For a politician, there’s no better way to kiss off California
voters than boosting offshore oil drilling. It’s not just a third
rail – it’s the other two as well in a state that enshrines
beaches, blue vistas and hard memories of past spills.
For a politician, there’s no better way to kiss off California voters than boosting offshore oil drilling. It’s not just a third rail – it’s the other two as well in a state that enshrines beaches, blue vistas and hard memories of past spills.
But Sen. John McCain doesn’t think so, as he unfurls his energy policies. By pitching offshore drilling, he’s no doubt hoping $4-plus gas prices will change minds and allow new derricks to dot the horizon.
Crazy as the idea sounds here, McCain is providing a useful service. He’s giving the nation a chance to compare his energy plans with those of Sen. Barack Obama and see the policy gulf that separates the two. Right now, the subject eclipses all else as oil prices sail ever higher and a fill-up ticks past $50.
There’s a lot of overlap between the two candidates. Both accept the reality of global warming and the need for serious limits on tailpipe and smokestack emissions. That’s a huge change from the current White House, where the approach to climate change has evolved from denial to ambivalence. Also, both McCain and Obama favor pacts with China, India and other major polluters to cut greenhouse gases. Each candidate can also see more nuclear power under the right conditions.
But from these starting points, it’s a question of degree. Obama leans on government initiative, choosing tax subsidies, new research money, tougher limits on greenhouse gases and that handy (and mistaken) crowd-pleaser, a windfall tax on oil firms to help pay the bills.
McCain has the decidedly tougher sales job as inheritor of the Bush-Cheney head-in-sand party mantel. He’s also twisted himself in knots to appease both environmentalists and oil drillers. For instance, he is standing fast on a prior pledge to bar exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge while advocating ocean drilling along the shores of the lower 48. He also wants more innovation and experimentation though he voted against tax credits in 2005 for wind and solar, saying the concessions might distort the market and lead to unforeseen problems as ethanol subsidies have.
Obama is playing a long term game. He wants $150 billion over 10 years spent on research for solar, wind and biomass breakthroughs. The money would come from cap-and-trade fees that the Senate narrowly voted down two weeks ago. He’s selling the plan as a moon-shot challenge though the results and costs are hard to determine.
As the campaign begins, it’s time for both contenders to expand on their thinking. And each should take heart: You won’t be boring your audience with this topic. Gas prices, clean air, green jobs and the future of the U.S. economy: These big topics are all wrapped up in energy policy.
This editorial first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday.
