. We just need to get off petroleum and onto renewables.

    Do the math and see how little capital it would take to buy a lifetime fuel supply for a Tesla using $5 a watt solar. Then do the math again using $0.05 kWh solar and wind.

    We’ve got a transportation speed bump, not a cliff.

  7. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hello Bob!

    There are about 15 trillion barrels equivalents of unconvential oil out there excluding coal to liquid hydocarbons. Exxon and Marathon were about to bring heavy crude oil from the Orinico Basin into production when Chavez got greedy and wanted 50% of the action essentially for free. E & M walked away and are suing him for about 15 billion to recover their investment in the basin which might have about 1 trillion barrels of heavy crude oil.

    Shell R&D has pilot projects in northwestern Colorado to recover oil from oil shale using in situ resistive heating. Oil will flow water when this process goes into full scale production. Only one little snag: several nuclear plants would be required to provide the energy for this process.

  8. Robert says:

    Harold Pierce Jr

    “There are about 15 trillion barrels equivalents of unconvential oil out there…”

    Is that supposed to make us feel happy? If (hypothetically) we suddenly discovered 1000 trillion barrels of light sweet crude would that be good news or bad news? (hint – try “bad news”)

    Like it or not, fossil fuel dependency has to stop somewhere, either due to depletion, climate change or both. The sooner we start the transition the better.

  9. Bob Wallace says:

    “There are about 15 trillion barrels equivalents of unconvential oil out there excluding coal to liquid hydocarbons.”

    Yes, but those aren’t “cheap” barrels. They won’t give us $1 per gallon prices at the pump.

    We’re headed away from petroleum for our personal transportation. It just makes sense in so many ways.

    1. It’s less expensive to power with renewables than with oil.

    2. We can create/harvest that power within the US and not ship vast amounts of our wealth to other countries.

    3. We can safely reduce the size of our military as we won’t have to protect Saudia Arabia and other oil producers. (Who aren’t really our friends, are they?)

    4. We can vastly reduce our greenhouse emissions.

    5. We can vastly reduce our airborne pollutants problem and reduce our health/health insurance costs.

    Now, again, do the math.

    I did. I took the range (245 miles) and power requirements of a Tesla and calculated how many solar panels I would need to power my weekly driving.

    (I assume that we soon will have mass produced, more affordable BEVs. The Tesla is a low volume production car and the price is additionally jacked up as most stuff offered to early adapters is.)

    I would need 1.2 kW of panels to power my ride for the rest of my life. At $5 per watt that’s a grand total of $6,000. Over a 20 year period (conservative panel life estimate) I would be spending $25 dollars per month. As opposed to a couple hundred per month now. And rising.

    And $5 per watt is where solar prices will peak. Prices are falling.

  10. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hello Bob!

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: What fuel are you going use for the heavy hitters: boats, planes, trains, trucks, heavy machinery used in forestry, minining, agriculture, road construction, etc, all military vehicles,
    cars with spirit and muscle, cement production, metal smelting. production of all ceramics (glass, brick and block, china, toilets, etc), grain drying, food production, production of booze, etc, etc, etc…

    When the Iraq war is over, the price of oil will plummet as Iraqi oil production goes beyond pre-war levels. Recent estimates put Iraqi oil reserves at about 200 billlion barrels.

    Forget about those tuna cans with electric motors. Young men want hot cars to attract even hotter women!

    You want cheap fuel for diesels? Use nat gas for Wesport-Cummins engines.

  11. Robert says:

    Harold P – so what’s your plan when all the fossil fuel is used up?

  12. Robert says:

    Bob – I hadn’t heard of the Tesla before. 0-60 in 3.9 seconds should leave just about every other car in its dust.

    http://www.teslamotors.com/

  13. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Robert:

    You give this organic chemist earth, air, fire, and water, and I will make
    you all the high octane gasoline you want. I can take limestone and turn into gasoline quite easily! You really want to know how I can do this?

  14. David B. Benson says:

    Harold Pierce Jr — Just don’t inquire about the price. :-)

  15. Chester says:

    “Forget about those tuna cans with electric motors. Young men want hot cars to attract even hotter women!”

    This is a joke, right?

  16. Robert says:

    Harold Pierce Jr — Just don’t inquire about how long it will take (the last batch took circa 100 million years).

  17. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Nope! When I was a young man about 50 years ago, the hot car was a ’57 Chevy, 4DR, HT, with a V-8 and dual exhausts! In the summertime , when the living was easy, you and best buddy would hop in the Chevy, cruise down to the Steak ‘N’ Shake, pick up a couple of babes and then cruise on out to the drive in. Don’t you remember?

  18. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Hello Robert!

    Take any organic matter, carbonize it, and use this carbon as feedstock for the same type of gas-to-liquid hydrocarbons reactors that are in common use today especially in South Africa. Google “SASOL.”
    Presently coal is used as feedstock for these reactors.

  19. Mike Monett says:

    The thing I hate most about sprawl is how it duplicated what already existed in my city. Now my city is a ghost town and I have to go out 12 miles from where I live to shop and work.
    The good news for me about high energy costs is that it will be more expensive to wastefully duplicate then abandon what is already built like this. (I don’t think hybrid technology can do much to lessen energy costs for bulldozers and cranes, the things sprawl is built with.)
    I agree that the driving costs of sprawl could easily be much less than they are now, more than making up for huge gas price increases.
    But another thing so unfair about sprawl in America is that its the only game in town. Except in about four or five cities, it is not really possible to live car-free, yet this is supposedly the land of choice and opportunity. We subside road building with gas taxes but think of paying for buses or trains as socialism. If energy costs make us FINALLY start examining sprawl critically, that’s the big plus. We can continue to have sprawl for those that love it. But perhaps we can finally pay attention to how many people are hurt because sprawl is all we have anymore, and many of us do not want to live and work and shop in it.

  20. scott mitchel says:

    dill know to help bring down prices

  21. x says:

    Do it all and do it now. Drill. Conserve. Shale. Wind. Solar. Higher CAFE standards (and raise the equivalent standards on dish washers, washing machines, etc). Convert the farm bill from providing farmers short term assistant to helping them add wind to their fields and facilities to convert farm waste into energy, providing them a second source of income for years to come. Replace income/capital gains taxes with taxes on oil, coal, virgin wood, fertilizers, tobacco, etc. It would encourage people to use less of these items and raise the economic viability of alternatives. Additionally, it would make illegals and drug lords pay taxes since taxes would be on consumption instead of production.

  22. Saw the list of representatives who are for drilling. Only one was democrat. This is pathetic. Are the dems just puppets of their party or just palin stupid

  23. terry says:

    After reading this article and the associated posts, I wish to add the following: I don’t care id drilling in ANWR, off the Florida coast, the oil shale reserves or in the middle of New York City will lower the cost of a barrell of oil or not. As long as it makes us less dependent on foreign oil, I am satisfied. Liebrals are responsible for the mess we’re in now. by the environmentalist successfully shutting down any new US Oil production, they have made us deoendent on foreign oil. They have hurt our economy. In addition, one GREAT answer is to build standardized Nuclear power plants similar to France and soon to be nuclear powered Norwegians. But the Anti-Nuke assholes have scared all of us into believing that by doing so we will blow ourselves up. Not to mention the by product of nuclear power plants is a way to produce Hydrogen for hydrogen powere vehicles economically.

    And why are we worried about the ANWR province anyway. I don;t know ANYONE who has it as their “100 places to see before I Die list”

    Now, the conservatives are just plain stupid to allow the evil liberals (by the way, liberals aren’t purposely evil, but their feel good campaigns just lead to evil results ala “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” philosophy) to accomplish such restirctions at the cost of American sovereignity.

    Wake up folks, America needs to be self dependent.

    On a side not, check out 545people.com and work to get rid of all career politicians.

  24. Earl Killian says:

    Terry wants more drilling to make us less dependent on foreign oil, but U.S. drilling won’t do that. Oil is a global commodity. Even if the U.S. produced more crude oil than it uses, the price of U.S. crude would remain linked to the world price. Thus off-shore oil affects gasoline prices by affecting the world price of crude. This remains true in a supply disruption. If mid-east oil were to stop flowing, the world price would rise dramatically, and the fact that we have some of this off-shore would not insulate us from that price rise. The only way to isolate ourselves from foreign oil is to use less than we produce and prohibit import and export. The only prospect for producing more than we use is switch from petroleum to an inherently American fuel: electricity. When you power your vehicle with American electrons (e.g. from local wind energy), you become insulated from events around the globe.

  25. Howard says:

    America’s infrastructure is based on oil. All the trucks, planes, trains, ships, that deliver all goods to market run on oil. All automobiles, as well as all the gas stations across America run on oil. All petroleum based products, run on oil. Although alternative fuels most definitely should be developed, in the mean time America must have oil to keep our economy from screeching to a halt. In addition, our national security requires energy independence ASAP, so that we are not transferring all our wealth to foreign countries who do not like us, and who can cripple us by turning off the spigot, disrupting oil transport to us, or arbitrary oil price hikes. These are all reasons why we must be drilling for more oil right now and right here in the U.S.A. … ASAP. Nancy Pelosi and her cronies stubborn commitment to petty party politics, instead of realistic concern over our national interest, even in the face of 76% of Americans who want off shore drilling now, will end up in bringing America to its knees.

  26. Jason says:

    Excuse me while I step on a hornets nest.

    Climate change claims are hogwash.

    Climate change has happened since the beginning of time. I live in Michigan and 10000 years ago or so there was a glacier where I sit. The glacier retreated long before I fired up my first snowmobile.

    Climate change arguers call for government to HALT the activities which cause climate change. To do so, government must release from you those liberties guaranteed through what is referred to as the Constitution.”

    Typically that is what happens with central planning, central government, Communism.

    The debate is HARDLY over.

  27. Mark says:

    Jason,
    Your argument is a classic one from the nay-sayer camp that holds no water. Of course climate has changed since the dawn of time. That is not the point of the warnings that you are hearing of from conclusions of the IPCC and elsewhere.

    The point is that the RATE of change in global pCO2 and temperature is something this planet has not experienced and the absolute numbers in the short term (and by short, I’m speaking from a geological perspective still..several 100 thousand years) are out of whack with the historical change that you speak of. As an example, global CO2 has risen and fallen for the past 400,000 yrs that moves in lock-step with cycles of ice ages (between roughly 190 and 280 ppm CO2). We are now sitting at 380 ppm CO2 and the crazy pace in its rise fits right in line with the release of fossil fuels beginning with the industrial revolution.

    Take some time to read what many many reputable scientists are saying and finding and get to know how science really works. I think you will find that once you really educate yourself, you will see that you have been hoodwinked by the oil, gas and coal industry who do not want to change their ways.

  28. Joseph Pelgrin says:

    You are all a bunch of IDIOTS. You don’t understand how just suddenly shifting our economy from an oil based economy to alternatives that are not completely developed or don’t even exist will DESTROY our economy.
    [snip]
    I guess a socialist or communist government would be best for you because they can dictate what we eat, drink and drive as well as where we work and what we say. I guess you fail to realize that this blog would be shut down and you would be arrested for speaking your mind….. I kind of like the idea of shutting you up. Viva la Chavez!!!
    Common sense is a real kick in the pants, huh?
    [JR: You get the flavor of this ad hominem, uninformed comment that rails against policies this blog does not even promote.]

  29. Robert Singer says:

    The most apt precedent for the rapid energy-price increases Americans are feeling today was the Arab oil embargo of 1973. What happened, mass transit, renewable energy, cars that get 50+ mpg, NOPE we got the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In 2008 the solution is give up the ANWR, our last great Arctic wilderness. It is no coincidence, read the article on OpEdnews.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Give-Us-the-ANWAR-and-Kee-by-Robert-Singer-080914-244.html

  30. Greg says:

    At first I thought this was a website about real issues. I was wrong. You do realize as we drive less, foreigh countries will produce less? This will keep the prices high. Only by drilling now AND finding alternatives can we reduce our dependancy on foreign oil. Allowing drilling on OUR LAND, will reduce prices immediately, even thouhg it will take a few years to get oil out.

  31. Mike Dolbow says:

    I have a great domain name http://www.drill4more.com that I am selling off in order to fund a solar project of mine.

    This site domain name could be used for oil companies to promote more off shore US drilling or it could go to political groups trying to stop it.

    A powerful, straight forward, engine search key domain wording, makes this little gem of a domain name very valuable to the first to get it.

    Do you have the winning offer to get this name?

    Make an offer today and keep your competition from using it!!