[Updated June 6] Where are the environmental Republicans?
By JR Hoeft | Sunday, June 6th, 2010 | PolicyIt is extremely disturbing and frustrating to see the images coming back from the Gulf Coast of oiled animals and damaged wetlands and beaches.
And it is equally a tragedy that 11 people lost their lives April 20 as a result of the accident that befell the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig.
But, politically, what’s perhaps the most disturbing issue is the lack of comment from Republican leaders. Whether it be John Boehner, Eric Cantor or Bob McDonnell, the lack of seizing initiative on this issue from conservatives has been appalling.
Certainly now is not the time to be talking about drilling off the coast of Virginia – although the president is wrong to ditch the plan altogether. However, now is a great time to be talking about tax breaks and incentives for alternative energy production.
Whether it be biofuels, solar, wave energy, wind power, nuclear, or other – why has no Republican seized the opportunity to talk about the “all of the above” solution? Why have they not spoken about how dreadful this spill is and how it is yet another example, in a long string of examples, of how oil is a commodity that we eventually have to wean ourselves off of? Why have they not promoted and presented alternatives?
The only person who I have heard even remotely address this issue is 2nd Congressional District GOP Candidate Jessica Sandlin.
“With the algae biofuel research being conducted at ODU, and the Virginia Offshore Wind coalition, our district could be on the map in the international conversation around renewable energy. Our future is bright in this area, and we already have coalitions like the Hampton Roads Technology Council in place to move this forward. It’s very exciting to consider the possibilities,” she said
Sandlin is spot on. But why has Rigell said nothing? What about the other GOP candidates?
Quite frankly, the oil industry concerns me with their safety record. While oil disasters are few, when they happen, they are catastrophes (Santa Barbara, Prince William Sound, Gulf of Mexico) – that alone should give us pause as to whether or not we should tap this resource. If every 30 years or so we potentially ruin an ecosystem, maybe we ought to rethink the viability of this production method.
But, politically, leaders need to know when to re-evaluate. I hope Republicans are remaining low-key about this spill because they are doing just that – re-evaluating. A mere two years ago, “Drill, baby, drill” was the mantra that seemed to bringing resurgence to the GOP – but sometimes, when reality strikes, you gotta know when to just let go.
If Republicans were smart, they would realize that at that time, “Drill, baby, drill” was just a frustrated public wondering why we were fighting in far-off lands over an energy commodity, and that the public was seeking viable energy alternatives – including drilling in the United States – merely to bring down the cost of gas.
The reality is that Americans want energy solutions. They want energy to be affordable. But they don’t want to destroy our way of life in the process.
Republicans need to come out strong for their vision of energy alternatives, just like Jessica Sandlin has.
Today, Bearing Drift readers and contributors helped clean up the Chesapeake Bay (pictured). There are conservatives who are environmentally conscious and thoughtful about the future of our planet. Those conservatives will not allow our leaders to abdicate their responsibility in telling us their plans for how to meet our energy needs and preserve the precious balance of life.
Republicans who solely relied on “drilling” as their energy solution are soon to be exposed as frauds. And, those Republicans who truly have been leaders in promoting the comprehensive energy solution must very publicly make their policies known – including supporting an all-out effort to contain this spill and clean it up using any means available.
The environment matters – especially to conservatives. It’s time to act like it.
* Update *
Tucker Martin, the governor’s spokesman, dropped me an email this morning stating all the things Gov. McDonnell has done to advocate an “all of the above” energy solution.
Jim, kind of surprised by the comments you made, or more accurately didn’t make, about the governor in your latest post. You’ve been following him a long time, so certainly you know his energy play is the “all of the above” approach you say you want to see, and he talks about using every resource available. You talk about why Republicans don’t promote tax incentives for green energy and don’t mention his Green Jobs tax credit that we got passed this year and was a major plank of his economic development agenda? You don’t note his plan to conserve 400,000 acres, and his support for offshore wind. The quote you have from the 2nd District candidate is EXACTLY the kind of comment the governor makes in every speech he gives about energy. Long and short, all of the things you say Republican’s aren’t doing, the governor is doing. Anyway, here are some links, but a little surprised you didn’t mention the governor’s work given how closely you follow him.
Chesapeake Bay: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=194
Chesapeake Bay: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=167
Scenic rivers and land conversation: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=142
Land conservation: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=141
Earth Week events: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=131
Official bill signing of Governor’s green energy agenda at ODU: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=105
Conserve 400,000 acres: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/MCDO23_20090422-223254/263080/
From that article: “Philosophically, conservation is a conservative value,” the former attorney general said.
You write: Whether it be biofuels, solar, wave energy, wind power, nuclear, or other – why has no Republican seized the opportunity to talk about the “all of the above” solution?
Well here is the text from the governor’s energy plan rollout, right at the start of the campaign at ODU in April 2009.
Bob McDonnell’s plan for “More energy, More Jobs” takes an “all of the above” approach to solving our energy crisis. His administration will continue to support the traditional sources of energy that provide thousands of jobs to Virginians and help keep our electricity costs fairly low. He will also expand investments in renewable energy sources and incentivize green job creation so that the future of Virginia remains bright.
http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/index.php/press_releases/details/more_energy_more_jobs/
And, regarding the cancellation of Lease Sale 220 by the President…
“I am a strong proponent of a comprehensive energy policy for Virginia and America. We should greatly increase our domestic production and utilization of all energy sources. That includes offshore and onshore wind, coal, solar, nuclear, biofuels, waste to energy, natural gas and, with the appropriate improvements in the industry incorporated moving forward, offshore oil and gas”
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=192
The governor has been talking about it for a long time, but during this crisis, this is what is being reported….
From the Washington Post…
McDonnell (R), who has made offshore drilling one of his administration’s top priorities, has continued to support drilling even after the deadly April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that created the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
On Thursday, McDonnell said he understood, but disagreed, with Obama’s decision to cancel plans for proposed lease sales off the Virginia coast.
“I do not believe outright cancellation was the only alternative,” he said. “It is my hope that the president’s action does not signal the end of offshore energy exploration and production off Virginia in the years ahead.”
From the Daily Press…
Canceling the Virginia lease sale upends Gov. Bob McDonnell’s effort to make Virginia the first Atlantic coast state to permit offshore drilling. McDonnell, who could not be reached for comment, issued a statement Thursday reaffirming his support of drilling provided it doesn’t harm the environment.
“I do not believe outright cancellation was the only alternative given the fact that this sale was not due to occur until two years from now, and actual drilling would likely take place years after that,” the statement says.
McDonnell suggested the decision whether or not to drill should be made following the completion of a two-year environmental impact study. The Interior Department’s offshore regulatory arm, Minerals Management Service, began the study prior to the oil spill. Interior spokeswomen did not return phone calls to determine if the study is ongoing.
Appearing Thursday on a Richmond radio show, McDonnell suggested he may pursue a deal to open the coast to gas exploration only. “It’s possible to have a lease sale solely for natural gas,” he said. “And that may be a compromise going forward until all the details are sorted out down there.”
From WTOP…
Speaking on WTOP’s Ask the Governor program Tuesday, McDonnell said the spill is a setback, but he isn’t stopping his push for offshore drilling.
“We didn’t give up when we had the Challenger disaster in the space program or when we had nuclear meltdowns on Three Mile Island. We did what Americans always do in making progress – we found solutions and moved forward. But this is probably going to slow us down. We have a two-year environmental impact statement anyway that’s going on with the federal government and during that time, I think we’ll find a lot of answers,” McDonnell said.
McDonnell said he doesn’t think BP and the federal government had a good Plan B or C for containing or cleaning the spill.
While I appreciate Martin’s sentiment, and agree the governor has done some very good things regarding a comprehensive energy solution, in the last week or so he has been seen as a very public advocate to continue the push for offshore drilling in Virginia. Right now, Virginia needs the governor to be public on the “rest of the above” approach, and working behind the scenes to see the viability of offshore energy production as the study moves forward.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
20 Responses to "[Updated June 6] Where are the environmental Republicans?"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by virginiaBNN, Bearing Drift. Bearing Drift said: Web: Where are the environmental Republicans? http://bit.ly/d3zQx7 [...]
When one wonders the whys of an issue, the age old adage of “follow the money” usually reveals plausible answers to the queries. Here, especially in Virginia, money laden lobbyists perpetuate the legislative advocacy or silence on issues. Clarification becomes evident by examining the contributions portion of the periodic campaign report filings.
Perhaps the more responsible behavior is to focus efforts to stop the oil from flooding the ocean before our government representatives decide to side track themselves into attempting to score politcal points rather than deal with the immediate crisis?
There is plenty of time AFTER the oil leak is stopped to discuss the issues with seeking a broadbased approach to energy other than oil.
With all of the billions thrown around in TARP and stimulus bills/government slush funds, we could have begun constructing many new nuclear power plants. That would have resulted in long term new jobs as well as short term construction jobs. A sustainable energy plan the old Tennessee Valley hydropower project used to employ the unemployed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Where were the Democratic Party and Republican Party leadership advancing THAT intelligent solution prior to the Gulf oil rig disaster? Instead the pork fest frittered away hundreds of billions of borrow money on everything under the sun except building new nuclear power plants.
The excuse before was that they cost too much and the power companies can’t “afford” to build them.
excellent points Jim. I share the same frustrations with leadership across the board. I consider myself an environmentalist and I want more action on cleaning up the oil spill and implementing an upgraded power grid with nuclear and other alternative energies. Especially with nuclear, the US has the opportunity to be the exporter of energy using our technical know-how. If we don’t do it, then the French or Chinese will.
To his credit regarding alternative energy, Kenny Golden understands the need for it and the cost of not offering tax breaks to manufacturers with the potential to develop, manufacture and market the technology (initially at a loss for decades) and offset the alt energy infrastructure where it makes economic sense. It takes decades to reach the economies of scale for new upstart technology when faced with competition from well established hundreds of billion dollar petroleum refueling infrastructure.
I challenge the other candidates, regardless of party, to be informed and to learn more so the next time they run for public office, alternative energy won’t be as alien as it is for them now and they won’t be so malinformed. Unfunded mandates kill alt energy but tax breaks for the R&D and live demonstration projects that offer good pr for manufacturers stimulate business and market acceptance. This model has worked well for most automaker hybrid offerings which more than offset their hidden cost and risk, well above that reflected by the window sticker, to position them as a technology leader and good corporate citizen that marketing people know consumers want to associate with.
JR, pull together an alternative energy forum for the republican, democrat and independent candidates at the ODU school of engineering, my former employer. There are quite a few people in the 2nd district directly involved with alt energy, moreso than most are aware of.
I’m all for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay (a REAL environmental issue, unlike ever so many phantom ones) and most of what is required for cleaning up the Bay is reducing our nitrate contribution from fertilizers and dumping in both urban and rural areas. That’s a real environmental issue that requires real choices to solve it. Republicans need to take leading roles on that and are.
But the anthropogenic global warming movement is really just another in a long series of mythologies concocted to press the anti-oil crusade of the Left. Oil SPILLS are serious environmental disasters and more needs to be done to prevent them, but ANY form of energy production is going to have environmental, economic, and social costs.
What I think many Republicans have gotten RIGHT about energy production is to not get sucked into this “alternative energy” pipe dream. Most forms of “alternative energy” production are ATLERNATIVE because they are simply not profitable and require public subsidies to keep their inefficient (and often polluting) industries on life support.
Biofuels?
Ethenol is MORE polluting by every measure than gasoline! It pollutes more, it costs more, AND it drives of the price of food! The only positive from wasting BILLIONS of taxpayer funds subsidizing ethanol is votes in Iowa for every two-bit politician who thinks he’s going to be President some day (but isn’t).
As for other biofuels, name me a biofuel that can supply the energy that gasoline does and doesn’t need to survive on taxpayer subsidies. At most, the energy production is marginal. You’re not replacing gasoline by burning crap (literally).
Solar?
Solar is HIDEOUSLY inefficient for energy production. It simply costs too much money to get any benefit from it. I’m all for investing money in studying how to make it more efficient, but current technology means that you will often WASTE more energy and money trying to collect solar energy than you will ever gain from the collection. Exceptions exist in places with 300+ days of sunshine a year, but most of the U.S. doesn’t have that sort of climate.
Wind power?
Not only does wind power cost more money and energy in many cases than it saves (the carbon footprint from BUILDING a windfarm can easily exceed any reduction from the collection of wind energy compared to buring petroleum), but the windmills themselves are hazards to local wildlife. Birds are routinely killed by them and sea creatures who rely on sonic forms of communication and sense have entire habitats rendered inaccessible due to them. Aside from those problems, wind just doesn’t produce enough energy.
Nuclear is a serious alternative, but we need to rationally weigh the safety issues with nuclear against the very apparent safety issues we are seeing today with oil. Both produce energy, but a nuclear accident is potential as serious – if not vastly more so – than an accident on an oil rig.
Personally, I’m all for spending money on STUDYING alternative forms of energy, but not for subsidizing their production. They need to demonstrate their market potential on their own as technology becomes available.
The reason is simple: the technology simply doesn’t exist yet to make many of these alternatives cost-effective. They’re drains on taxpayer funds and end up becoming a new form of welfare. And that is precisely what we, as conservative Republicans, should be against.
As the example of Spain, which went hog wild for all of this ‘green energy’ crap, has shown, every “green job” surviving on government subsidy can cost as much as 2 jobs in the rest of the economy due to taxes needed to support it. “Green energy” simply isn’t at a point of profitability or sustainability yet.
There are no quick fixes, silver bullets, or easy solutions to the problems we have with oil. Like it or not, oil is here to stay. Nuclear (with electronic cars) provides a realistic alternative, but it would cost trillions of dollars to switch our economy over and one has to wonder whether there is any real improvement in safety.
And I, for one, am glad that Republicans generally aren’t jumping onto the “green energy” bandwagon. I’m glad they’re generally being more dispassionate about the fad. Oil certainly presents a number of problems and we need to take a good hard look at it in light of the current environmental disaster, but the grass isn’t necessarily greener on the other side of the fence.
Abnormal, great piece you wrote. You forgot something though. Oil is subsidizes indirectly in this country. Remove defense spending costs from the matrix and oil would be much costlier in the US. I agree in some respects that republican have gotten right is not to get sucked into the false near term promises of energy sources such as hydrogen and ethanol but may I ask what you would do to promote energy independence be it fossil fuel or unconventional energy resources?
You are not a fan of solar? Dude, Solar is so republican it isn’t funny. Some of the most successful solar ventures were the results of visionary republicans.. The efficiencies have improved remarkably since I built collectors in the 70′s and the production costs are still dropping.. guess we will have to buy the chinese ones.. yes they are making them out of plastic now, they are designed to integrate with roofing shingles and can be colored to blend in quite well.. Wind? Not perfect but the future for vertical blade turbine technology offers a considerably safer alternative for migratory birds and less noisy while taking up far less real estate. Nuclear? Nuke is the greenest energy we have. Zero greenhouse gas and the technology keeps improving. Its a whole lot safer than coal or oil fired steam turbines. You know how many people get sick and die every year working around coal let alone mining it?
You propose studying alternatives while citing spain goping hogwild on “green energy crap” your words. Hogwash, we have enough data. Time to offer massive tax credits to manufacturers so they can offset the product development costs and pipeline promising alternative technology to consumers. LED lighting has taken 15 years to reach the market at not quite competitive prices but the economy of scale will knock the prices down near partity with inneficient bulbs in this decade. Embracing practical alternatives is an American issue.
The technology needed to wean us off of some imported energy in the near term does exist and I applaude governor McDonnell for exhibiting more visionary forsight on alt energy matters than any governor in va history. We have made every type of alt energy technology at one time or another right here in VA. The payoff in the future will more than offset the short term tax revenue losses incurred by offering real incentives to Va based manufacturers who have to decide whether they are the chicken or the egg. We have to decide if we will be a leader or a follower and that decision starts at the top with Bob. If we are a follower then we need to be a damn good one.. sometimes that is the less risky choice.
Yeah this is a congressional issue as well. One candidate has more active experience promoting practical alternative energy than any other candidate.. you know who..
Conservationists among conservatives that care about the environment?
How about Jindal of Louisiana, that JUST NOW got PERMISSION from the Obama administration to build protective berms to help protect his state’s wetlands? He’s been lobbying for this for weeks now. How much better would things have been if he got the “ok” from the start?
Here’s the thing: Those pictures of oil covered animals and wetlands can be used against the current administration for not letting Jindal act faster. Sure, that bird dies because of the oil rig disaster, but it also dies because Obama waited until now to ALLOW action to be taken.
If you ask me, Jindal should have taken a states rights arguement and spoken about the need to defend his state. He should’ve found a way to dredge and berm immediately rather than have to BEG Obama for weeks for permission to limit environmental damage. Dredge now and find a way to pay for it later. As Governor, he should have been less concerned with “permission” from “Big Government”, Obama or any agenda they might have by being able to finger point at all the mess “Big Oil” made. If Obama and the Feds denied permission to protect their state’s wetlands, Gov. Jindal should have started the process anyway and found a polite and politically correct way to tell the Federal government to go F#$% themselves. What court would convict a rogue governor for protecting animals, the wetlands, and giving local economies a chance to survive?
Where are the enviornmental conservatives? Good question to ask. They SHOULD be along side Jindal and some of the liberal environmentalists that did not give an inch just because it was Obama in charge. Give some on the Left credit for decrying the lack of action of the Federal government and involved corporations like BP.
We have here an instance that could actually use some bi-partisanship. In this case it could help prevent future disasters, provide speedy responses to contain future disasters, find ways to wean the world off of energy flowing from unstable countries, and better care for the environment in general. It would be great to see “bi-partisanship” equate to getting positive things done rather than being the same slower creep to full blown socialism than Leftists would bring by themselves. Bi-partisanship could stop being a dirty word. It could mean something other than a polite term for “Sell Out”.
All that said:
Drill baby, drill! I reject the idea that drilling or exploration is the enemy despite the disaster at the rig and the disaster of a response. The fact is, we need energy now until we get clean energy. We do need to wean ourselves from foreign oil and that necessitates a domestic supply. Oil shale is too expensive to produce at a profit? Fine, have the government buy it for strategic reserves. Since the government overpays for everything anyway, it might as well serve a purpose. Further, the production could lead to newer tech that would cheapen future production. Meanwhile, continue drilling and exploration.
Would I prefer “clean energy”? Of course, but we don’t yet have a viable source that would adequately replace our energy needs. We will need every source we have. Until then, “drill baby drill”. That and take steps to prevent/better respond to oil leaks. I hear there are methods for cleaning oil spills, that aren’t being used. Why?
And let’s face it, as horrible as this is, it could have been prevented, it could have been better responded to, and we have never experienced this kind of tragedy before (that equals a good record). So DRILL until we have a viable alternative. Build nuclear plants. Use current tech while we pursue future clean tech.
We do need to unleash as much research as possible to find viable alternatives. Bio-fuel, fuel cells, who cares what it is – we need to pursue alternatives aggressively. The sooner we use petroleum for just plastics etc., the better.
You might be interested in seeing things from Jindal’s perspective:
He’s curently telling BP to either start dredging or “get out of the way”.
http://www.gov.state.la.us/
“If there’s a new way, I’ll be the first in line. But it better work this time” – lyrics from “Peace Sells” by Megadeth
Turbo, great point on LED bulbs. They are a far better alternative to the the “Big Government” mandated CFL mercury polluters. Thank goodness the government is here to help us find an alternative for our kids eating lead paint chips. Mercury leaks starting in your house will do that.
Don’t buy the crap about over all less mercury from coal plants given CFL efficiency. When we DO find clean tech, and eventually we will, what good will those “dirty” bulbs be? In many cases the mercury production would remain the same anyway as they use the CFL extra energy to power something else or to sell that available power to another locality.
LED all the way!!
Yeah, let’s all type comments and posts about “why don’t we have more windfarms” while we have houses without solar panels that have the AC gunning once the temperature breaks 80 so we can watch our high-def 52″ tv screens when we aren’t cruising around in our giant SUVs.
Yes, Jim. We should talk about other options. But oil is oil, and until someone invents a flux capacitor for your car, all the windfarms in the world aren’t gonna make it go.
J.R., I think those of us who consider ourselves conservationist Republicans are out there, and we’re just as dismayed as anyone else with what’s happening in the Gulf.
However, being Republicans, I like to think that we’re smart enough to hold our powder and not waste our energy getting worked up until we have more information. We still do not have a solid understanding of why this happened. We still do not understand whether the current regulatory system was working or not. And, unlike Democrats, we don’t tend to fly off the handle and try to close the barn doors after the horses have gone and the barn’s burned down, like Democrats have.
One of Obama’s primary actions so far – namely, shutting down off-shore drilling – is wrecking the Gulf’s economy just as bad as the oil itself. When you’ve got three major industries – oil, fishing and tourism – killing off the only one that isn’t irreparably damaged (oil) makes no sense.
Of course we need to continue talking about alternative energy. But as Brian points out, this is an incremental evolution, not an overnight solution.
I am happy that Boehner and other Republicans have been willing to sit back, let the Obama Administration spin while looking ineffective and not going over the top. As Haley Barbour said today on Fox News Sunday, there’s no reason for us to pile on when the other side is destroying itself.
Once the immediate disaster is contained and we’re in the cleanup and investigatory phases, that’s when I expect to see Republicans take the lead in proposing solutions to the long term problem and going after any wrongdoers, if there are any. As amazing as it sounds, accidents still do happen, especially in an industry as dangerous as offshore drilling.
Oh give me a flippin’ break.
OK. Let’s not talk about alternatives. Let’s continue to stick our heads in the sand while Democrats seize the initiative. Let’s continue to not worry about the MMS and its lax standards with the Oil and Natural Gas industry. Let’s let the entire summer go by (mid-August) without talking about energy reform – because, gotta tell ya boys, this leak ain’t stoppin’ until the relief wells are drilled.
Let’s just blow-off energy reform because, hell, we’re gonna use our ACs anyway.
What a bunch of BS.
J.R., I’m sure you must recognize some of the arguments made against most of the alternatives. Most of them will never, ever be able to replace oil; this can be shown easily with today’s scientific knowledge (I’m sure you are familiar with the Law of Conservation of Matter & Energy). There is one exception though in nuclear power. This is the most effective way we can produce energy (short of finding a bunch of anti-matter we can easily access and store). Nuclear needs to be sold. Otherwise, our options are to remain on fossil fuels, or to rely on the wind and the sun, which cannot even be relied on through the seven day forecast let alone for the power needs of this country.
The core problem of moving away from oil is that there is nothing cheaper right now. So until we completely use it up I don’t see folks changing their ways. That being said if something new comes along then its a game changer but with all the over regulation of walk street and now the energy companies we won’t see that happen any time soon.
Personally yeah BP screwed the pooch. They are fixing it. Besides have the British every made that hasn’t leaked oil.
This going soft on drilling is a job killer and will kill new industry in Virginia with Obama using this to block Gov. McDonnell’s successful idea.
Ultimately our environment is a tool to be exploited by man for his purposes. We should take care of it enough so that it lasts a long time but its nothing sacred. People not working due to some rare owl or one bad incident on a oil rig is a bit crap if you ask me.
Don’t get hysterical. I have not abandoned natural gas and oil as an energy source – nor have I abandoned hope that Virginia will one day have oil and natural gas rigs off the coast.
What I am saying is that now is the time for conservatives to demonstrate that they are more than one-trick ponies.
We must show that we are serious about moving to the next stages in our energy evolution.
I believe, still, that the oil and natural gas industry will learn from this horrific accident and be safer because of it; but I also believe that human beings will learn from it and realize that oil and natural gas is not the energy source we should solely depend on.
We have to learn and evolve.
~10% of our heavy duty fleet should be on natural gas and in the near term 50% of the semi fleet should be retired and replaced by heavy rail. Norfolk Southern should be offerred a huge incentive to remove inefficient trucks that ship on routes common to both. Trains are generally 10-30 times as energy efficient as over the road trucks. Which candidate is proposing anything like this.
J.R., you’re acting like no one has been talking about alternatives. We’ve been talking and legislating about alternatives for the last decade. Republicans took the lead back in 2005 with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included an entire Title on research and development. That bill was the result of multiple years worth of legislation. We’ve been doing more than just talking about alternatives.
If you look out there, you’ll see more hybrids on the road than ever before. More public transit vehicles use alternative fuels than ever before. We’ve got more alternative energy sources functioning than ever before. Is it enough? No. But it’s not like we’re doing nothing.
There are multiple problems rolled into what’s going on in the Gulf. The first is trying to figure out what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon. Until that investigation is complete, any regulations based on trying to prevent another are premature because we don’t know what happened. Most of the bad regulation out there is the result of knee-jerk reactions to crises before all of the facts are in. The Oil Pollution Act that was passed after Exxon Valdez put billions of dollars in unfunded mandates on the oil transportation industry that were not justified by what happened in the disaster. We’re Republicans – regulation for regulation’s sake is a Democratic ideal, not one of ours. I don’t want regulations going out until we know what caused the problem in the Gulf.
The MMS issue has been identified and had been identified long before this disaster happened. Obama could have cleaned house there when he took office, but he, for whatever reason – probably lack of knowledge – didn’t. If he wants to clean house at MMS, that’s fine. That should be done regardless of this happening or not. And it should be noted that the cleanup doesn’t really have anything to do with MMS because we don’t, as of now, have any concrete evidence that whatever lapses occurred at MMS has any meaningful impact on this crisis.
Next, you’ve got the problem of ultradeep sea drilling in general. You’ve got potentially energy sources that can be tapped, but you’ve got no real solutions for solving problems for anything that occurs at that depth. And the federal government’s capabilities simply do not match the level of private industry. Is that a capability the Coast Guard should have? MMS? Someone else? Part of the solution to this problem, however, won’t be known until the crisis is over and good after-action reports on the various methods tried is available.
Finally, you’ve got to deal with the issues with the response to the cleanup. Clean away the political garbage and White House posturing and determine whether things were handled the right way. There’s no way that can be done until months or years after the crisis is over because the political issues will be too hot to deal with, for both parties.
So, yes, while there may be one or two things that can be done now (MMS, for example) the bulk of the response is going to take a while. Otherwise, we’ll just be going into the same typical knee-jerk overregulation that will take years to undo after the damage is already done.
Also, for the record, I would advocate more short-sea shipping, in addition to freight rail. Maritime transportation of cargo is even more efficient than rail is and requires less infrastructure.
Brian S.
Conservatives and/or Republicans are failing right now precisely because no one has been talking about alternatives while people are paying attention.
The argument I am hearing from you and others is “let’s wait to speak until after we have gathered all the facts.”
I agree that’s prudent. But knee-jerk liberals aren’t waiting.
We have to be armed with our alternative ideas and talking about those alternatives yesterday, as opposed to being painted with the broad brush of public opinion as the “drill, baby, drill” crowd.
Oh – and exhibit number 5023 why conservatives need to say something, check out this by Alec Baldwin on HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/this-crisis-is-an-opportu_b_602640.html
I don’t buy it. I think folks aren’t talking about alternatives because that’s not the present problem. The problem is stopping the spill, cleaning up the Gulf, and making sure it doesn’t happen again.
The alternatives discussion has been ongoing and there are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle talking about it. There’s been work on an energy bill ongoing for most of this Congress.
Breaking through the clutter now is going to be difficult.
Baldwin is just parroting Rahm Emanuel.
This feels like some sci-fi movie where everyday is April Fool’s Day.
When you read JR pulling from Alec Baldwin of all people, on the Huffington Post, of all blogs – we’ve gone to Bizarro world for sure!!!
“The argument I am hearing from you and others is “let’s wait to speak until after we have gathered all the facts.”
I agree that’s prudent. But knee-jerk liberals aren’t waiting.” – JR
Just because a segment of environmentalists don’t believe in fact gathering and informed decision making, doesn’t mean we should run with the rest of the lemmings off of that “alternative” cliff to a broken economy.
…and which “Far Left” Kook gets credence from BD next? Michael Moore? Al Gore?
JR, you ask us to act with faith with such declarations as:
“We must show that we are serious about moving to the next stages in our energy evolution.” (JR)
Sounds like “Green Religion” to me. National security concerns kinda point to being “serious” to me. Show us the evidence of a viable alternative and maybe we’ll become fanatical followers as well. Until then, keep up the research and innovative breakthroughs and yes, drill baby drill. Don’t demonize a needed energy source over ONE oil rig tragedy and a pitiful spill response,after years of success. How long have we had rigs out there? Despite Chernobyl, aren’t many calling for more nuclear power?
Further,is anyone on the “Right” suggesting we rely soley on petroelum? I don’t think so. Most are argueing for using multiple sources to both (1 relieve dependence on one form of energy or one part of the world and (2 keep our technology options open by pursuing advances everywhere. This is no time for energy predjudice or politically correct fuel. What we need is what works until we find that magic bullet.
JR, if you’re going to extremes to argue here that conservatives don’t have to write off the environment as an issue just because the Left found religion there, I’m full on board. We can indeed succeed with that as an issue and bring a practical and an honest point of view. Conservation and conservationists are terms that can indeed become popular again and especially among conservatives. In fact don’t be surprised if one day “Conservationsists” and “Greens” don’t at some point join forces on key issues even while agreeing to disagree on non-environment issues.
I’m just hoping you’re not catching that “Green Fever”. A fevered mind does not a good environmental steward make.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.