Goodwill hunting offshore By Joe Romm on April 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm 0Share This 0Tweet This Share this: "Goodwill hunting offshore" Share: Another doubly cynical cartoon, courtesy of Matson for Roll Call: Related Post: Cartoon roundup on drilling announcement Close Like Climate Progress on Facebook Don't show this to me again ‹ PREVIOUS Cuccinelli’s Climate Denier Lawsuits Could Junk Auto Industry’s Recovery NEXT › The war against carbon starts now 11 Responses to Goodwill hunting offshore Richard Brenne says: April 5, 2010 at 4:27 pm One historian friend of mine feels the term “Drill, Baby, Drill” caught on because of the perception of many that a presidential ticket included the first drillable candidate. I never saw McCain in exactly that light, but to each their own. . . Bob Wallace says: April 5, 2010 at 5:11 pm If I could draw I’d draw a cartoon of Obama standing in front of a chess board. Held behind his back would be a piece of paper (written by a left-hander) on which we could see: #1 Sacrifice a pawn. (Obscured by the fold.) #7 Sign climate bill. Checkmate. max says: April 5, 2010 at 5:46 pm I too am unhappy with the offshore drilling compromise, but I also think if it helps get a (good) climate bill signed perhaps it will have been worth it. Maybe these gyrations wouldn’t be necessary if there were filibuster reform and 60 votes weren’t required to do anything. It does make the Republicans look progressively worse since it forces them to be against things they were previously for. Bob Wallace says: April 5, 2010 at 6:14 pm Or those of us who are really concerned about the planet could get busy and see that there are 61 pro-environment senators next January…. cougar_w says: April 5, 2010 at 6:52 pm O approved the drilling at least because he wants to deprive Palin of a soap box. He’ll open up the CA and larger west coast to “exploration” by the end of summer to further shut her pie hole. End-game politics. Of course that oil once extracted goes straight on the open market. An act of treason, essentially. Best if it all went into the Strategic Reserve but at this point it’s really become a minor detail. The die is cast, the oil is coming out. American’s will see nary a drop, we’ll still send money to arm the terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and we’ll all inherit the carbon emissions down the line. So dumb. So typical. Leif says: April 5, 2010 at 8:27 pm cougar_w, #5: “Best if it all went into the Strategic Reserve ” What is a Strategic Reserve but a hole in the ground that is within our boarders that we fill with oil. Just how is that different than where it currently is? GFW says: April 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm The “new” offshore oil will probably not make it to market. It’s 20 years from serious development, and in 20 years we’re all going to be on a serious anti-carbon kick. (Because by then the melting curves of Greenland and Antarctica as measured by GRACE will be 25+ years long, and scary. David Miller says: April 6, 2010 at 12:12 am By the time any of this oil comes online we’ll pretty much have been forced by high prices to have moved to some other form of energy for transportation. The carbon equation really comes down to a way to get rid of coal for electricity. For all practical purposes we’re already committed to burning the second trillion barrels of oil by virtue of the fact that we only have a 30 year supply (at current rates) and that it’ll take us that long to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure. Burning that oil will obviously add more CO2 to the atmosphere, but it’s trying to make up for it with tar-sands and coal generated electricity that will put us over the edge climate wise. The thing that terrifies me the most is the idea of in-situ tar-sand/shale processing where some amount of the resource is burned in place to get the rest hot enough to flow out. If you don’t have to recover the barrel of tar before burning it to recover half a barrel then we’re just looking at the economics of the process and we won’t be saved by the energy equation of burning two barrels of “oil” to recover one. Or three, or five… john atcheson says: April 6, 2010 at 12:05 pm #2 Bob, the trouble with your logic is that if the bill he signs doesn’t cut enough carbon and cut it fast, then it won’t matter — we’ve got at the outside, 5 years before irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet. A bill that doesn’t drastically cut oil is useless. And yes, I know the offshore oil won’t come on-line for 10 to 20 years, but it’s another example of preemptive capitulation that leaves Republican arguments intact. This issue needs leadership — we have to take on their arguments and lead the nation to meaningful action, not pass meaningless bills and pretend they are victories. john atcheson says: April 6, 2010 at 12:13 pm Just to be clear, in the comment above, I did not mean to imply that Greenland would melt in 5 years … I should have said: “…we’ve got at the outside, 5 years before irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irrevocable.” Bob Wallace says: April 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm Not sure what “my logic” is. My guess is that Obama opened up drilling off of the Virginia coast, not to promote oil extraction, but to defuse one of the weapons which ‘big carbon’ would have used to block an effective energy bill. I don’t know how many years we have. I figure that there’s a (very) small chance that we’ve already passed a non-reversible tipping point. And I accept there’s a (very, very) small chance that the climate scientists are wrong. (That last part, it’s the scientist in me. Most of us tend not to talk about “always” and “never” and rarely assign 0% or 100% to a prediction.) Not knowing how many years we might have,recognizing how bad things could get, and recognizing that getting off fossil fuels would be in our economic, health and security interests I think that we’re foolish to not move as quickly as possible to do so. But there are real and powerful interests who are fighting the transition. I see them as mostly people who are making money from fossil fuels and care more for their incomes than anything else. They will put up a significant battle. I don’t think we’ll solve our problems with one single bill. The first one will likely be the most important as it will be the turning point where we take the power from the fossil fuel industry. Battles after that one should be less difficult. Just look at the newly signed health care legislation. Not at all perfect, may give us some federal cost headaches down the road if the ‘exchange’ doesn’t work to adequately lower premium costs and we have to use a lot of tax dollars for subsidies for those who hit the 9.5% cap. But. But we broke the stranglehold of the insurance industry with that bill. It’s a great start. Same will likely be true of the first climate bill. It will probably do a lot of good things, but it won’t be perfect.