Conservatives Blame CAFE Standards For Auto Industry’s Troubles
Conservatives Blame CAFE Standards For Auto Industry’s Troubles
As the CEOs of Detroit’s Big Three automakers pleaded for a $25 billion bailout from Congress this week, conservatives have been looking for an easy culprit to blame for the auto industry’s seeming collapse. First it was the unions. Now conservatives have turned their attention to the modest fuel economy (CAFE) standards — fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — imposed in last year’s Energy Independence and Security Act. Last night on Fox News, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney echoed other conservatives in pointing the finger at the fuel economy changes:
– MITT ROMNEY: Well, government did [cause a lot of this]. There’s no question but that the CAFE standards have put an unusual burden on the domestic automobile manufacturers. And our energy policies as a country continue to put burdens on domestic manufacturers. That’s just — that’s reality. [11/19/08]
– WILLIAM KRISTOL: Well, one problem with the auto industry is we have been telling them how to operate an awful lot, you know, in terms of CAFE standards and other things, probably which should not have been most — may have been the most — not the most intelligent way to help that industry. [11/16/08]
– SEAN HANNITY: They [the government] — you know, between the unions, between trade policy, safety standards, CAFE standards, you know, economy, fuel economy standards, they’re forcing these auto companies to be in a position where they’re not as competitive. [11/14/08]
Watch it:
Last year’s stonewalling attempts by the auto industry notwithstanding, improving fuel economy is not difficult for the Big Three. As the Sierra Club explained in 2006, “The technology exists today to make all new vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within ten years.” A 2002 report by the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems of the National Research Council found that technologies existed then that “would significantly reduce fuel consumption within 15 years” — technologies that manufacturers were “already offering or introducing” in overseas markets.
What’s more, those existing technologies would hardly bankrupt the auto industry. NPR reported that technologies to raise fuel-efficiency “to around 33 mpg across the fleet pay for themselves within three to four years.” Indeed, Tom Cole of the Center for Automotive Research, said that with only about $1,000 worth of changes, “a conventional, gas-powered car could go 25 percent farther on a single gallon of gas.” The Union of Concerned Scientists designed its own highly efficient SUV comparable to the Ford Explorer that doubled its fuel economy (from 17 mpg to 30 mpg). The lifetime fuel savings paid back the additional technology cost of $2,560 in less than three years.
The auto industry’s problems have far more to do with the lack of universal health care in America than they do with fuel economy requirements. For General Motors, health care costs add $1,525 to the price of every car that leaves the lot; the company estimates that it spent $5.2 billion on health care benefits in 2004, more than it paid for steel.
- Comments
- 72
Waxman defeats Dingell to win chairmanship of House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Waxman defeats Dingell to win chairmanship of House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) will replace Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over global warming legislation. Waxman beat Dingell, currently the longest-serving member of the House, in a secret ballot vote of the Democratic caucus by 137-122. Yesterday, the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee also voted 25-22 in favor of Waxman.
The pollution industry strongly backed Dingell, who often blocked environmental reforms, and fear-mongered that Waxman’s chairmanship would be “scary.”
EPA review panel blocks construction of new coal-fired power plant.
EPA review panel blocks construction of new coal-fired power plant.
The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson reports that the EPA’s final decision-making board has ruled that a proposed coal-fired power plant in Utah must have its carbon dioxide emissions regulated. The decision overturns an earlier decision by the EPA to grant a permit without considering its effects on global warming. The ruling will likely impact other coal plant permit cases as well. The 69-page decision described the Bush administration’s arguments opposing CO2 regulation as “weak,” “questionable,” “not sustainable,” and “not sufficient.”
Romney: McCain’s Cap And Trade Plan Would ‘Just Kill Jobs’ In The U.S.
Romney: McCain’s Cap And Trade Plan Would ‘Just Kill Jobs’ In The U.S.
Today, the right wing — enthusiastically joined by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) — attacked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for advocating in a January interview a cap and trade plan that would mandate new coal plants to be built with carbon capture technology. McCain said he wanted to control emissions, but insisted, “I’m not going to let our coal industry go bankrupt.” Palin said Obama has been “talking about bankrupting the coal industry,” and pledged, “John McCain and I, we will not let that happen to the coal industry.”
Now former governor Mitt Romney is using McCain’s attacks against Obama to attack McCain himself. On Glenn Beck’s radio show today, he denounced McCain’s cap and trade program, saying it would “kill jobs” in the U.S. and that he would “endeavor to convince” McCain to change his plans:
BECK: How would you address the cap and trade on the day when everyone’s paying attention to coal?
ROMNEY: Well as you know, there were a number of places in the primary campaign where I disagreed with John McCain, and his cap and trade proposal was one of them. … If you want to negotiate with someone and you feel it’s important to bring down global CO2 emissions then China has to be part of the picture. And if we go out there and put a burden on our own industry and they don’t put a burden on theirs, why you’ll just kill jobs here.
Listen here:
Both McCain and Obama support the development of carbon sequestration technologies; in fact, in the same interview conservatives are now hyperventilating over, Obama said, “This idea of no coal, I think, is an illusion.” What’s more, a green energy-based economy built through an aggressive cap-and-trade program would create millions of jobs and generate billions of dollars for investment into clean energy, as John McCain himself noted just six months ago:
As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. … A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy.
It can’t be a good sign for McCain that one of his top surrogates has turned McCain’s own campaign lines back against him — on the day before the election, no less.
Palin Touts ‘Flawed’ Pipeline Process As ‘Free Market Competition’
Palin Touts ‘Flawed’ Pipeline Process As ‘Free Market Competition’
This morning, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) delivered her second policy speech of the entire campaign, on energy — a fitting topic, considering Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) considers her to be America’s foremost energy expert. Along with praising coal and expanded drilling, Palin touted her own experience in achieving “progress” on a natural gas pipeline in Alaska, claiming she “introduced” “free-market competition” to Big Oil:
[Oil companies] should have been competing to invest in a new means of delivering their product to market. They should have been competing for the right to tap into the hungry markets, flowing our resources into those hungry markets, and instead they wanted a higher and higher price than any fair competition would yield. So they wouldn’t build the line. […]
So we introduced, when I got elected, we introduced the big oil companies and their lobbyists to a concept of something that evidently they had forgotten, and that’s free-market competition. They had a monopoly previously on power and resources, and we broke it.
Watch it:
Hardly using a free market approach, Palin’s “flawed bidding process” actually “narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration,” according to an AP investigation:
Despite Palin’s boast of a smart and fair bidding process, the AP found that her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited the winner, TransCanada Corp. […]
– Instead of creating a process that would attract many potential builders, Palin slanted the terms away from an important group — the global energy giants that own the rights to the gas. […]
– Under a different set of rules four years earlier, TransCanada had offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy; under Palin, the company could receive a maximum $500 million.
“Most definitely TransCanada got a sweetheart deal this time,” Republican state senator Bert Stedman said.
Throughout the campaign, Palin and McCain have boasted that Palin “was responsible for…a pipeline, the $40 billion pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska down to the lower 48.” Neither seems to care that the pipeline “exists only on paper;” construction on the first section has not even begun. In fact, despite the $500 million award, TransCanada is not even obligated to build the pipeline.
Transcript: More »
‘Energy Expert’ Palin Can’t Name Any Man-Made Causes Of Global Warming
‘Energy Expert’ Palin Can’t Name Any Man-Made Causes Of Global Warming
Shortly after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) chose Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) as his running mate, Palin said she is not one to attribute global warming to being man-made. Since then, she has walked that statement back slightly, saying that indeed, man’s activities have contributed to climate change but adding the caveat that “weather patterns are cyclical.”
When asked to name some specific man-made causes of global warming yesterday during an interview with a local NBC affiliate in Las Vegas, Palin couldn’t name one, and instead reverted back to her new talking point that it doesn’t really matter:
Q: I’ve also heard you hint that you do think there might be some man-made causes that are contributing to this. Can you describe what those are?
PALIN: Right, well what I have said about this is really the debate at some point, had better shift to, no matter the cause, whether it all be attributed to man’s activities or just the natural cycle of climate changes in our earth’s history. We have seen this before.
Watch it:
Seeing that conservatives are touting Palin as an “energy expert,” and McCain has said that she “knows more about energy than probably anyone else” in the country, Palin could have — at the very least — cited increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Of course, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is made-made and that the main contributing factor is the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, not only has Palin encouraged energy policies that focus on increased fossil fuel consumption, but the AP reported this week that “[f]aced with choosing between development and the environment” as governor of Alaska, she “has sided more often than not with business interests”:
She started a committee to address global warming. But with oil companies contributing the largest percentage of the state’s greenhouse gases, her committee set no goal for reducing emissions. Unlike other states, Alaska’s climate change priority is focused on ways to adapt to warmer temperatures.
Regardless, Palin’s cluelessness on global warming is perhaps what led Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) to observe that “[i]f you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution.”
Transcript: More »
League Of Conservation Voters Gives McCain ‘0 Percent’ Environmental Rating
League Of Conservation Voters Gives McCain ‘0 Percent’ Environmental Rating
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has repeatedly boasted about his record on the environment and energy issues. His website touts McCain’s “longstanding commitment to conserving America’s natural resources and promoting environmental stewardship,” for example.
Today, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) released its 2008 National Environmental Scorecard — giving McCain a 0 percent rating. The scorecard ranks members of Congress on 11 key votes based on “the consensus of experts from about 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations.” McCain received a “0″ because he missed every one of those votes:
McCain’s environmental record isn’t so poor just because he’s been absent. His lifetime LCV rating is 24 percent, with his highest rating at only 56 percent in 2003-2004. McCain has voted against tax incentives for renewable energy, updating building code standards for energy efficiency, and modernization of the electricity grid. Furthermore, he does not support any increases in fuel efficiency above existing law.
McCain curiously said in August, “I have not missed any crucial vote” on energy legislation.
Palin Opposed Plan To Bring Alaska’s Natural Gas To The Lower 48 States
Palin Opposed Plan To Bring Alaska’s Natural Gas To The Lower 48 States
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) often claims that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is the country’s top energy expert, citing her work sharing Alaska’s energy wealth with the rest of the country. For example, McCain said she was responsible for “the $40 billion pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska down to the lower 48.” (However, “the pipeline exists only on paper.”) Similarly, Palin has claimed that her state produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy. (This is a lie.)
Actually, last year, Palin opposed a plan to bring Alaska’s natural gas to the lower 48 states. This past summer, the Department of Energy issued an order allowing ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil to to export 98.1 billion cubic feet of Alaskan natural gas — roughly the amount of natural gas used by 1.4 million families — to Asia. This had been the practice since 1969, since there were few alternatives to exporting.
However, as Time reports, “since this past May, some of Alaska’s gas could have wound up in domestic hands.” Sempra Energy opened the first Liquified Natural Gas terminal on the West Coast of North America. The facility “is tied directly to the gas pipeline system that leads to California, Texas and Arizona.” However, Palin intervened with the DOE in April 2007, asking it to approve Conoco/Marathon’s exports to Asia:
She asked DOE to condition its approval on guarantees that gas needed in Alaska not be diverted to the better-paying foreign venues — a position she held until this past January, when the producers reached separate agreement with the state to meet its needs.
At no time did Palin or her government cite the desire to preserve Alaskan gas for the lower 48 states. The Sempra terminal began operations just four months after Palin announced unconditional support for the Marathon and ConocoPhillips request and a month before DOE approved their plans to export gas to Asia.
As one of America’s top energy experts, Palin should have known about the Sempra project, which was “well-known and much anticipated in energy circles.”
In addition, as Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) pointed out in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in September, Chugach Electric Association, the largest electric utility in Alaska, also opposed Palin’s request. “Indeed, the Department rejected the pleas from Chugach to condition the export of Alaskan gas on assurances that Alaska’s own need for natural gas was met,” wrote Wyden.
McCain Touts ‘Energy Expert’ Palin’s Credentials By Falsely Claiming She Delivered A Gas Pipeline
McCain Touts ‘Energy Expert’ Palin’s Credentials By Falsely Claiming She Delivered A Gas Pipeline
Last night on Fox News, host Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and asked McCain what Palin’s role would be in his administration. McCain said Palin would be useful on energy issues — presumably because, as he has said before, “she knows more about energy than probably anyone else” in the U.S. As evidence, McCain claimed that Palin “was responsible for…a pipeline, the $40 billion pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska down to the lower 48.” Watch it:
In fact, there is no $40 billion dollar pipeline from Alaska bringing natural gas to the lower 48 states. As the New York Times explained last month, “the pipeline exists only on paper” —
The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.
Palin initiated the project by giving $500 million in Alaska state funds to TransCanada Corp. for the pipeline. However, the Canadian energy company “is not obligated to build it” and has made no promises to do so.
Moreover, some of Canada’s native tribes must approve the deal and those who live along the pipeline’s proposed route “complain they haven’t been consulted about it and are threatening to sue unless they are compensated.” One tribal representative has said that TransCanada has “very much downplayed the extent of the legal difficulties they face in Canada.”
But Palin has asked Alaskans to pray for the pipeline to be built, which is perhaps what the McCain-Palin campaign website means when it says that “work has begun on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline.”
Palin Attempts To ‘Turn The Page’ From The Economy Back To ‘Drill Baby Drill’
Palin Attempts To ‘Turn The Page’ From The Economy Back To ‘Drill Baby Drill’
The Washington Post reported this weekend that the McCain campaign’s new strategy is “turning the page” on the economic crisis, with a focus on character issues. “If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose,” another aide admitted.
Apparently, another one of the campaign’s strategies is also to shift back to energy. Today at a rally in Florida, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) claimed that the “value of your paycheck is going down” simply “because of the high cost of energy”:
High gas prices, they are making a full tank of a gas seem like such a luxury. The cost of groceries is going up. All across the board, the cost of living is going up. Everything is. But the value of your paycheck is going down, and that’s because of the high cost of energy.
Palin then pushed for her “all of the above” approach to energy, to which the crowd shouted, “Drill baby drill!” Watch it:
For the past few months, conservatives have tried to peg all of the nation’s economic woes to high energy costs and offshore drilling. President Bush, for example, recently exploited Hurricane Gustav to push for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. T. Boone Pickens has expressed frustration with these drill-only conservatives. “Having a little problem working with the Republicans. They don’t like it because I want to do more than just drill,” he said last month.
While high energy costs are certainly a problem, it is neither the primary nor the only factor affecting “the value of your paycheck,” as Palin seemed to have claimed. In February, The Nation cited three primary reasons: “First hourly wage growth has slowed for the 80 percent of US workers who aren’t managers. Second, inflation is picking up, driven largely by higher prices for gas and heating. And third, employers are cutting back on hours.”
McCain flashback: ‘If the price of oil has to go up, then that’s a consequence we would have to suffer.’
McCain flashback: ‘If the price of oil has to go up, then that’s a consequence we would have to suffer.’
Speaking about the need to confront Iran, John McCain said in 2006, “If the price of oil has to go up, then that’s a consequence we would have to suffer.” Matt Duss responds, “So, to sum up: War John McCain supports waging indefinitely = regional destabilization = increased oil prices = higher revenues for regimes John McCain wants to contain. It would be great if he understood these consequences.”
McCain: New coal plants ‘will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.’
McCain: New coal plants ‘will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.’
Today, Sen. Joe Biden’s criticism of “dirty coal plants,” first reported by TP’s Wonk Room, was picked up by the Drudge Report. The McCain campaign held a press call this afternoon with former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) and mining industry lobbyist Scott McInnis (R-CO) to attack Biden’s comments. But McCain himself attacked coal plants last week, saying they “will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.” In a Sept. 15 townhall meeting, McCain voiced opposition to mountaintop removal coal mining, then continued:
We’re going to build new plants that generate energy, my friends, we’re going to build them. We’ve got to. There’s an increased demand for it. And it seems to me, it’s going to be coal, which I believe will increase greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, or it’s going to be nuclear, or it’s going to be clean coal technology.
Watch it:
Carbon capture and sequestration (sometimes described as “clean coal” technology) is still in development, and McCain has called fighting global warming part of his “top priority” of national security. Is McCain saying “no” to new coal? For more, go to the Wonk Room.
Bachmann And Barton Exploit The Financial Crisis To Push For More Oil Drilling
Bachmann And Barton Exploit The Financial Crisis To Push For More Oil Drilling
While the White House and Congress are haggling over how to best bail out Wall Street’s ailing financial markets, at least two conservative House members are using this moment of crisis to push their pet issue. On her blog yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announced that she was joining Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) call for the bailout package to be accompanied by legislation that would “open up” the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and Outer Continental Shelf to new oil drilling.
In a letter to President Bush, Barton and Bachmann argue that increased drilling would “offset some of the liability” of the eventual bailout of Wall Street:
As we work to strengthen our markets through an assistance package, we should also offset some of the liability, without raising taxes. This package should contain some means to pay at least part of the cost of rescuing these financial giants, and do it without asking the taxpayers to shoulder a burden which is, after all, not their responsibility. We therefore encourage you to include legislative language that would open up ANWR to leasing, along with the Outer Continental Shelf of the Eastern Gulf.
Bachmann and Barton’s effort to use the financial crisis to push the unrelated issue of drilling is reminiscent of President Bush’s exploitation of Hurricane Gustav to argue for more drilling. Earlier this month, Bush used a press briefing on the “follow-up efforts” to Hurricane Gustav to attack Congress about lifting the offshore drilling moratorium. Watch it:
In her blog post, Bachmann calls her drilling push an “innovative” solution “to help us navigate through our current financial crisis.” But in reality, it is the same type of tasteless politicization that Bush attempted with Hurricane Gustav.
T. Boone Pickens: I’m Having More Problems Working With Drill-Only Republicans Than Democrats
T. Boone Pickens: I’m Having More Problems Working With Drill-Only Republicans Than Democrats
Today, Texas oil-tycoon-cum-alternative-energy-spokesman T. Boone Pickens spoke to the National Press Club about his “Pickens Plan” to ramp up production of wind power and the use of natural gas. Given his notorious past opposing progressives, the Press Club’s moderator asked him if he’s been having trouble working with Democrats to promote his plan. Pickens replied that he’s been having more trouble working with conservatives:
Q: you told the New York Times last month that you’d never vote for a Democrat. Are you finding that difficult in reaching out to Democrats then with your plan? […]
PICKENS: So I am having no problem working with the Democrats. Having a little problem working with the Republicans. They don’t like it because I want to do more than just drill. And they, somehow have gotten it, a lot of them have, that you can drill your way out of this. But you can’t do it. There’s not enough oil there to do it.
Watch it:
Pickens made it clear that, despite five straight weeks of calls for an “all of the above” energy strategy, congressional conservatives are interested in little besides drilling. In fact, last week, when the House passed an energy bill that included conservatives’ demand for offshore drilling, House Republicans opposed it because it would have repealed Big Oil tax breaks to invest in renewable energy. Apparently to Republican ears, “all of the above” sounds just like “Drill Baby drill.”
Record one-day jump in oil prices.
Record one-day jump in oil prices.
The price of oil jumped more than $16 to $120.92 a barrel today, the “biggest daily gain in dollar terms since 1984 — when crude began trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.” Yglesias has more.
McCain repeats Palin’s lie: Alaska ‘provides 20 percent of America’s energy requirements.’
McCain repeats Palin’s lie: Alaska ‘provides 20 percent of America’s energy requirements.’
In her interview with ABC News last week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin asserted that Alaska “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.” After FactCheck.org pointed out that Alaska is actually responsible for only 3.5 percent of the country’s domestic energy production, Palin began re-phrasing her claim. But in an interview with Sean Hannity on Wednesday McCain continued to repeat the debunked claim:
HANNITY: By the way, senator, she, she’s very convinced she can convince you into drilling in ANWR.
MCCAIN: Hahahaha, you know, that’s what happens when you throw two mavericks together. So, I’d, listen, I, she, you know, we talk about experience. What’s one of the major, if not the major challenge to America? Energy independence. Who knows more about energy than the governor of the state that provides 20% of America’s energy requirements?
Listen here:
Though McCain likes to tout Palin as America’s foremost energy expert, such claims have been undermined by her incorrect and confusing statements on the subject. Yesterday, CNN described Palin’s suggested oil export ban as “not exactly easy to understand.”
CNN: Palin’s suggested oil export ban ‘not exactly easy to understand.’
CNN: Palin’s suggested oil export ban ‘not exactly easy to understand.’
This afternoon on CNN, host Wolf Blitzer showed video from last night’s townhall with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), in which Palin — whom McCain said “knows more about energy than…anyone else in the United States” — was asked how she would keep oil from new domestic drilling in the U.S. market. In a serious understatement, Blitzer called her answer “not exactly easy to understand.” Watch it:
As the law stands now, expanded domestic drilling would have no impact on U.S. gas prices precisely because “oil is a global commodity whose price is set by global supply and demand.” Is Palin calling for a total export ban?
The Fish Oil Salesman: McCain Pushes Offshore Drilling Because Fish ‘Love To Be Around’ Oil Rigs
The Fish Oil Salesman: McCain Pushes Offshore Drilling Because Fish ‘Love To Be Around’ Oil Rigs
Yesterday in his town hall meeting with Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) advocated offshore oil drilling by pushing three myths: 1) Hurricanes won’t damage oil rigs, 2) Fish love oil rigs, and 3) Cuba is allowing China to drill near the U.S. coast:
McCAIN: An oil rig off of the Louisiana coast. It survived hurricanes. It is safe, it is sound, and to somehow —
And by the way, on that oil rig — and I’m sure you’ve probably heard this story — you look down, and there’s fish everywhere! There’s fish everywhere! Yeah, the fish love to be around those rigs. So not only can it be helpful for energy, it can be helpful for some pretty good meals as well. […]
As far as China and Cuba are concerned, we continue to hear that there is negotiations or conversations or — I’m not exactly sure what the state of play is, but it’s not a healthy thing, obviously.
Watch it:
A look at these three myths:
MYTH #1: Hurricanes won’t damage oil rigs. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 offshore oil platforms and caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. In fact, damage to offshore producers accounted for 77 percent of the oil industry’s storm costs. In the wake of Hurricane Ike, there are at least three offshore oil rigs missing and “presumed to be total losses.”
MYTH #2: Fish love oil rigs. McCain is pushing an oil industry talking point. While marine biologists have seen fish congregating around oil rigs, it doesn’t mean they are good for wildlife. “That’s like taking a picture of birds on a telephone wire and saying it’s essential habitat,” said the Environmental Defense Center’s Linda Krop. Without the platforms, fish would likely return to natural reefs.
MYTH #3: Cuba is allowing China to drill near the U.S. coast. The Congressional Research Service has unequivocally concluded that Cuba has not permitted China to drill near the U.S. coastline in the Gulf of Mexico. Even Vice President Cheney has admitted this talking point is false.
McCain’s second claim is especially silly. Not too long ago, conservatives were also trying to argue that the United States should start drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve because oil pipelines would “become a meeting ground and ‘coffee klatch‘ for caribou.” (HT: AMERICAblog)
Blunt repeats false claim that Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. oil.
Blunt repeats false claim that Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. oil.
Defending Gov. Sarah Palin’s experience in an interview with MSNBC today, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) made the false claim that Alaska supplies 20 percent of the U.S. oil:
She does understand energy, not only as governor, but as someone who was on the commission that regulated that big industry in Alaska. Twenty percent of all our oil comes from Alaska.
Watch it:
In reality, Alaska produces 14.3 percent of the nation’s oil. Furthermore, Gov. Sarah Palin recently said Alaska produces 20 percent of the U.S. “energy,” when it actually produces 3.5 percent. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has used the same talking point. The Washington Post FactChecker gives the claim four pinnochios.
George Allen: ‘Americans are not addicted to oil, they’re addicted to freedom.’
George Allen: ‘Americans are not addicted to oil, they’re addicted to freedom.’
Today on Laura Ingraham’s radio show, former Virgina governor George Allen (R) scoffed at claims that Americans are addicted to oil, calling it “an elitist point of view.” Allen insisted it was freedom, not oil, that Americans were actually addicted to:
ALLEN: I love that statement, America is addicted to oil. What an elitist point of view. Americans are not addicted to oil. Americans are addicted to freedom — the freedom and liberty to move where and when we want.
Listen here:
Allen stands alone in his defiance. Alongside energy experts and progressive politicians, prominent members of Allen’s own party have long since admitted the truth. In 2006, President Bush declared, “America is addicted to oil,” and just this past June, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) said, “America is so addicted to oil it will take us years to wean ourselves from it.” Does Allen think Bush and Schwarzenegger are elitists?
Topic Cloud
Archives