Blog entry

Happy Energy Freedom Day! ... Uh, Where's The Party?

Bill Scher — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:00:55 -0400

Today, the ban on most coastal drilling has officially expired. Conservatives planned to claim this day as "Energy Freedom Day." But the celebration seems awfully quiet.

Conservative politicians, who went into a "Drill, Baby, Drill" frenzy all summer, got exactly what they wanted. Yet they don't seem interested in bragging about it.

For example, in the presidential debate Friday, Sen. John McCain urged "we also have to have offshore drilling" as if congressional leaders hadn't already announced that they were going to let the ban expire.

Why might that be? Maybe because letting the ban expire is likely to expose the emptiness of the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" slogan.

They said would we pay less immediately.

They said we could get the oil in months.

They said that merely showing we were serious about drilling would prompt the oil markets to cut prices.

They said merely talking about drilling on the House floor in August already caused a drop a prices.

But in fact, on the day it was clear that the ban was dead, the price of gas only dropped a penny -- and it still remains more than double of what it was eight years ago. No "psychological benefit" as was promised.

When nothing happens right away, Big Oil's buddies don't want people to know their arguments were bankrupt. So they don't want people to even know that their "Drill, Baby, Drill" energy policy is now in place.

And the excuses are already coming. Check out my recent bloggingheads.tv segment with the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll:

So "Happy Energy Freedom Day." Go celebrate and buy up all that cheap gas lying around.

Coastal Drilling Ban Is Dead: A Post-Mortem

Bill Scher — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:02:26 -0400

Congressional leaders have backed down to conservatives and will let the current federal ban on most coastal drilling to completely expire.

What does this mean for our energy policy? What does this say about the congressional leadership and the progressive movement?

1. Sit Back And Watch Gas Prices ... Not Drop. I cracked a brief smile when scanning conservative blog reaction to the news, and seeing Stop The ACLU seemingly put down the champagne glass and ask, "When will I see things reflect at the pump?"

The conservative movement got their way with a massive propaganda campaign promising that when we "Drill Here" will we "Pay Less." They even claimed in August that merely talking about drilling on the House floor was driving prices down. When pressed about how long it would take to extract the minimal oil available, the response was that ending the ban would have "psychological" benefits that would affect the market.

Well conservatives, your bluff has been called. I await a fresh round of excuses and made-up truthiness if gas prices do not significantly drop.

Once it is definitively proven that lifting the ban did nothing to immediately lower our energy costs, it may end up being easier to pass legislation to provide affordable clean energy, and perhaps even reinstate the drilling ban.

2. It's a Cave-in. Congressional leaders should take serious lumps. They embarked on a smart strategy to turn the tables by putting compromise legislation on the table and smoking out conservatives as hypocrites. It worked, yet they failed to follow through and attack conservatives for obstructing the "All of the Above" energy policy they claimed to support.

They failed to fully read the polls. Yes, drilling propaganda successfully increased support for it. But clean energy still polls better. The public is not narrowly obsessed with drilling the way conservatives literally in bed with Big Oil are. They did not trust that the public would be with them if they forced the issue.

In fairness, the financial crisis is so dominating that it makes it hard to get any other message through. But that also makes it harder for conservatives to follow through on their threat to shut down the government if congressional leaders had renewed the ban in upcoming stopgap financing legislation.

Just this week, the plan was to put a scaled back drilling ban in such a bill -- a partial giveaway that would have been even harder for conservatives to shut down the government over. Yet the congressional leadership still flinched.

3. It's Our Fault Too. While it's always easy to point the blame at someone else, the broader progressive movement deserves blame as well.

When gas hit $4/gallon, we all should have recognized it was an all-hands-on-deck moment. Public outrage needed to be met with a coordinated plan of action. We had the plans on the shelf -- investment in affordable, accessible clean energy to reduce dependence on increasingly expensive oil, along with short-term economic stimulus to help families deal with the spike in costs.

But we didn't strike first. Newt Gingrich did with his "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." propaganda. If we had seized the moment and framed the debate, his cheap sloganeering would have gone the way of the forgotten gas tax holiday.

Even after that moment, we had counter-arguments to make against the Drill Now dishonesty. Arguments just as simple but more factual -- Bush's Energy Department says more drilling won't lower prices until 2030. Done.

Those arguments were made, but not in nearly as coordinated and amplified a fashion as the conservative movement adopted "Drill Here. Drill Now." -- with every right-wing radio host, TV commentator, blogger and congressperson driving the message. Similar to Supreme Court nominations, they made drilling their #1 priority. We did not. As a sports commentator would say, they wanted it more.

One thing we should learn from conservatives is to never quit. Keep this in mind: they are still fighting Roe v. Wade after losing repeatedly in the Supreme Court.

The drilling ban is a lost battle. The fight for a clean energy future is far from a lost war.

Conservatives Derail Energy Compromise In Senate; Drilling Ban Expires in 8 Days

Bill Scher — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:44:23 -0400

Last week, the House passed a compromise bill with more coastal drilling and more clean energy without the support of conservatives.

The Senate had been expected to follow suit -- since it was the "Gang of 10" group of Senators who had the original idea of such a compromise, and the Gang had expanded to 20.

But The Hill and the The Politico (via Gristmill) have reported that the bipartisan Senate group has given up and won't introduce a bill.

Whining conservatives -- who despite being in the Senate minority continue to block popular legislation with filibuster threats -- tried to make the Senators rewrite the original compromise so it wasn't, in the incredulous words one, "on the left of Nancy Pelosi."

You know Speaker Pelosi, the one who just got passed the "All of the Above" legislation that conservatives disingenuously claimed they wanted. The Daily Show probably has the only accurate (but not entirely work-safe) report on what happened in the House last week.

But there was no way to appease the temper-tantrum throwing conservatives, who have proven themselves completely uninterested in an "All of the Above" compromise, without having the rest of the Congress join conservatives under the covers in bed with Big Oil. So, the Gang isn't bothering with a bill at all.

That leaves open the question of what will happen to the current ban on most coastal drilling, which is set to expire in eight days.

With no spending bills passed to keep our federal government functioning through the next fiscal year, a "continuing resolution" allowing for stopgap financing is expected this month.

In that bill, congressional leaders could completely cave and let the current coastal drilling ban expire. Or they could renew the ban, or modify as the House did in its compromise, forcing conservatives and President Bush to either accept it or block the legislation and prompt a government shutdown in the middle of a financial crisis. (In a stopgap financing bill, a modifying of the ban may not come with closing tax breaks for Big Oil and new investment for clean energy as was present in the House bill.)

Of course, with conservatives exposed as completely in bed with Big Oil, opposed to any compromise that would give consumers choices besides buying increasingly expensive oil, and unable to accurately argue that more drilling for negligible amounts of oil would actually lower gas prices, their credibility should be shot.

That would give congressional leaders an opportunity to shift the political dynamic around energy, though with so much focus on Wall Street and with the Senate compromise killed so quietly. it's harder to draw attention to that message. Conversely, conservatives may want to think twice before forcing a government shutdown in the midst of such financial anxiety.

The showdown is coming to a head. If you don't want Congress to cave and keep us dependent on Big Oil, time to make your voice heard.

Conservatives Stay Under The Covers With Big Oil

Bill Scher — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:29:28 -0400

As predicted here last week, House leaders put an "All of the Above" energy bill on the floor.

And conservatives in Congress -- who pretended to support an "All of the Above" energy policy all summer -- rejected it, staying under the covers in bed with Big Oil.

The compromise bill -- which both allows states to lift bans on coastal drilling and repeals handouts to Big Oil so we can invest in clean energy -- passed the House without conservative support. Furthermore, President Bush -- for years the lead whiner demanding more drilling -- threatened to veto the bill.

Why? As the New York Times reports:

Among other objections, House Republicans joined industry in criticizing the measure because it would eliminate about $18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, including a manufacturing deduction of particular benefit to large firms. The savings from the oil companies would be diverted to pay for tax breaks and incentives for renewable fuels, vehicles that use alternative energy and other fuel efficiency programs and research.

To review, conservatives are rejecting a bill that allows for more coastal drilling and more clean energy -- the exact "All of the Above" approach they claimed they wanted -- because it would take away special favors for Big Oil.

Whatever problems there are with this bill, it has served a useful purpose. It has exposed the lie that conservatives really believe in a comprehensive "All of the Above" energy policy.

Anything that makes Big Oil the least bit unhappy -- making oil companies pay their fair share in taxes, forcing oil companies to compete with clean energy companies, and actually giving us a choice for the energy we buy -- conservatives will fight to the hilt.

And since the conservative minority is large enough to either filibuster a compromise bill in the Senate, or sustain a veto from President Bush, we will remain at the mercy of Big Oil -- and forced to keep buying huge amounts of increasingly expensive oil.

Until that conservative minority becomes even smaller, our energy policy will not change, will not become more affordable and will not become cleaner.

Conservatives Reject House "All Of The Above" Energy Bill

Bill Scher — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:15:45 -0400

The House leadership is offering a compromise "All of the Above" energy bill that goes farther than the Senate "Gang of 10" compromise -- both in coastal drilling and in clean energy. (See coverage from NYT, AP, Reuters and WSJ.)

Yet congressional conservatives still are rejecting it, furthering proving they do not really support an "All of the Above" energy strategy, because they are (literally!) in bed with Big Oil.

While the Senate bill would only mandate drilling off of Florida's coast and allow other southeast states to choose drilling, the House bill would allow all coastal states to choose drilling off their coasts.

At the same time, the House plan joins the Senate in repealing Big Oil tax breaks and sweetheart royalty deals, channeling that revenue into clean energy, including renewable energy tax credits.

Further, the House proposal does more than the "Gang of 10" in regards to renewable electricity -- mandating 15% of our electricity comes from renewable sources -- and by including support for green buildings and mass transit. (Climate Progress offers a more detailed, and not terribly enthusiastic, rundown.)

Like it or don't like it, the new House bill certainly fits the "All of the Above" approach conservatives claimed their support for more drilling was rooted in.

The conservative response? Calling it a "hoax." Why? They claim because royalties from new coastal drilling would not be shared with state governments, so states wouldn't have incentive to opt-in.

Excuse me, conservatives. Didn't you just claim that the mere utterance of more coastal drilling was lowering gas prices for everybody? Haven't you been saying that when we actually "Drill Now" we would all "Pay Less" immediately? And now you reject a compromise claiming that isn't incentive enough, that states need an additional handout for this to work?

(UPDATE: I should also note that the Senate "Gang of 10" proposal does share royalties with states, yet conservatives found different excuses to reject that bill.)

It's simply not a serious argument. It's an excuse to reject an "All of the Above" bill because they don't support an "All of the Above" energy policy. As conservatives are (literally!) in bed with Big Oil, they will not support anything that makes Big Oil pay their fair share in taxes, forces them to compete with clean energy companies, and gives us a choice besides buying increasingly expensive oil.

Conservatives are right that it would probably take a hefty bribe to get most states to allow drilling, but that's because they are wrong about every other aspect of their argument.

Coastal drilling will not lower prices, according to Bush's own Energy Department. It is not worth the risk to states which are dependent on their pristine coastlines for tourism revenue (Grist has noted few are expected to opt-in, if any). Even offering a share of royalties -- revenue states wouldn't see until a decade from now -- is pretty meager incentive.

The political dynamic was shifted by conservatives during the summer, because they launched a coordinated dishonest propaganda campaign that was not forcefully rebutted, prompting the congressional leadership to offer an "All of the Above" compromise. But if conservative credibility is undermined by their rejection of the sort of "All of the Above" bill they had claimed to want, then the political dynamic will shift again.

Talk About Being In Bed With The Oil Companies

Bill Scher — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:14:19 -0400

This pretty much says it all. Washington Post:

Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported yesterday.

I'll refrain from any "drill" metaphors.

» RELATED Making Sense Alert: "In Bed with Big Oil—Literally"

Renewing the Working Class American Dream

Terrance Heath — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:15:41 -0400

David's post about the working-class vs. the professional ideal, brought to mind a few news articles, a boatload of memories, and a few thoughts about renewing the working class American Dream David spoke of. (After all, if there is more than one America, there has to be more than one American Dream. Right?)

The first article, from February of this year, focused on Detroit's loss of manufacturing jobs in the face of automaker's payroll cuts.

A new round of cutbacks by Detroit's automakers carries a larger message – that America's manufacturing workers are under new pressure in jobs where labor unions had once been able to command middle-class wages for assembly-line jobs.

..."Those jobs are going and they're not coming back," says Gary Chaison, a labor expert at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. In part, he says, manufacturers see moves such as the job buyouts as "a path for them to become low-cost producers by elimina

...But as worker productivity surges forward around the world, the balance of power has shifted. America's heavy industry isn't producing the number of jobs that it used to.

The US lost 3 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2006, according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, citing figures from government reports.

Meanwhile, the average hourly earnings of manufacturing workers have grown more slowly than pay in service-sector jobs, even though productivity has risen much faster for manufacturing workers.

"All of US manufacturing is competing on a global basis," says Michelle Krebs, senior editor of Edmunds's AutoObserver.com, which tracks the car industry.

Though the next one — titled "The Wage That Meant Middle Class" — about the decline of the $20/hour wage, seems to imply the same attitude towards blue collar work that David addresses (blue collar jobs as a stepping stone to middle class status, and presumably white collar work, for the next generation), I can't help thinking that's still part of what's contributed to declining status of blue collar work and the unfamiliarity of most Americans with the principles David referenced.

Leaving aside for a moment those who have lost their jobs, what of those who still have them? Once upon a time, a large number earned at least $20 an hour, or its inflation-adjusted equivalent, and now so many of them don’t.

The $20 hourly wage, introduced on a huge scale in the middle of the last century, allowed masses of Americans with no more than a high school education to rise to the middle class. It was a marker, of sorts. And it is on its way to extinction.

Americans greeted the loss with anger and protest when it first began to happen in big numbers in the late 1970s, particularly in the steel industry in Western Pennsylvania. But as layoffs persisted, in Pennsylvania and across the country, through the ’80s and ’90s and right up to today, the protests subsided and acquiescence set in.

Hourly workers had come a long way from the days when employers and unions negotiated a way for them to earn the prizes of the middle class — houses, cars, college educations for their children, comfortable retirements. Even now a residual of that golden age remains, notably in the auto industry. But here, too, wages are falling below the $20-an-hour threshold — $41,600 annually — that many experts consider the minimum income necessary to put a family of four into the middle class.

And the third article focused on the fact that there are fewer "good jobs" for workers without college degrees.

The steady loss of "good jobs" by less-educated workers has left them more vulnerable to recession than at any time in nearly 30 years, and signs are mounting that a recession is either already here or coming soon.

High-school dropouts and even high-school graduates who lack specialized job training have seen their already limited employment prospects steadily decline during America's decades-long shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy.

Not long ago, Americans who were unable to attend college could count on finding local factory jobs after high school. The lucky ones landed in muscular industries such as aviation, steel and automobiles, while others found work on assembly lines building durable goods.

These and other "good jobs" were the signature byproducts of a robust economy that once was the envy of the world. The jobs provided stability and decent wages that allowed families to buy homes, provide for their children and retire in modest comfort.

...Since then, however, the economy has lost nearly 6 million manufacturing jobs — 52,000 in February alone. Among them were many of the 3.5 million "good jobs" lost from 2000 to 2006, according to John Schmitt, a senior economist at CEPR.

As those jobs disappeared, many blue-collar workers were forced to take jobs with far less pay and benefit security.

Put it all together, and there's a reason to think that there are are just fewer and fewer examples of the value and dignity in "attaining social status through farming, small-business development and factory work," as David wrote, and I suspect that's why too many of us have no reference point for it.

My dad didn't work in a factory. He worked in a power plant, which I guess is close enough. He walked out the door each morning wearing work boots, a safety hat, and carrying a lunch pail. And he didn't spend his work days sitting behind a desk. Before marrying my dad in 1955, my mom put herself through cosmetology school, and opened her own beauty shop in an extra room built on to her parents' home. That room was later converted into a bedroom, and when we visited my grandfather years later I could see the worn areas in the floor where my mom stood behind the chair and moved back and forth from her her tools (back then, a hotcomb and heating element). And my grandparents? Sharecroppers. So I do have a point of reference reference for all David mentioned in his example.

But how do we change our present reality? There are fewer and fewer factory jobs to be had, and we are pretty far along in a shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy that has replaced good jobs with good wages and good benefits with jobs that pay considerably less and often come with fewer benefits or none at all.

Discussing all of the above with a colleague a couple of months ago, I suggested that in order to get out of the economic mess we're in, we'd have to return to some degree of a manufacturing economy, even if not at the same level as in the past. But he countered that the globalization genie was out of the bottle, and even as other countries enacted environmental and labor laws that make them less atrractive to corporations seeking cheap labor and low-to-no regulations, there will always be other desperately poor countries willing to take any jobs, at any wages, and under any conditions.

So, if he's right, how do we change that? First, there's no simple three- or four-step solution that will solve all of these peoblems, but there are ways we can begin addressing some of these problems. The reality is that working-class Americans have experienced a decline in their standard of living as blue collar jobs with decent wages and benefits are lost, and workers shift into service-sector jobs that pay less and carry fewer benefits. We can begin to address that through a health care plan that guarantees coverage to everyone. That would restore a degree of dignity to Americans who work hard and spend more and more of their wages on health care but are still under-insured, or the growing numbers of the unemployed joining the ranks of the uninsured who pay more for less care. As Sara pointed out, that would even encourage more people to start their own businesses, or go back to a school and retrain for a different career, rather than clinging to any job that offers reasonable coverage.

We can begin to address this by putting education within reach for more families, and especially the families of high-achieving low-income students — whose college enrollment rates are lower than high-income students with lower achievement scores. We can address it by focusing on career and technical education for students who are not college bound, and create jobs for many of them right in their communities, if we invest in fixing our crumbling infrastructure, instead of leaving it to the same Wall Street firms that helped bring us the credit crisis.

Speaking of infrastructure, we can begin to address this by envisioning and building a green economy, that creates growth and jobs in sectors like the steel industry and construction, as well as green architecture. We can create an economy that puts people to work retrofitting their own communities for alternative energy and greater energy efficiency, to reduce our dependence on imported oil, counter climate change, and secure better a future for their communities.

But first we need two things: political leaders who understand all of this — who may even have real-life, on-the-ground, hands-on experience working to lift communities, side-by-side with working families — have policies that help us get there, and the political will to push them to lead on all of these things once they are in office.

The job of renewing the American Dream for working Americans and their families doesn't just belong to our elected officials. It belongs to all of us.

Will The "Drill, Baby, Drill" Temper Tantrum Shut Down Our Government?

Bill Scher — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:40:18 -0400

The conservative delegates in St. Paul did not chant, "All of the Above." They chanted, "Drill, Baby, Drill."

So much has coastal drilling gotten conservatives foaming at the mouth, that they're barely bothering with the pretense that they believe in a comprehensive energy policy.

While conservatives continue their extended temper tantrum, the current ban on most coastal drilling expires September 30th, putting pressure on congressional leaders.

With Congress back in session, congressional leaders are planning to put compromise packages on the floor. As I explained last month, the basic approach would allow for some additional drilling while also repealing tax breaks and sweetheart royalty deals for Big Oil, and channeling the revenue into generating clean energy. CQ (sub. req'd) reported yesterday on the planned strategy:

[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] has said she will schedule a vote soon on a comprehensive energy package that includes some new drilling with environmental safeguards.

This strategy is expected to proceed on two parallel tracks. Congress will consider standalone energy legislation aimed at resolving the issue. And separately, leaders will decide whether to extend the expiring moratorium.

Democrats say they hope Republicans will feel the need to join in a proposal to link limited offshore drilling with efforts to promote renewable energy. If Republicans do accept that plan, then Democratic leaders could add language reflecting the agreement to a stopgap continuing resolution that is planned to finance government programs until early next year. Lawmakers are aiming to pass a continuing resolution this fall because they don’t intend to finish the coming year’s regular spending bills before the November elections.

If the two parties cannot reach agreement, however, then some Democrats predict their party will extend the drilling ban for another year, without opening up any new areas, as part of the continuing resolution.

...

The Pelosi package is likely to place a long list of protective restrictions on new exploration, such as buffer zones that would bar drilling close to shore and requirements that state officials first agree. Her package would probably also strip oil and gas companies of about $18 billion in tax benefits they currently receive. And she would make oil companies pay the government royalties that have been in dispute and force them to use cash to pay royalties on leases rather than using oil swaps.

In exchange, the measure would be designed to win support from environmental activists by setting aside billions of dollars over the next decade to be invested in alternative fuels and to subsidize mass transit, while requiring utilities to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable fuels. A key ally of environmentalists, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., would also like to encourage green building design and accelerate implementation of tougher vehicle fuel economy standards.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has promised a vote, probably the week after a Sept. 12 energy summit, on a bill put together by a group of 16 senators that would increase spending on renewable energy sources while opening areas, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico, to more drilling. That plan would lift the ban beyond a buffer zone.

What's the response to this attempt at compromise among some leading congressional conservatives? Shut down our entire federal government!

No, I'm not kidding.

Because conservative leaders are so deep in the pocket of Big Oil, they are vehemently against any compromise that doesn't give Big Oil everything it wants.

Presuming Senate conservatives are able to filibuster any compromise energy package, they could then try to throttle the "stopgap" financing bill that would renew the current ban along with funding the operations of our federal government -- either by filibuster or by sustaining a possible presidential veto.

A second CQ report notes that there are more rumblings about a shutdown among House conservatives than Senate conservatives, suggesting some awareness that the tenuous public support for coastal drilling has its limits.

But the differing reactions indicate that conservatives are struggling to deal with their own success.

Conservatives got a lot of mileage by couching coastal drilling as part of an "All of the Above" approach. Problem for them is, they don't actually believe in "All of the Above." They believe in "Drill, Baby, Drill." Listen to the chants.

Conservatives believe in propping up Big Oil with our tax dollars, shielding oil companies (and oil-soaked dictators) from having to compete with clean energy, and denying us affordable energy choices.

But because of the conservatives' effective summer propaganda campaign -- which falsely claimed coastal drilling would lower gas prices -- they moved the congressional leadership.

Now, conservatives are going to be faced with an "all of the above" bill that, despite the additional drilling, makes Big Oil mad. (For more detail, check out Climate Progress which has been digging in to the compromise.)

Conservatives will be put on the spot before September 30: compromise for the public interest, or continue the temper tantrum for Big Oil's interest.

The Biofuels Debate

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:33:26 -0400

The issue of biofuels is hotly debated even among those advocating a clean energy future. I got two opposing perspectives outside the convention hall, inside the BIg Tent yesterday.

First, I spoke with Josh Boger of the Biotechnology Industrial Organization and political consultant Joe Trippi, who made a case that biofuels can be pursued without adversely impacting food prices.

Then, David Roberts of Grist.org offered an analysis skeptical that biofuels could be developed in an environmentally sound and cost-effective way.

What say you?

The Big Idea In Denver: Green-Collar Jobs

Bill Scher — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:20:51 -0400

In all the buzz of ideas and activism going on outside the convention hall, the rise of green-collar jobs as a signature progressive idea is inescapable. With the potential to help solve our economic, environmental and national security weaknesses, investing in a clean energy economy is quickly becoming a no-brainer which only conservative brains refuse to embrace.

I had the opportunity to talk with Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire about her record on clean energy and green jobs. Watch our interview below.

And I also interviewed David Roberts of Grist.org, who was very impressed with the "sophistication" of the green jobs discussion outside the convention hall, yet felt it was only getting cursory mentions inside the hall.