"Liberals hate it" -- yes, but we could say more.

1. It's American oil, so drilling pleases the nationalist / National Greatness crowd.

2. Drilling's good for the oil companies, so it pleases the corporate wing of the party.

3. Liberals, as you say, hate it -- and that's enough to get the social conservatives fired up.

The GOP factions used to be unified by their anti-communism. Now all they have is "Drill Baby Drill?"

It's a perfect example of the conservative contempt for empiricism. The conservative faith in drilling our way out has no relationship whatsoever with geological reality, and as for environmental impact - real men *like* to denude the ocean of all life in order to modestly increase Exxon's profits.

You should hear my geologist father on this subject...

Liberals oppose drilling because the GOP wants it.

Easy Punditry 101

denude the ocean of all life

Oh, come on. The flip side of Ezra's point is that the conservatives wouldn't have much of an issue if the liberals weren't equally stupid in the opposite direction. It's not like the Democrats have never used "no drilling, anytime, anywhere" for fundraising.

That it also demonstrates either a total ignorance of energy policy or a total contempt for the intelligence of the electorate is really neither here nor there.

It's Americas oil not just the welfare queens up in Alaska. Keep our strategic oil reserve in the ground until the rest of the world runs out because in the dark days ahead I want our army to be the last mechanized one

Steve LaBonne beat me to it, so I'll just say I agree: "total ignorance of energy policy" is a feature, not a bug.

"It's almost like these people take pride in being ignorant."

Anonymous, he's talking about you.

Liberals oppose drilling because the GOP wants it.
kaybeel,
Maybe you did not read the last sentence of Ezra post. Here it is with a slight modification so you get the point:
...it also demonstrates kaybeel's total ignorance of energy policy or a total contempt for the intelligence of the electorate.

Sorry, the last post was MSW, not troll Anonymous.

Seems to me they like drilling in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. It's big money there. Probably in Louisiana, too, and a few other red states, where oil is dominant economically.

States with a more diverse economic base that includes oil, such as California and Florida, not so much.

Ressentiment? That's there's French, ain't it?

Anonymous- I'm saying Ezra's idea that the GOP wants drilling because the liberals hate it (why do the liberals oppose it, after all?) is itself contempt for the intelligence of the electorate.
That kind of rudimentary analysis can be made about almost any issue.

Both parties (and ideologies) have elements of both empiricism and 'piss them off'. The balance differs widely between them historically (post Goldwater). The Dems rely heavily on both 'the facts' and 'the public good' - the celebellum. The Repubs rely mainly on appeals to the brainstem because the party consultants know visceral reactions motivate people.

But, Ezra's very close to the truth and it applies to many issues. It is a source of GOP electoral (but not governing) strength, and a consistent source of Dem. weakness in national elections but policies that often are genuinely based in reason.

It blows my mind that anyone who isn't an Alaskan, or an excutive with Shell or BP could get all riled up chanting "drill, baby, drill."

More than 100 years, the debate over whether or not our currency should include silver was enough to bring people to blows. No doubt future historians will find the off-shore drilling mantra even more mystifying.

denude the ocean of all life

Oh, come on. The flip side of Ezra's point is that the conservatives wouldn't have much of an issue if the liberals weren't equally stupid in the opposite direction.

That was sarcasm, chief. A favorite tool of the northeastern elites.

And no, Ezra's point doesn't have a flip side. The alleged liberal resistance to drilling may or may not be right. But it *is* pretty inconsequential to oil prices and supplies.

The stereotypical liberal opposition to drilling is a cost/benefit thing: ANWR's value as wilderness is greater than its potential, trivial impact on world oil supplies and prices. We might draw the line at the wrong place sometimes, but we don't start from the demonstrably untrue premise that we have enough untapped oil supplies to make much of a difference regardless.

The conservative position isn't simply a matter of a different understanding of the costs and benefits of drilling (that is, valuing oil vs. the environment differently). It starts out by *lying* about the oil supplies that can be gained.

There are various ways forward, and legitimate debates to be had about them (I think we need far more support for nuclear power in this country, for instance), but conventional oil drilling isn't one of them. We simply don't have the vast reserves of oil that the conservative fantasies conjure up. They ain't there.

I'm not sure that it does show a contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. I imagine republicans love the intelligence of the electorate and, for the most part, understand it pretty well.

Yep Ezra you miss the reason why its loved by the major parts of the party, its a transfer of government wealth to rich oil company owners. Remember Palin was "standing up" to oil interest in Alaska because they weren't drilling where they already can. Opening up new oil leases only means cheap lease fees for oil companies when they finally decide to investigate an oil field.

The problem the liberals have is there is no current substitute for oil.

All of the vapor-technology is still on the drawing board. When someone *does* come up with a workable plan such as Pickens, he is railed by the left as an opportunist.

Simply blocking domestic drilling will not do anything to stop the use of oil. Oil is a fungible commodity. All it would do is cause more drilling in foreign nations.

Bottom line is "no drilling" will not achieve your goals and could present some serious national security issues.

It is frustrating that Dems aren't better at coming up with lines akin to "It's the Economy, Stupid!" that distill their policy points down to bumper stickers that everyone can get. Of course, even that line was completely accidental, but I think it helped Clinton out quite a bit in 92.

Obama could, without doubt, benefit from something like this very much.

There are only two kinds of people: those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don't.

Is it not true that a fair amount of the oil US companies are pulling out of our domestic fields today are being exported and not consumed in country? Maybe we should start by keeping our oil home.

The rejoinder that "a Department of Energy analysis shows that such drilling would have an 'insignificant' effect on oil prices" isn't quite as snappy.
So make your rejoinder in a snappy way. "The Republican energy plan will save you zero cents a gallon on the price of gas in 2008. It will save you zero cents a gallon in 2009. It will save you zero cents a gallon in 2010. By the time the Republican plan is at its peak effectiveness -- that's fifteen years from now, remember -- it will save you three cents a gallon. Now that's pocket change you can believe in! [Holds up three pennies]"

Drilling our oil now is stupid. Let everybody else drill; that way, when peak oil hits and oil is $50 a gallon or whatever, we will still have ours and then we can sell it all for big bucks and move to Beverly Hills.

The reason the GOP establishment is in favor is because it will mean bigger profits for the oil companies. They don't have to psend anything on exploration -- they know where it is. Also, it will be cheap to drill for. This is oil that would have been pumped out decades ago if it hadn't been protected. So the oil ompanies can produce it for a few dollars a barrel and sell if for $100+ a barrel. What's not to like?

Bottom line is "no drilling" will not achieve your goals and could present some serious national security issues.

Now, I'm convinced that you are a troll. "Drilling" will not achieve your goals and will not avert any potential national security issues, considering the insignificant amount of oil present, the fact that the oil market is global and no one is proposing to nationalize the oil companies, and the difficulty of extracting what little oil remains.

Why don't we just continue our addiction for a while longer? We can always quit when we really want to. Republicans need to get to a meeting.

"That it also demonstrates either a total ignorance of energy policy or a total contempt for the intelligence of the electorate is really neither here nor there.
"

Well, it's important to note that the strategy relies on contempt for the intelligence of the electorate to work.

And, nobody has made the case that no drilling would solve all the liberal's goals regarding energy. I would also imagine that if the oil companies stopped selling abroad the oil they extract domestically, that might have a similar impact on prices here as more drilling would.

Of course "Drill Baby Drill" is a play on "Burn Baby Burn." We need to insist that these Republicans denounce the burning and looting of Watts. Or, if that's too confusing, at least give credit to the Trammps.

I would be very interested in seeing the documentation that oil companies sell oil produced in the US abroad. People keep bringing it up as if they know something so it must be true.

Arguing that the conservatives' talking points are stupid is not debating the substance of the issue. It's having the argument the conservatives want to have.

Repeat statements that are demonstrably false.

Debate stupid talking points instead of real issues.

Noun, verb, Exxon's profits.

Very convincing.

El Viajero sed:
"The problem the liberals have is there is no current substitute for oil.

All of the vapor-technology is still on the drawing board."

Most of that technology (which certainly does exist) is being made by other countries whose governments are less beholden to short-sighted oil-based energy policies. My home hot water is heated by a solar collector on my roof that was made in Germany. In my driveway an Italian scooter. France gets the lions share of their electricity from nuclear. If the US was less giddy about drilling and cranking out SUV's our economy would be in a lot better shape to "catch up to the future" (McCain's words.)

"The problem the liberals have is there is no current substitute for oil."

and the problem for "conservatives" is that when we use up all our oil, we'll be totally dependent on foreign oil.

"I would be very interested in seeing the documentation that oil companies sell oil produced in the US abroad."

Try the internets, chief. www.google.com. Have a look around and see what pops up.

Timing is always important. If the Congress approves drilling in all the unleased potential sites now, the GOP gets to set the process in motion and thereby preordain the beneficiaries. Wait six months and have the same decision with an Obama administration and the results could be quite different.

Fester Bestertester writes:

"Try the internets, chief. www.google.com. Have a look around and see what pops up."

I just did that, and a clear statement of the way things work did not pop up.

However, the way I understand it is this: Oil is a commodity, and goes into one big bucket. If we increase domestic production, that may (slightly) drive down gasoline prices, but it will drive them down everywhere, not just in the US. Since the American contribution to world oil supplies is not huge, domestic production will not have a huge impact on prices. But it will have a huge impact on the profits of domestic petroleum producers.

So it's misleading to portray domestic drilling as a solution to the high price of gas. It's not particularly relevant to that. However, domestic oil supplies can have a major strategic importance. If we thought that our oil supply would be cut off (another embargo, perhaps), then having a domestic supply gives a (small) cushion. But that advantage is completely squandered if we use up our remaining domestic supplies on ordinary (non-emergency) consumption.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_a_EPC0_EEX_mbblpd_a.htm

Talk about contempt the American voter.

America will be using petroleum to fuel vehicles for the rest of our lives. The electorate understands that alternative fuel are not yet available. They also understand that when Bush dropped his ban on offshore drilling, the price of gas dropped. The Democrats are all up in arms about speculators. When Bush made that announcement, speculators speculated on the future production of oil, the price dropped. The fact that we would be on course to increase the world supply will drop prices. The price went down 50 cents a gallon after Bush's pronouncement.

Imagine if congress followed suit.

People understand that alternative fuels won't be ready for years or decades. People also believe the Dems want us to pay 4 dollars a gallon until alt fuels are online(to force people to conserve). Obama was only upset about the speed with which prices jumped, not about the price.

You clowns seem to think gas prices and the economy are seperate. No. Gas prices have a direct effect on the economy. Anything that is shipped over the road (everything) is affected by fuel costs.

As far as alternative fuels, how about natural gas? Or nuclear? You are OK with those, right?

That's right, Daryl. That illustrates the ignorance, or at least faked ignorance, of energy policy on the republicans part, and a willingness to exploit the ignorance of some of the electorate, as stated by Ezra. Facts don't matter, pissing off liberals is what's important.

".....total contempt for the intelligence of the electorate is really neither here nor there."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't it a win-win because the intelligence of the electorate is BENEATH contempt?

abg,

I think you're right, that we will keep right on consuming petroleum until the last drop is gone. So what follows from that? To me, what follows is that we must either gradually curb our per-capita consumption, or else we are in big trouble. Taking steps to increase oil consumption is the height of irresponsibility, and that's exactly what increased domestic drilling does.

You're certainly right, again, that high gasoline prices will have a major impact on our economy. But again, what follows from that? There's always a tradeoff; we can try to make the economy better now at the risk of making it much worse later. It's a tough decision, and pretending that it can be avoided (either by "increased domestic production" or "the magic of alternative fuels") is dishonest.

JimPortlandOR wrote, The Dems rely heavily on both 'the facts' and 'the public good' - the celebellum.

You misspelled "cerebellum," and I think you meant "cerebrum".

As for Republicans and the brainstem...please don't insult the brainstem.

El Viajero wrote, Bottom line is "no drilling" will not achieve your goals and could present some serious national security issues.

Wrong, on two accounts.

It keeps the oil in the ground for the time being. That's good for two reasons (even if you're not opposed to it coming out of the ground eventually):
(1) Current law means that mineral wealth is essentially given away to large corporations. By not permitting drilling now, that allows us time to change the laws so that e.g. oil companies get a reasonable return on their capital, but the actual owners of the oil---the American citizenry---get to keep the scarcity rent.
(2) Since oil will become an increasingly precious commodity in the future, not drilling now means we're not going to burn it up now. Might as well be burning up Saudi Arabia's, particularly as long as they're foolish enough to lend us money in the form of debt denominated in our own currency.

A completely rational policy would (a) ensure that the scarcity rent in mineral wealth goes to the US government on behalf of the American people (and none of this silly nonsense about the local state getting a huge chunk), (b) encourage extension exploration now with no permission granted to actually take the stuff out (because we don't need it now). (Yes, the exploration companies would have to be paid to do that.) Combined with (c) finding non-fossil fuel alternatives, of course.

abg wrote, They also understand that when Bush dropped his ban on offshore drilling, the price of gas dropped. The Democrats are all up in arms about speculators. When Bush made that announcement, speculators speculated on the future production of oil, the price dropped. The fact that we would be on course to increase the world supply will drop prices. The price went down 50 cents a gallon after Bush's pronouncement.

You clearly have no understanding of the economics of oil, or of economics in general.

You clearly also like to commit the post hoc fallacy.

abg-
With your logic it should be a no brainer to elect a dem this election. Gas has more than doubled on Bush II's watch.

Also the only reason, as you state, that gas prices are linked to the economy is because "Anything that is shipped over the road (everything) is affected by fuel costs."

Maybe we should be rethinking or methods of transportation, it is far more economical to move product via trains.

Conservatives seem to take the status quo for granted and assume that we can't make fundamental changes to how our economy and society operate in order to save all of us money, improve our health and increase our national security.

If you see a cliff at the end of the road, you don't push down harder on the pedal, you change course to a road that has a future.

Prediction: The Dems will be righteous losers on this issue in November, and this will be a major issue. That's not a judgment, just a prediction.

People don't understand that oil is not a nationalized commodity, even though if they thought about it they would. As Ezra said, this is a very intuitive subject. I would prefer that Obama had taken a more bullish position on Alaskan drilling. The cost/benefit is not favorable on its own, but when you add in the likelihood of an Obama victory I think it is. (And yes, I know that's a speculative leap, but I think it's an interesting consideration to mull over.)

Just as the cinematic tour-de-force White Men Can't Jump taught us that Wesley Snipes would "rather look good and lose than look bad and win," the Dems would rather be wonkishly accurate and lose than make a moderately silly gesture to the electorate and win.

modestflack wrote, I would prefer that Obama had taken a more bullish position on Alaskan drilling. The cost/benefit is not favorable on its own, but when you add in the likelihood of an Obama victory I think it is. (And yes, I know that's a speculative leap, but I think it's an interesting consideration to mull over.)

Uh huh. He could also simply adopt the entire Republican platform, thus neutralizing any "advantage" they have on the issues.
[/sarcasm]

The problem with Obama's response is that he wasn't forceful enough, and he then flip-flopped a bit.

What he should have said is very simple: "John McCain is a liar. Domestic drilling will save no more than X cents/gallon, and not for at least N years," where X and N are whatever the experts say they are.

But he wimped out.

I hate to agree with the Republican trolls, but they have a point on this one.

Not that Ezra is wrong about why conservatives support drilling-- he isn't-- but let's be honest here. The environmental movement is part of the liberal coalition, and those organizations don't support drilling because of its environmental consequences, and without regard to whether drilling makes sense as part of an energy production strategy. In other words, even if it really would help us to decrease the amount of energy purchased from unfriendly regimes, and to ensure a steady supply of energy until we can get substitutes up and running, environmental groups don't support it. It just is a deal-breaker for them.

And they are part of our coalition, so we don't cross them.

Look, there's nothing particularly unusual about this; it's the same reason why there isn't a pro-choicer on the Republican ticket. But it's a bit different from saying that liberals oppose drilling solely because it can never help.

As far as alternative fuels, how about natural gas? Or nuclear? You are OK with those, right?

Well, no.

Some of us in the northeast heat our homes with natural gas, with no equivalent renewable substitute yet available. And switching over to something else can run upwards of $8,000 per housing unit. A lot of money for folks struggling to pay their heating bills as it is.

Who gets to freeze to death so America can postpone the changeover to an electric transport infrastructure for another 10 years or so?

Of course, Texan T. Boone Pickens of course cares not one whit for the cold states.

"Freeze a yankee" indeed.

liberal: I agree with you that he should've been more forceful, and your messaging is better than what I've heard from his camp. But I don't think "X cents" for "N years" is strong enough to counter the intuitiveness of the arguments for drilling.

For anyone who wants documentation of US oil exports (they are ~12.5% of domestic production):

From the CIA factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Oil - production:
8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - consumption:
20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

Oil - exports:
1.048 million bbl/day (2004)

Oil - imports:
13.15 million bbl/day (2004)

That works out to exporting about 12.5% of our domestic production.

The DOE breaks down "oil exports" by product. Only 27 thousand of the roughly 1.4 million barrels of oil products exported per day (2007) is crude oil, which is what we're talking about here. Most of it is residual fuel oil (boiler fuel), high sulfur distillate (diesel), and coke, plus smaller amounts of all kinds of other products. It's fair to debate whether we should be exporting more or less useless refining byproducts, but I'm not sure I see how that is relevant to opening up the OCS for crude oil production.

Another issue I've not seen discussed is the fact that, outside of California, most of the off-limits resource is expected to be natural gas, not oil. The energy and environmental issues relating to gas are quite different from oil. Gas is lower carbon per BTU. However, it's used more for heating and power generation than for transportation.

It is produced by drilling, generally by the same companies that produce oil.

Oops. link.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm

Poor folks don't own any ocean frontage. Google Earth your way over to Gulf Shores, Alabama some time, and see for yourself.

I would say that if the oil company wanted to buy up all those luxury high-rise condos that line the beach between Mobile and Pensacola, then they should take it up with the rich folks who own them.

Oilmen just don't appreciate the value of a good beach.

For drilling to make a difference to the American economy, the Government would have to nationalize the oil companies and SOCIALIZE the distribution system. Is this what the GOP WANTS?