A few days ago in Jacksonville, Obama responded to McCain’s lauding of the lifted executive order on offshore drilling:
It would have long-term consequences for our coastlines, but no short-term benefits, since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil,” he said.
And that’s not soon enough, he added: “Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today.”
How about turning that around by saying it would have a long-term benefit in increasing oil production levels but no short-term cost, since it would take 10 years to get any oil?
Opposition to increasing the federal government’s ability to ‘lease’ ocean beds to energy companies by harping on how it wouldn’t bring immediate relief sounds silly if this is the offered alternative:
The Illinois Democrat said he would put a higher tax on companies that pollute and use the money to invest in wind, solar, geothermal and other alternatives to oil. He said he wouldn’t rule out nuclear energy as a future source of power, if problems of waste storage and safety can be resolved.
And that will offer immediate price relief how? Reducing the federal rate of $.184 a gallon (or reducing the varying amounts of state takes) or removing the tariff on foreign (Brazilian) ethanol are among the few ways to put immediate downward pressure on prices. Everything else has a longer-term orientation.
I’d much rather Obama honestly assert that petroleum energy sources are not clean enough or renewable enough, and anything that will work to lower their prices (or the growth rate of their prices) will make it more difficult for other alternative sources to become economically viable.