McCain responds to HA on energy
posted at 7:12 pm on April 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not everyone can get their questions asked in a 30-minute conference call, and today John McCain ran out of time before he got to me. He answered plenty of questions, including from my friend Hugh Hewitt, who went unheralded in my earlier post for his brilliant and incisive question about whether Barack Obama should have to account for his relationships with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. (McCain says he should apologize for equating a distinguished doctor and Senator like Tom Coburn to unrepentant domestic terrorists and explain how Obama can assert that the pair represent “mainstream” politics, in Chicago or anywhere else.)
McCain’s team always asks to send them any unasked questions, and they respond quickly. I forwarded them two questions and received answers a few hours later:
1. In talking about a gas-tax holiday, he mentioned that it doesn’t really address the fundamentals of high gas prices. Would he be willing to expand domestic oil production (drilling), expedite the building of new refineries, and eliminate the state mixture structures in favor of a single national mixture to make production and supply more efficient and less costly?
There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact. John McCain would consider further natural resource development on public lands. Each potential opportunity must be studied carefully, incorporate local input, be consistent with the applicable land use plans for the area and meet appropriate environmental protection standards. John McCain believes in the multiple-use, sustained-yield approach to public land management, while ensuring that we fully protect the character of unique and sensitive areas. Natural resource development projects must be conducted responsibly and in accord with appropriate standards and public input.
John McCain also believes that there are some outer continental shelf areas that can and should be developed for their energy potential but the areas should not be those that are ecologically sensitive to such development. John McCain also believes that the will of the people of coastal states like Florida and California on issues related to OCS development off their shorelines must be respected and they should have a say in where moratoria are kept in place as well as the terms of such development that is permitted. Where OCS development is conducted, as permitted by federal and state authorities, it should be undertaken in accordance with stringent environmental protection standards, oversight, and enforcement.
2. The push for ethanol has substantially raised food prices and contributed to hunger around the world. What is the Senator’s position on ethanol?
As for his position on ethanol, I would refer you to this November 2007 John McCain speech.
The speech should be read in full, but here’s the core of his philosophy:
There is no economic force on this globe that is stronger than free people. Entrepreneurs lie at the heart of innovation, growth, and advancing prosperity. Entrepreneurs should not be shackled by excessive regulation that raises the cost of business. Entrepreneurs should not be disadvantaged by earmarking and pork-barrel spending that favors politically connected competitors.
I trust Americans, I trust markets and I oppose subsidies. As President, I’ll propose a national energy strategy that will amount to a declaration of independence from the risk bred by our reliance on petro-dictators and our vulnerability to the troubled politics of the lands they rule. That strategy won’t be another grab bag of handouts to this or that industry and a full employment act for lobbyists.
Yes, that means no ethanol subsidies. But it also means no rifle-shot tax breaks for big oil. It means no line items for hydrogen, no mandates for other renewable fuels, and no big-government debacles like the Dakotas Synfuels plant. It means ethanol entrepreneurs get a level playing field to make their case — and earn their profits.
It’s an essentially agnostic point of view on ethanol itself, but it’s the proper conservative response. If ethanol can succeed in a level marketplace, then it should continue. If not — and there are plenty of reasons to suspect it won’t — then McCain doesn’t want the government intervening to keep it afloat.
It’s a pretty good response, and it signals that our energy policy will be driven by pragmatism rather than pie-in-the-sky interventionism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Count me as unimpressed. This is pretty mealy-mouthed.
Nessuno on April 25, 2008 at 7:21 PM
But what about those carbon credits?
Isn’t 2 trillion dollars meaninglessly pulled out of American consumers’ wallets for electricity and heating bills an energy tax?
And wasn’t McCain the deciding vote against drilling in ANWR and allowing us to produce our own 15 billion barrels of oil.
Compared to that stupid move, ethanol subsidies are just a cakewalk..
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Triangulation. McCain’s as much about big government and taxation as any Democrat out there. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to respond to adverse economic conditions with price freezes and federal interventionism.
Name the last major bill associated with McCain that wasn’t for the purpose of establishing a more powerful federal control over the economy and society.
McCain is not a conservative. He’s less liberal than his opponents.
spmat on April 25, 2008 at 7:28 PM
If not — and there are plenty of reasons to suspect it won’t — then McCain doesn’t want the government intervening to keep it afloat
The government is already intervening to keep it afloat.
lowandslow on April 25, 2008 at 7:29 PM
In times when the high price of oil and gasoline is distorting our economy and speculators have more influence than long term market economics, the burden of prevention of oil development should be on the opponents on a site by site basis. They should have to show why the risks are too great or why the technology proposed by the developer is unproven or inadequate. Opponents often raise one issue and when it is knocked down, raise another and another in series. This can drag out development forever. They should have a reasonable time to put their issues on the table and then the time for issue raising is closed. Government agencies can obviously raise issues at any time during the permitting process, but others should be kept to a firm comment period that does not get reopened.
Ethanol is fine as a substitute for MTBE in promoting complete combustion in order to reduce VOCs. MTBE proved to be an environmental risk when spilled because the MTBE was miscible with ground water and spread quickly and degraded the water supply. For this purpose, 10% is enough and we have enough corn to make it; but better yet repeal the restictions on sugar based ethanol which is cheaper. If we ever get cellulosic ethanol that is competitive, E85 will make sense, but its not now.
The 2007 energy bill raised the ethanol mandate so high, that it would consume far too much of our corn crop to meet and something has to be done since food prices are rising too high already before the bill has not even kicked in all the way. The 2005 energy bill was comparatively wise and balanced.
KW64 on April 25, 2008 at 7:29 PM
GRAHAM, BURR, MCCAIN UNVEIL LEGISLATION TO ASSIST SERVICEMEMBERS, VETERANS, GUARDSMEN AND RESERVISTS WITH INCREASED EDUCATION BENEFITS
April 22, 2008
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Richard Burr (R-NC), and John McCain (R-AZ) today unveiled the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act.
The Graham-Burr-McCain bill enhances the existing Montgomery G.I. Bill by improving education benefits for servicemembers, veterans, and members of the Guard and Reserve. The legislation will help more military personnel attend college debt-free, and allow them to transfer their education benefits to their spouse or children. It also bolsters recruitment and retention efforts, encouraging servicemembers to continue their military careers.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Connie on April 25, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I think it is unfair to blame higher food prices on ethanol. There have been a lot of factors, such as urban growth, higher costs of production and increased demand from Asia for all sorts of raw material.
I also think there are a lot of people who do not understand how subsidies work. Ethanol is not being funded by subsidies. Subsidies kick in when there are surpluses and low prices. For years I have heard people say that if we just got rid of subsidies, then grain prices would rise and poor nations would benefit because they can not compete with the subsidies and need a higher price for the product. Now the prices are higher due to increased demand and people are complaining that somehow this is not the market?
This is the market, this is how it works. Farmers are paying more than $4 for a gallon of diesel fuel. Everything they purchase to put a out a crop is higher in price. They have to deal with all sorts of government regulations. They have high property taxes to pay. They have been zoned virtually out of existence in many areas.
I do not have a problem with the market, but people have to realize that the market does not always guarantee low prices or steady supplies. I have seen Ed complain about dairy support program, but that program was put in place to stop the “butter riots” that routinely plagued American cities. They exist as much for the consumer as the producer.
So while I do support more drilling for oil and I think that we can also make biofuel out of other sources than grain, it should also be remembered that ethanol does not destroy the food value of the grain so charges that it has removed this grain from the food producing chain are no more true than charges that it exists only because of subsidies. Ethanol has been around for decades, not only here but abroad. The reason a lot of the poor people of the world can not feed themselves is that they have no economy, no resources. I do not remember a time in my life when I was not hearing about a famine or a food shortage somewhere. Now all of a sudden, it is the fault of the farmer. No, it is the fault of high energy prices and an Asian market gobbling up raw material.
These are some prices for corn over recent years. Compare them to prices for just about anything else:
CORN PRICES
The following list shows the relataive stability of the average corn price per bushel in Kansas since the early 20th century.
1908: 55 cents
1931: 28 cents
1934: 97 cents
1943: $1.10
1946: $1.54
1947: $2.21
1955: $1.39
1963: $1.12
1972: $1.52
1980: $3.32
2005: $2.10
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service
BTW, once those prices got above 2005 levels, the markets were in control..not the government.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Any government prohibitions on production of oil and gas should not be blanket bans but rebuttable preumptions that leave the possiblity for better technology to address legitimate concerns and still provide a domestic secure supply of oil.
KW64 on April 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM
spmat:
I can remember the price freezes when Nixon was president. He was no Democrat.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM
As president he will support domestic drilling? So why did he vote against it when he was in the senate?
GogglesPisano on April 25, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Weight of Glory on April 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM
McCain is just using the Republican party to further his own political career. He doesn’t give a crap about his own party.
He’s turned into a Senatorial version of Michael Bloomberg.
What coattails does he have?
Knowing how thin support for McCain is, the NC Republican party is trying to get their own candidates in, and he attacks them. Maybe they should boycott the convention and tell him to “f**k himself”.
He thought nothing of attacking them before he would raise a hand against Obama or the left-wing Dems.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM
KW:
The corn market is a world market, it is not just about us. That is like saying oil prices are controlled by what we put in reserve. It does not work that way. Even if you did away with all mandates, the demand is there.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Goggle:
My guess is he voted against it because at the time the price of oil was about $2o a barrel or something like that.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:37 PM
3. S.83 : A bill to provide increased rail transportation security.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
5. S.85 : A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (14)
7. S.166 : A bill to restrict any State from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
12. S.519 : A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 2/7/2007) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 2/7/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
21. S.2172 : A bill to impose sanctions on officials of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to prohibit the importation of gems and hardwoods from Burma, to support democracy in Burma, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 10/16/2007) Cosponsors (8)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
22. S.2890 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 4/17/2008) Cosponsors (9)
Committees: Senate Finance
35. S.AMDT.3089 to H.R.1585 To provide for a continuation of transitional health benefits for members of the Armed Forces pending a resolution of their service-related medical conditions.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 9/27/2007) Cosponsors (None)
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 7:38 PM
In fact if they stopped making all biodiesel and the prices collapsed, but cost of production stayed as high as it is…there would be shortages not because of ethanol, but because no one could afford to grow the stuff. Not unless the government kicked in with big subsidies to keep the farmers in the field.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:40 PM
McCain is going to end up dividing the Party. RINO infiltration is complete.
Egfrow on April 25, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Pragmatism, BAD. Ideological purity REQUIRED.
What’s so bad with saying that any new drilling will be done using best practices? You know, new oil has to be extracted in the dirtiest possibly fashion to make you folks happy?
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Terrye,
The US has traditionally been the largest source of exportable corn. If 25% or more of the US crop goes to ethanol, it will take the rest of the world a substantial effort to make up for the loss. By the time they do, our hope is to have cellulosic ethanol available which will free up our corn for export again but it will face a greatly increased foreign supply capacity that will have captured a good deal of the market. Thus a corn bust could follow a corn boom.
The money spent on excess corn-based ethanol production could have gone to producing more oil and directly reduced our dependency and oil price if we allowed the development of technologically and econmomically feasible oil production in the US. It is our government restictions that stand in the way. So lets spend our money where it makes economic sense producing oil at home rather than subsidizing production facilities that are hoped to become at least partially obsolete rather soon.
KW64 on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM
For a second there, I thought McCain was talking about himself in the third person. Brought back some bad memories.
“Bob Dole thinks Brittany looks great.”
Hening on April 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
I am so tired of hearing all this RINO stuff. For years the United States did not pursue energy independence, even after the oil shock of the 70’s. Conservatives were no more interested in pushing this than anyone else. That is how a market works, once the prices fell, there was not enough money in it to justify to going after the hard to get oil. And as for ethanol, there is nothing new there. Ethanol has been around for years, but now people have decided to blame ethanol production for high prices. Well that is a market, sometimes price go up.
A few years ago the price of wheat got so low that not even subsidies could make it profitable. And the number of acres in wheat dropped to the lowest level in about a century. And no one gave a damn, until there was not enough wheat.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Pragmatism, BAD. Ideological purity REQUIRED.
What’s so bad with saying that any new drilling will be done using best practices? You know, new oil has to be extracted in the dirtiest possibly fashion to make you folks happy?
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 7:44 PM
What the hell are you babbling about?
Stopping ANWR 5-7 years ago means that we do not have the 1.5-2 million barrels of domestic oil per day oil NOW. It will take that long to get the oil at full production mode, in any case.
You don’t vote on these things on today’s oil prices.
And the majors don’t need McCain to tell them how to drill on Federal land; there are already a zillion laws and rules they have to follow.
I wish McCain had a fifth of the IQ of the average Exxon engineer or exploration geologist. What a dumbshit.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 7:53 PM
KW:
I farmed for years, busts always follows boom.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Not far from me is a biodiesel plant, in one of those little rural towns that Obama finds so appalling. It took years to get that plant in production. If it goes under, a lot of people with nowhere else to go for a job will be unemployed. And then there is the investment that will be lost.
Maybe the thing to do is make it easier to use other forms of biomass as well as corn. It might be easier to be versatile than to just pull the rug out from under an entire industry. Especially now.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Ed, good questions. Thanks for asking them.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Texas Jew:
I understand what you are saying, but back then there was no apparent need for the oil. Even now we are starting to pump oil that would have been considered to costly to go after 5 years ago. I grew up in Oklahoma, my Dad worked in the oil industry. I can remember them capping wells because it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than the oil was worth. That was then.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Re increased oil exploration, McCain replies ‘no’.
Re ethanol subsidies, McCain replies ‘none’.
Anyone who has a brain understands that removing the existing subsidies will be as disruptive as enacting them in the first place.
Factor in all the other subsidies McCain suddenly wants removed, well, I predict an October surprise of historic proportions; Obama, Hillary, McCain it doesn’t matter.
rockhauler on April 25, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Not far from me is a biodiesel plant, in one of those little rural towns that Obama finds so appalling. It took years to get that plant in production. If it goes under, a lot of people with nowhere else to go for a job will be unemployed. And then there is the investment that will be lost.
Maybe the thing to do is make it easier to use other forms of biomass as well as corn. It might be easier to be versatile than to just pull the rug out from under an entire industry. Especially now.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Why not?
It’s all an uneconomical Welfare scam held afloat by taxpayers and financially crushed consumers. If we let mortgage companies crash, why not bullcrap ethanol scams? And switchgrass, wood chips and other biomass frauds are even worse.
Tell them to hop on a bus and make it down here to Odessa, Texas, where lots of oil rigs are turning to the right.
It’s not smart to fool with Adam Smith…
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:02 PM
I thought true “conservatives” were ABOVE the party and didnt need us right-of-center folks. Werent you the guys whining and crying about how the “party had left you” when the party got behind McCain? OK then…
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Yeah, he would consider it… for the sake of appearance… then reject it.
He has become such an acolyte of Gorebull Warming that he has already promised to put ANWR, all of the coastal areas and several of the interior areas with great potential for oil production forever off limits. By Executive Order, If necessary, if he can’t get Congress to approve. Along with “Cap and Trade” and other economy destroying ‘watermelon’ programs.
And that gas tax holiday… Even supposing it would do any long-term good… How does that juxtapose with his earlier idea of adding another 50 cents a gallon federal gas tax to make us greedy gringos cut back on our consumption? Conyers gets the blame for that, but it was McCain’s idea first.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Based on their hiring pratices for tanker captains, I think I will take my chances with McCain.
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:06 PM
All of you people with such a hardon for ANWR confuse me, you want to pull a few billion barrels out of the ground and ocean for a temporary fix?
You like the smack addicts I used to see come through the ER.
“IF I CAN JUST GET ONE MORE HIT, then I can quit!!!!”
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Texas Jew:
I understand what you are saying, but back then there was no apparent need for the oil. Even now we are starting to pump oil that would have been considered to costly to go after 5 years ago. I grew up in Oklahoma, my Dad worked in the oil industry. I can remember them capping wells because it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than the oil was worth. That was then.
Terrye on April 25, 2008 at 7:59 PM
The humanity! I was there for the whole Penn Square implosion in 1982 – that was a hell of a bust!
Terrye, they’re redrilling and reentering those wells again in Kay, Pawnee, Payne, Cleveland, Garfield, Grant, and about twenty other Oklahoma counties. Economics drives this, and back in 2003. it became obvious that something was happening. We wasted 5-10 critical years as far as ANWR was concerned.
The fools in Washington have a mandate to provide policies to help America get to its oil and gas reserves, they do NOT have a mandate to prevent us from accessing them.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Based on their hiring pratices for tanker captains, I think I will take my chances with McCain.
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Pretty snarky. I hope you enjoy paying for your $5 gas.
I know I will..
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM
BTW, TJ, you are correct, we should have resolved this problem 10 years ago, not with more drilling in our national preserves but with an all out private and public venture for alternative energy. (Apollo-scale)
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:13 PM
My expectations with McCain are very low. Bottom line is that anyone who promotes the global warming scam, as McCain does, simply cannot be trusted.
Maxx on April 25, 2008 at 8:15 PM
McCain campaign:
“. . .advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide.”
This is just absurd. Carbon dioxide is not and will not be a problem. It is not a pollutant. It is not causing ‘global warming’ (which isn’t taking place).
Ed, next time please ask him straight out if he’s going to suck at Algore’s teat, or if he’s going to wean himself of this PC crap and stop worrying about ‘fossil fuels’.
MrLynn on April 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Another guy making it hard on us Republican Jews. :)
Sorry, you left it open, and I am a fairly snarky guy sometimes.
I like alot of people working for the oil companies, some of my old ship buddies work there now (not captains, though). I know about the projects they are working on, but at the end of the day they are still working for an industry on the clock and they know it.
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:16 PM
I would say we should all be worried about fossil fuels whether GW exists or not.
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM
You anti-ANWR, anti-oil people confuse me.
You like medical analogies? OK:
Back when you were in the ER…. If a ’smack addict’ came in with his leg cut off, would you try to stop the hemorrhaging first, or just send him over to a Narcanon meeting?
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 8:18 PM
On 9/12/2001, as a national security measure, Bush should have immediately signed an executive order that opened up every area of the U.S. to drilling and exploration, ordered the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and instituted a Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, because, without such a move, we are at the mercy of foreign sources of fuel, are suckers for global oil blackmail, and our security is thereby endangered.
McCain, in this interview, might have demonstrated some of that sense of urgency for our survival.
But he is clearly a small-thinker, in the Bush mode.
We need a Churchill, we get church mice.
profitsbeard on April 25, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Terrye,
If there had been “no need” for the oil from ANWR 5 years ago the prices wouldn’t have been high enough to justify development and production, in which case there would have been no issue.
And don’t fall into the old “if the price of corn falls too low no one will grow any and we’ll all starve” nonsense. That’s like saying “No one goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”
jl on April 25, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Gobbleygook and a pox on both houses.
McCain triangulated. The answers his people provided make every group feel like he is in their camp.
The ‘Drill-Now’ crowd wants to pretend that Fast Eddie won’t drill any wells.
If McCain wants to convince me that he is willing to actually DO something about our energy deficit then give me a nuts and bolts plan. This maybe-yes maybe-no gibberish doesn’t convince me that he will change anything and get us out of this energy cesspool.
The ‘Drill-Now’ crowd needs to wake up to the fact that we can’t just turn George Washington loose to weave his magic.
Last thing we need is to have just one oil company listed in the phone book. Please don’t tell me that capitalism will police it through the market. If you believe the system can’t game you then you’re nuts.
Limerick on April 25, 2008 at 8:21 PM
What I would have liked to do would be let him bleed out, because he was to stupid to get himself off the smack before he got his leg cut off, much like we were not getting ourselves off petrol before it got critical. But yes, there are options, limited drilling in ANWR, cooperation with Mexico and Canada for their oil, and getting started on that massive energy independence venture.
My problem with everyone is the constant yapping about “foriegn oil” oil is the problem.
At the end of the day, we will drill it, our addiction and shortsightedness will make it impossible not to. I would imagine that the all powerful capitalistic forces will demand that half of it go to China or India, who says it is all staying here?
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Well,look on the bright side,If Team Liberals get in
there will be a mircle for the American people,fuel
prices will still go up,no drillin and every one else
will be blamed!
And that game will be played for four years!
canopfor on April 25, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Squidley,
It doesn’t really matter where it goes, because oil is truly a world market. If some of it goes to Japan because it is more economic to ship it there than to the US Gulf Coast, that’s fine. It still has the same impact on the price of oil worldwide – it tends to push it down. Probably not much, but that is the direction. If it comes to the U.S. it just backs out other foreign imports and has the same impact. Where it goes is of no consequence.
jl on April 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM
So now you can bash McCain because he (always, not suddenly) opposed ethanol subsidies. I guess we’d better not think about halting any other wasteful government subsidy programs either, huh?
MDS. The gift that keeps on giving.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Hey, this makes me feel better about helping to elect Obama:
But, but McCain is a strong supporter of nuclear power, so he’s just like this Obama advisor, or something, er, because it’s Syria’s right to develop their nuclear industry.
Yeah.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 8:37 PM
BTW, TJ, you are correct, we should have resolved this problem 10 years ago, not with more drilling in our national preserves but with an all out private and public venture for alternative energy. (Apollo-scale)
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 8:13 PM
What “alternatives” do you see to fully substitute for 21,000,000 barrels per day of oil that would also be economically viable? I mean straight tranportation fuel, not wind turbines or nuclear or any of that.
I’m afraid there just aren’t any. Oil is an almost completely refined natural product that comes out of the ground with little technology and at a low “lift cost”. That low cost of extracting per high BTU always defeats all attempts to find an alternative.
For example, I produced lots of oil in Oklahoma that was good enough to put straight into a truck’s diesel engine. It was 45 API gravity and cost me less than two dollars per barrel to pump into the tanks. Natural gas requires a pipeline infrastructure, but you always have a market for oil.
Most oil is not that wonderful, but most require little refining to turn it into either gasoline or diesel.
John D. Rockefeller converted his Pennsylvania crude oil into pure kerosene with a simple washing with sulfuric acid back in 1862. The technology of refining is simple and inexpensive.
And how can you compete against such a low cost product? All biomass options are incredibly expensive and have huge waste, transportation and environmental issues as well. Not to mention tremendous water and energy (re: diesel and gasoline) costs.
The economics for all these “alternatives” just aren’t pretty..
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:37 PM
There’s only one problem with McCain’s answers, he’s a politician and cannot be believed half the time.
Zorro on April 25, 2008 at 8:39 PM
The very last thing we need is some sort of massive government program to give us “energy independence”, whatever that is. Once could justify the space program and the Manhatten project because they were – in theory – producing public goods for which no incentive existed that would cause private capital to provide. If you think that private capital has no incentive to find cheap, readily available energy, you’re sharing a brain with a toadstool. All government involvement would guarantee is that palms would be liberally greased and politically powerful constituencies would be paid to build momunments to governmental incompetence and corruption like all those ethanol plants blocking the scenery in Nebraska and Iowa.
SynFuels anyone?
jl on April 25, 2008 at 8:40 PM
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Another guy making it hard on us Republican Jews. :)
Squid Shark!
Remember that big bad Shell Oil was named after the shell trinkets and tchotchkes that Marcus Samuel’s yiddisher father used to sell to tourists on Brighton Beach from a pushcart!
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:46 PM
That’s quite a trick! While organic chemistry is not my specialty, I’m pretty sure that there are a few more steps to crude oil refining than the sulfuri acid wash.
Big S on April 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM
That’s very telling, SS.
So, may I infer from that, that you would like all of us ‘petroleum addicts’ to just go ahead and die, because you don’t approve of our lifestyle choices?
Before you get the wrong idea, I’m into alternative energy myself. I love the idea; am as active on en electric vehicle forum as I am here, have built my own wind generators and electric vehicles, and currently I am considering investment in some active solar panels. But I want it to be MY choice. Not yours, Not Al Gore’s, Not McCain’s
You see, I also know enough about economics, natural resources and other sciences that I don’t care to see the world’s economies destroyed because they didn’t do what you wanted ten – twenty years ago.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 8:52 PM
That’s quite a trick! While organic chemistry is not my specialty, I’m pretty sure that there are a few more steps to crude oil refining than the sulfuri acid wash.
Big S on April 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM
There were, but his second-in-command engineer Samuel Andrews (google him) had a few tricks up his sleeve (probably a primitive column still device – the first fractional distillation process – of his own invention). Gasoline back then was just poured into the river in Cleveland as a waste product.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Yet. If oil prices stay at $120 a barrel that changes somewhat. It also makes oil shale deposits a player too, doesn’t it?
And economics are never good for new technology. It doesn’t mean the new tech isn’t worth exploring.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 8:59 PM
I am sorry, I thought that I made it clear that while that is what I wished would happen, it is not what happened, of course I treated him, just as we need to treat the nations problem.
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Obviously, you believe that you have nuked my comment so completely that no rebuttal is possible. I would suggest that you work on your reading comprehension.
Nothing in my post said I was against removing the ethanol subsidy. What I did say is removing it will be disruptive.
That, you see, is the problem with a ‘managed economy’. That is the problem with government solutions to all your problems. Government NEVER does anything well. The best that can be said is it does maintain law and order ‘well enough’ that the absence of government would be worse.
Neither do I suffer mental illness as you delight in suggesting.
Any of the three candidates currently in the running for the office of president will be disastrous for this country, unless sensible people, some of whom will be conservative, make persuasive arguments for sensible public policy. McCain fails in several areas, one of which he has admitted being economics.
rockhauler on April 25, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Let me start by saying something positive about McCain:
He was right about Ethanol.
That being said, his campaign’s “There is much we can do” response to Ed’s question is absolutely pathetic; Laura Ingraham’s Butt Monkey immediately comes to mind.
Cut to the chase, Johnny Mac. Reverse your position on ANWR, reverse your position on the carbon tax, and say you’re sorry just like you did last week in Selma when you gave your mea culpas about not voting for MLK Day.
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Nothing but love you messhugina bastard :)
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Yet. If oil prices stay at $120 a barrel that changes somewhat. It also makes oil shale deposits a player too, doesn’t it?
And economics are never good for new technology. It doesn’t mean the new tech isn’t worth exploring.
funky chicken on April 25, 2008 at 8:59 PM
True, but much less so than Canada’s huge Athabasca tar sands (much easier to extract than oil shales) – a major source presently of our imported oil and one that the anti-CO2 idiots are trying to prevent us from accessing.
And if we are stupid enough to try to pull out of NAFTA (which guarantees our oil imports) – the Chinese are drooling over these huge deposits and will outbid us on them.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Well thanks for sending that question along, but that’s a pretty non-committal answer
brak on April 25, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Electric cars based on a non-Fossil Fuel power grid?
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Nothing but love you messhugina bastard :)
Squid Shark on April 25, 2008 at 9:04 PM
At $120/barrel I’m not as meshuginnah as I used to be (back in ‘86 when oil hit $8).
Nehm der gelt!
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Look at the insanity involved with the idea that we should “bury carbon dioxide” as McCain suggests, and that’s just his first brilliant idea.
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM
In the somewhat long statement from McCain on energy that started with
and ended with
I counted 1 explicit “but” and 13 implicit “buts”.
If that doesn’t speak volumes I don’t know what it would take.
MB4 on April 25, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Yeah, on a second reading, that first answer is really weak. When I mentioned those issues in the last thread, I was hoping to catch him on the spot, and not get a well rehearsed, take no real position answer. But I’m glad it got asked. Those are important issues that keep getting mentioned, but no candidate wants to talk about.
The second answer is pretty solid. The ethanol thing is a boondoggle, and needs to be ended.
brak on April 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Maybe I missed it – if I did I apologize for the redundancy.
McCains “energy” proposals (none of the stuff he’s touting could be considered a policy; most of it we’re already doing) won’t mean doodly-squat.
It’s his “global warming” beliefs which should be addressed along with this issue.
Most of the stuff which needs to be done to either fix, remedy or soften the “energy” issues cannot be done while one holds to a firn AGW mindset.
How can McCain honestly expect anyone to believe he wants to do anything which would positively affect “carbon” energy? Oil, gas, any of it?
Cap and Trade anyone? How in the hell are any companies going to be able to R&D, explore or especially produce “carbon” energies with the additional burden of heavy taxation and the accompanying regulation which he has already said he would impose as President?
It can’t be done, not in a cost effective way. There us no way we can reduce our GG emissions the way McCain wants and continue to produce MORE oil, gas, or even ethanol.
If you “cap” emissions, what’s the “target”? 1990? Kyoto?Are we going to use EU levels (which they can’t even meet themselves)?
And trading is just a scam. You can’t “trade away” natural elements. Are we going to let the government bury carbon? You people think we’re wasting money on ethanol? Wait until we have to try and “bury” or “sequester” CO2 for goodness sake.
I may have gone off on a tangent there. Sorry.
McCain is an AGW believer. You can’t hope to seperate those beliefs from any possible “energy” policy. Any further discussion about McCain and what he’ll do to “lower gas prices” needs to be couched in how to reconcile those apparent “policies” with his AGW beliefs.
The next time someone has the chance to ask him about energy, ask him how he’ll be able to do that.
catmman on April 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
First off, how do you “bury” a gas?
Second, why would you bury the gas that is the crucial component of photosynthesis, which produces oxygen?
Third, I’ve got to admit something. I’ve been ignorant of John McCain. I’ve been calling him pro-amnesty pro-taxes pro-spending anti-free speech anti-gun McCain, when I should have been calling him pro-amnesty pro-taxes pro-spending anti-free speech anti-gun environmental-koolaid-drinker McCain.
I don’t mean to be condescending here, but are people here actually going to be ENTHUSIASTICALLY voting for this train wreck, who apparently does not have the word “refineries” in his vocabulary???
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM
I don’t know how anyone, like Juan, who has signed on to the cult of “Global Warming” can be taken very seriously on Energy policies.
“What’s this?” thought John McCain. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” McCain said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And McCain nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole staff whom he had with him looked and looked, and felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like John McCain, they said, “It is so warm!” and counseled him to always say that he felt warm when he was out in public. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and John McCain gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.
So John McCain went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable warm it is! what a warm day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of John McCain’s had ever been as warm as this one.
“But I’m freezing my ass off out here!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched John McCain, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming, I dare not risk to do otherwise.” And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and all proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.
MB4 on April 25, 2008 at 9:31 PM
gee
I think I’ll run for Prezident so I can have 300 million angry spoiled children for boss
windansea on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
McCain always knows what we want to hear, but he always includes a caveat or some mealy-mouthed escape clause.
With securing the border, he’s certainly for it, but he’d leave it to the open-border loving Democrat governors down there to certify that the goal has been achieved.
With our energy crisis, sure, he’d drill off-shore, but he’d seek “local input” and address concerns over ancient “moratoria.”
This guy’s efforts to gain conservative trust are filled with more outs than any fine print legalese at the bottom of a sucker contract. I wish I could trust him, but I know I’d be a fool to do so.
Maquis on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Good one Cat. (why do I always think of “South Park” when I see your name?)
Good one MC.
Good one MB.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Look at the insanity involved with the idea that we should “bury carbon dioxide” as McCain suggests, and that’s just his first brilliant idea.
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Friends of mine who were involved in the recent disasterous CO2 sequestration (”NewGen” )project, including the State Geologist of Texas, have estimated that it will almost triple the cost of our cheapest energy source – coal. In other words, it will much more than DOUBLE the average electricity and heating bill for both homes and businesses in the US.
Then comes the carbon credits on top of that..
McCain, you magnificent mentally retarded bastard!
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
That includes you, you spoiled child.
MadisonConservative on April 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Gee.
Juan seems to have a very similar attitude, only he figures he will be the boss of the “300 million angry spoiled children”.
MB4 on April 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM
gee
I think I’ll run for Prezident so I can have 300 million angry spoiled children for boss
windansea on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Well, go run China and have 1.3 billion slaves.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 9:40 PM
LegendHasIt
It’s close to “cartman”, that’s why. But’s it’s no SP reference.
catmman on April 25, 2008 at 9:42 PM
TJ, I appreciate your essay on the virtues of petroleum. But even with new discoveries, tar sands, oil shale, etc. we are going to use it up eventually–maybe 100 years? (Unless the late Thomas Gold of Cornell were right, and it’s really bubbling up out of the Earth’s mantle.) So what then? Make oil out of coal? (The Germans did it in WWII.) So it doesn’t hurt to forage around for alternatives; just keep the damned government out of it, except maybe to fund research, e.g. into bio-hydrogen, or solar satellites.
MrLynn on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 PM
catmman on April 25, 2008 at 9:42 PM
;-)… Yeah, I knew that.
Hey, I just visited your blog… Very interesting on the ‘Mechacans’ taking over the bridge in Michigan in protest of borders. Wasn’t aware of that incident previously.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 PM
McCain is an AGW believer. You can’t hope to seperate those beliefs from any possible “energy” policy. Any further discussion about McCain and what he’ll do to “lower gas prices” needs to be couched in how to reconcile those apparent “policies” with his AGW beliefs.
The next time someone has the chance to ask him about energy, ask him how he’ll be able to do that.
catmman on April 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Right on! I keep saying, someone has to get to McCain, sit him down, and explain that the AGW stuff is all a bunch of hooey. Aren’t any of you working in his campaign? This is an emergency!
MrLynn on April 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Me thinks you need to take some time to research ethnoel production costs, mandates corn consumption, energy consumption, and water consumption. Then move on to carbon savings and fuel economy.
Update the price of corn, do not try to fake us out with yesterdays prices!
Look to the future, how much corn will be taken out of our food chain when all ethnonal plants are completed and operational?
How does the removal of corn from our food chain affect the rest of the food chain?
What exactly do you plan on eating 12 years from now??
allrsn on April 25, 2008 at 9:51 PM
For the Republican National Convention: “IT’S NOT TOO LATE– DE-NOMINATE.”
leftnomore on April 25, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I can’t believe our party is going to force me to vote for this old clunker. What the hell happened??
leftnomore on April 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM
So it doesn’t hurt to forage around for alternatives; just keep the damned government out of it, except maybe to fund research, e.g. into bio-hydrogen, or solar satellites.
MrLynn on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 PM
I never said that I wasn’t for research or innovation!
There is so much research going on now into realistic alternatives and in increasing yields and exploration techniques, microbial metabolism, fusion research, petroleum geochemistry, alkaline flooding, hydrogen, batteries, deep basin gas deposits, new horizontal drilling technology, superconducting materials – every aspect of energy technology.
If this country can afford 50 dimwitted Womens’ Studies programs, we sure as hell can afford fuunding and supporting critical research like this.
I was talking in the “near-term” – 1-20 year time frame.
It is there that we are vulnerable as a nation.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 10:00 PM
OUR Party no longer.
The RINOS have taken over, lock stock and barrel. Now we “common sense conservatives” are the RINOS, and our ideas are unwelcome.
The Republican Party only wants three thingsfrom you: Your Money, Your Votes and your Silence.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Can we have MM submit some questions for HA next time? With respect to energy policy, how is he going to deal with his environmentalist friends across the aisle?
Valiant on April 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM
You mean he has not commited to them yet??
allrsn on April 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Bingo.
I don’t know what “moratoria” is, but McCain did not listen to “local interests” in Alaska who were overwhelmingly in favor of drilling in ANWR. Apparently he listened to “special interests” like the Sierra Club.
Good info, thanks.
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Hmmm… no mention of ANWR, or nuclear energy.
Sorry, but color me unimpressed.
CliffHanger on April 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM
McCain wouldn’t let Michelle get within
spittingshouting distance of him.He is a very courageous man, but not THAT brave.
Easy… He already agrees with them, completely. Doesn’t need to deal with them at all.
Better to ask, how is he going to deal with the people on the RIGHT side of the aisle who want to preserve the economy.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Thanks LegendHasit.
Dropped by yours to. Nice place.
A hot pocket did THAT to your grass?
WTF?
catmman on April 25, 2008 at 10:20 PM
This is a great illustration of the folly of CO2 hysteria. The story is 1 day old.
Carbon study shows beetle-killed forest is pumping out carbon dioxide.
Here’s the punch line:
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Yes we are wasting money on ethonal.\
Why in gods name would we “bury or sequester” CO2?? Simply because Gore is Mooreing us???
HEY AL!!!! Lets see the proof!!!!!! I have been waiting ten years, no proof even suggested yet!
O wait, I have heard that Al has taken ‘after’ pictures!har har de harrr har, Al must have invented a time machine!!! I wonder how much carbon that puts out?
allrsn on April 25, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Senior, did you pay carbon offsets for the electricity used in the conference call?
A good question is why the McCain-Lieberman carbon credits and global warming nonsense magically change to the Warner-Lieberman carbon credits and global warming nonsense? Can’t have your name on this bill and run for President is that it?
And why the ‘not’ vote on the 2007 energy bill which upped the ethanol subsidy? Must have not felt so strong on the ethanol subsidy to vote ‘not’, oh yeah that convenient ruse, scheduling.
Still got some explaining to do, Senior.
tarpon on April 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I see that burying CO2 is a big hit at Hot Air and is going over like a lead balloon. Time to bury that idea, MAC.
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Yep.
Crazy old world isn’t it?
Microwaved food turns stuff purple.
Republicans nominate McCain.
McCain wants to save America from itself by destroying its economy.
Crazy old world.
Hey, I wonder if microwaving Mr. Green McCain would leave a purple stain.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Hey, I wonder if microwaving Mr. Green McCain would leave a purple stain.
LegendHasIt on April 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM
McCain only turns purple when he is talking about conservatives.
TexasJew on April 25, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I’m speechless. This is hot off the presses of the New York Times. CO2 hysteria is waning as methane hysteria waxes. Oh, and did you know that an additional 2.6 parts per million of CO2 just could tip the scales to doom?
Buy Danish on April 25, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »