Don't Believe the hype...get informed!
Credit:http://www.factcheck.org
A False Accusation About Energy
July 9, 2008
An RNC ad claims Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem, when he actually proposes $150 billion worth.
Summary
A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe.
And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production "here at home" (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a "solution" for the problems at hand.
Analysis
The RNC made a $3 million buy for its ad, titled "Balance," which is airing in the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It began airing July 5 and is scheduled to run through July 15.
“No New Solutions”?
RNC Ad: "Balance"
Announcer: Record gas prices. A climate in crisis. John McCain says solve it now with a balanced plan: Alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax and more production here at home. He’s pushing his own party to face climate change. But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes, no to nuclear, no to more production. no new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line. The RNC is responsible for the content of this message.
The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain’s, but that doesn’t mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.
No to "Nuclear"?
We’ve been through this. Obama has not said a flat-out "no" to nuclear, as the ad claims. Instead he has said he is in favor of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe, saying in his energy plan that "it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table." But it’s true McCain is more aggressive in his support of nuclear power, giving it a prominent place in his energy plan, with the goal of creating 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and as many as 100 total. Obama’s energy plan contains no such initiative.
No to "Lower Gas Taxes"?
The ad claims Obama is against lowering the gas tax, which is true enough. However, McCain’s original proposal to eliminate the federal tax for consumers would only have covered a portion of this year – from Memorial Day to Labor Day – and much of that period is already past. Obama and many independent analysts have argued that such a plan would do little to lower costs for average consumers and, if it did, would only lead to higher demand, leading in turn to higher prices down the road.
No to "More Production"?
It’s also true Obama is against lifting the ban on increasing drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, and it's worth noting that both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As for the Outer Continental shelf, more drilling could indeed produce more oil, but not right away. The Energy Information Administration says that there are "substantial resources of crude oil" offshore. However, it also notes that both time and money would be required to produce any oil from areas that are currently off-limits. Specifically, it estimates that no production would begin until 2017 and that it would take until 2030 to reach peak production, increasing total domestic production by 3 percent.
And even then, the EIA study says, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
Any notion that drilling could start more quickly than EIA estimates should be weighed against the fact that there is a shortage of drill ships. According to a New York Times article published last month, existing rigs are booked solid for the next five years. While shipyards have begun work on new ships, it will be some time before there are enough to accelerate the pace of offshore exploration, whether or not new areas are opened.
McCain's "Pushing" on Climate Change
The ad's right when it says McCain is "pushing his own party to face climate change." His efforts date back to 2000, when he first acknowledged that he was concerned by the "mounting evidence" presented by members of the scientific community. In 2003 he joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, to introduce a bill to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
–by Emi Kolawole
Sources
"Climate Change: McCain Expresses Global Warming Worries." Greenwire, 18 May 2000.
Cohn, Peter. "McCain Sets Three Hearings for First Week of New congress." Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 23 Dec. 2002.
"McCain, Lieberman Introduce Plan to Cut Greenhouse Emissions." The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 9 Jan. 2003.
Republican Party ad assails Obama on energy. 6 Jul. 2008. The Associated Press, 8 Jul. 2008.
Mouwad, Jad. Economists Weigh McCain's Gas-Tax Plan. 37 Apr. 2008. The Caucus: The New York Times Politics Blog, 8 Jul. 2008.
Impact of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf. The Energy Information Administration, 2007.
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by legacy1:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A RNC False Accusation Against Obama About Energy! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spirit76
|
Jul 18 @ 2:59AM
|
|
It'll take more like 1 trillion to refit the infrastructure over the course of a 5 to 10 year concentrated program of public education, industrial incentives and tax incentives for consumers to change their lives to fit the new realities.
The notion of greenhouse gas problems and global warming is not yet "proven". Just because a U.N. political commission is using this as a tool with "science" backing the report does not mean the data are correct. There is *not* consensus at this point as to the root cause of the existing climate cycle changes.
There has been notable warming across the entire *solar system*. Not just the Earth. I have yet to figure how we humans could have caused this, but I'm sure the U.N. will find a good explanation for this. There has been warming on Mars and all the way out to the gas giants. What energy source could be responsible?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html provides telling evidence such as:
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
One might look into the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
It is striking to see the temperature variations over time. This is the part that the Global-warming is our fault crowd doesn't want you to know about or to question their assertions with embarrassing scientific evidence like this.
The amazing coincidence of sunspot activity to weather and warming/cooling is a debatable topic, but cannot be easily ignored in the argument
A number of climate scientists of notable stature have stood against the tide to speak truth on these matters. It does strike me that the real goal of these political machinations with global warming have more to do with creating new taxes and lining the pockets of those who have no interest in the climate, but in gaining power and control using whatever means they can to manipulate science to their ends.
Back to energy - The ANWR project politics is such a joke as to be laughable. The actual drilling in ANWR would occupy an exceedingly minute portion of the area. Since the area is a barren desert that even animals pretty much avoid, one would wonder what it is the Democrats are so interested in protecting? One does get visions of all those green-energy companies where their personal fortunes are invested and cheaper oil endangers those consumers from using that oil that will eventually go to waste, turning into asphalt (literally) underground because it was never used while blowhards in Congress literally dried it into an underground highway with their arguing.
Take a look at the following URL that will actually show you the 2,000 acres that would be drilled and gives the full story:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp
Let's not get started about the huge oil deposit in oil shale that makes the Saudi oil fields look like a small country park in comparison. Oh well.... The Dems don't want this - They blocked it:
While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Hmmm... The goal of the powers that be in the Congress is then to vote against every energy bill, except for the ones they want, which are tied to *Green* companies that will pad their pockets with more of your *Green*. So, ignore the candidates for President and focus on the one thing that can solve the problem of energy...
Fire every last Congressman and Senator. Reset the system and vote for people who have clean backgrounds and then pass single-term limits to keep the debate focused on what is good for America...
Jon
|
|
Gman762
|
Jul 18 @ 5:51AM
|
|
Look, any man that proposes taxing petroleum produers on what he claims is "profiteering" is effectively taxing you and I. He and the Dems want to create a windfall profits tax on anything that they feel is excessive.
Define excessive? Who says at what point does "excessive" begin?
Who is ultimately passed on this tax via higher energy costs? WE ARE!!
Obama's new $150B plan is a TAX THAT WE MUST PAY FOR...it's as plain as the nose on your face.
|
|
thenewguy295
|
Jul 18 @ 10:02AM
|
|
What I get from Obama's commercials is that we won't need any oil in 7 years, that's what I inferred from the one that belittles Bush (who isn't running for President) and Mccain for supporting a program that won't realize 'a drop of oil for 7 years'.
I mean why do anything if you don't get instant results right, it's the American way. So why would I want a President that plans ahead? Seven years, that's never gonna get here.
|
|
legacy1
|
Jul 18 @ 11:30AM
|
|
The reason I posted this was because not having seen the commerical you first wouldn't even know what I am talking about. Second the commercial portrays Obama as some dumb black guy with his hands in pockets not wanting or knowing how to get anything done about our energy crisis. That's what I was pointing out here..
As for passing on the bill to us the taxpayers....how about some stupid war (Iraq) we are funding and for what? For our own interests that isn't doing anything at the pump. And why drill here and there? All those acres the oil co. have and they don't want to do anything with them.
I hell I just watched that show Black Gold onTru tv and one team struck oil in place far remote than ANWR.
The bottom line is Repubs want you to believe that drilling will get out of this mess when their own Energy Dept. stress in a report posted here it would be 2017 before actual drilling can begin.
2013 in ANWR.....we need to invest Now in bio- fuels and alternative energy.
Fine, now onto the global warming debate....fine if you actually believe the air you breathe is good than that shit they call smog must be a morning dew and the lakes here in Michigan aren't really brown and nasty....it's just my imagination including a stroy on how garbage is floating on the Lake Michigan shores....including medical waste.
f*** it why bother....we can continue and believe our planet is in perfect shape and continue to do nothing. We have all been doing it for years.
|
|
|