The “Gang of 10″ behind the Senate proposal to expand offshore drilling along the east coast:
Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
I’m on record here rejecting the idea that setting the wheels in motion today for increased crude oil production seven to ten years down the road will have any significant impact on current spot crude prices. And I abhor issuing a license to oil companies to further spread the environmental damage they commit under the false promise of easing the current burden to energy consumers (a promise which the bulk of the citizenry is desperate enough to have bought) while serving the real agenda of further increasing already obscene record-breaking profits.
However, compromise requires that you appease your political adversaries in order to soften their opposition to your agenda. While compromise can often feel more dealing with the devil, the alternative in dealing with highly politicized issues is much more contemptuous. Both sides stonewall, leading to smear campaigns acted out in the media. Eventually the majority party shuts the minority out of the process, and the usual round of antics and desperation tactics (filibusters, vetos and overrides) usually results in a decisive victory for one side but also a highly fractured political atmosphere that will only make consensus and/or compromise on the next issue even less likely. Curently we’re at the stonewall/smear campaign stage of the process while Congress is away on their summer recess.
The “New ERA” does not give away this license without procuring some significant concessions in favor of environmentalism and conservation:
Converting Cars and Trucks to Non-Oil Fuel Sources to Regain Energy Independence
The New Era legislation funds a $20 billion “Apollo Project” like effort to support the goal of transitioning 85% of America’s new motor vehicles to non- petroleum-based fuels within 20 years. To accelerate this transition, the legislation includes:
• $7.5 billion for R&D focused on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries;
• $7.5 billion to help U.S. automakers and parts makers re-tool and re-equip to become the world leader in making alternative fuel vehicles;
• Consumer tax credits of up to $7,500 per vehicle to incentivize Americans to purchase advanced alternative fuel vehicles (those that run primarily on non-petroleum fuels) and up to $2,500 to retrofit existing vehicles with advanced alternative fuel engines.Enhancing Conservation
To ease gas prices and protect our environment during the transition, the proposal includes a significant federal commitment to promoting conservation and efficiency. These include:
• Extending renewable energy, carbon mitigation and energy conservation and efficiency tax incentives, including the production tax credit, through 2012 to create greater certainty and spur greater investment;
• New consumer tax credits of up to $2,500 to purchase highly fuel efficient vehicles, to help Americans reduce their annual gas costs and reduce oil imports;
• Extending and expanding the $2,500 tax credit for hybrid electric vehicles;
• $500 million for R&D into new materials and other innovations to improve vehicle fuel efficiency;
• $2.5 billion in R,D&D on next generation biofuels and infrastructure;
• Tax incentives for the installation of alternative fueling stations, pipelines and other infrastructure;
• Expanding transmission capacity for power from renewable sources;
• New dedicated funding for the weatherization assistance program.
Politically, this is a bit of a gamble for Obama, but a gamble I believe he had to take. Since before his campaign, he has advertised himself as an agent of post-partisanship. As is frequently pointed out by the political right, his body of work is just not extensive enough to support so lofty a promotion. Supporting the New Energy Reform Act, particularly doing so before John McCain, is an investment in bipartisan credibility.
The downside for him is that he provides the political right with two strong arguments to employ against him. First, he hands them ammunition for a disingenuous flip-flop charge that has a good chance to stick. That an explicit compromise is not at all the same thing as a policy reversal is irrelevant. They are close enough to confuse the many poory informed undecided voters. The second is the notion that he is “following McCain’s lead” in supporting offshore drilling. Again, in politics, perception is more important than reality. The fact that Obama doesn’t support the idea that expanding offshore drilling as a policy will significantly lower fuel and energy prices or reduce American dependence on foreign oil, but is open to compromise to see enacted policies he does believe in, will be lost on many.
Still, if he’s able to publicly persuade Pelosi to support the compromise it’s a major and legitimate bipartisan feather for his cap. Whether legitimacy in this case can outweigh disingenuous political campaigning remains to be seen. One of the reasons I didn’t post over the weekend was that I didn’t care to engage in the dominant political discourse over the past few days – the topic of whether Barack Obama is too much like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton.
God help us.
