Summer CE Week #3: “In major change, Obama says he’ll support offshore drilling”
Fri, Aug. 01, 2008
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package.
Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” he said.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage – I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.
The change is dramatic because Obama often pointed to his opposition to drilling as a key difference between himself and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
“I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama said in Florida in June.
Friday, he said he was still not a fan of drilling, telling the Palm Beach paper, “I think it’s important for the American people to understand we’re not going to drill our way out of this problem.”
Obama also said, in a separate statement issued by his campaign, that he supported the bipartisan energy plan offered by 10 senators Friday.
“Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven’t always supported,” he said. “I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.”
The proposal would end most of the ban on drilling. It would allow a 50-mile buffer on the east coast, as well as Florida’s west coast. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and South Carolina would be permitted to start oil and natural gas exploration outside the buffer.
Any oil, the senators said, would have to stay in this country.
McCain reacted quickly to Obama’s switch in positions, telling the Associated Press, “We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage.”
Experts estimate that even if drilling proves to sharply increase oil supplies, its effects will not be felt for at least seven and probably 10 years.
But the concept has proven popular, and McCain has made it a centerpiece of his stump speeches and some of his television ads.
Political momentum has been moving in favor of opening up U.S. coastlines. There were two bars to offshore drilling, one first imposed by Congress in 1981 and another signed by President Bush’s father in 1990 and renewed in 1998 by President Clinton. Bush lifted the executive ban last month; Congress, which left Friday for a five-week recess, has not acted.
The government bans exploration and drilling on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, to protect U.S. beaches and fisheries from pollution.
Related Story: Senators unveil energy deal
Compromise keeps drilling ban, eases limits on exploration
|
WASHINGTON – In a possible breakthrough on energy, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a compromise Friday that would preserve the oil drilling ban off the West Coast while easing restrictions on exploration off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Their proposal would also provide billions of dollars for an Apollo-like project to greatly expand the availability of vehicles powered by alternative fuels.
In unveiling the ambitious plan, 10 senators – five Democrats and five Republicans who call themselves the Gang of 10 – hope to break a partisan standoff that sent lawmakers home on their monthlong summer recess Friday without action on major legislation to address high gasoline prices.
However, the proposal’s prospects appear a long shot for this year, with time running out on the congressional session. And in a politically charged election year, parties are stepping up attacks to highlight differences on issues such as energy policy.
Included are proposals to expand drilling in the Gulf to within 50 miles of Florida, help revive the nuclear industry and boost efforts to convert coal into motor vehicle fuel. Shortly after it was announced, the plan drew criticism from Florida’s senators.
The legislation is the first sign of bipartisan progress on an issue that has stirred political anxiety and animosity on Capitol Hill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was hopeful the compromise plan “can begin to break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate floor.” The proposal would offer a concession to Republicans who have called for increased domestic production by allowing Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia to grant permits for drilling 50 miles off their shorelines and opening a new area in the Gulf of Mexico, 50 miles off Florida’s coast, to energy exploration.
The senators excluded any effort to lift the long-standing ban on new drilling off the California coast or to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration as too contentious and likely to complicate passage of a compromise bill.
In a significant shift, the group’s Republicans agreed to repeal a key oil industry tax break and force oil companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties to the U.S. Treasury for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Democrats have tried to repeal oil industry tax breaks in the past but have been thwarted by a Republican-led Senate filibuster. But a number of Republicans are finding it hard to defend the oil industry tax breaks while oil companies record profits.
An estimated $30 billion that would be paid by the oil companies over 10 years would help fund initiatives such as $7.5 billion to help U.S. automakers expand the production of alternative fuel vehicles. Funding would also be provided for tax credits to encourage consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars and extend tax credits to promote energy efficiency and development of cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power.
In a statement, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, welcomed the proposal, saying it includes measures he has advocated such as repealing oil industry tax breaks. But Obama said he remains skeptical that new offshore drilling “would bring down gas prices in the short term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long term.”
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, has called for lifting the offshore drilling ban. In a statement, his campaign said the country needs an ” ‘all of the above’ approach” and chided Obama for opposing expansion of offshore drilling.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the Bush administration would take a look at the legislation.
This is one of the things that I hate about Barack Obama. It seems that he has a strong opposition to something, but when something gets hard he changes his stance! This is so annoying!! I think that off-shore oil drilling is a terrible idea, because there is no “safe and environmentally friendly” way to drill. Even if there is a buffer zone, other types of wildlife and plants are in danger of being destroyed. This would cause further pollution of the oceans, which would be catastrophic for not only the animals but for humans who eat fish and other products from the oceans. Additionally, this is not a solution to our oil demands and problems. Why are we going to do off-shore drilling if Obama said “I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term”? People are crying out to do drilling, but if it won’t lower gas prices now, what is the point? It will only further our need for oil and part of his campaign was to “reduce our dependency on oil and create a greener future”. Now he changes his mind, because he probably thinks that if he isn’t opposed to oil drilling, he will get more votes and win the election. Furthermore, “Experts estimate that even if drilling proves to sharply increase oil supplies, its effects will not be felt for at least seven and probably 10 years.” Why should we destroy the environment today, if it won’t help for seven or 10 years? This is just ridiculous!!! Rather than drilling for more oil, we need to use the oil in the reserves because all it does is sit there. We should also use the existing oil wells, because many of them are sitting there doing nothing. If they were updated with new technology which would make getting oil easier, we wouldn’t need to drill. It will only be more expensive and cause more environmental harm. Obama just lost my vote. I don’t want a president who flip-flops on issues. If we truly care about the environment, because we do need the earth to survive, we should vote for the Green Party. Save the earth and save ourselves!!
Once again, another politician changes his mind to gain more votes. There isn’t any other answer for why Obama is going against what HE believes… to simply win. This is the last straw for Obama, the over-glorified media god, and me. Is there any politician that is honest and true to his beliefs anymore? This just shows that Obama, like 99% of most politicians, will do anything and everything to stay in or be elected to office. It’s ridiculous. Like Hilary Clinton’s stance on abortion – she said she personally thinks it’s wrong but we shouldn’t outlaw it. She is just trying to make both sides happy, just like Obama is here. He’s catering to the Republicans by drilling but the Democrats by promising this is just a “compromise”. “‘I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,’ Obama said in Florida in June.” This one makes me laugh. Of course he said this statement… got to make the Florida inhabitants happy! I’m not saying Obama is the first to change his mind on topics in which he wouldn’t even considering changing opinions on, or even that McCain hasn’t. This country deserves a better class of… politicians (dark knight spin off
).
Its great that he wants to keep America green and support changing it for the better, but he is being a little hypocritical… he is saying how he would support drilling, but how can he do that and say that he doesnt want to harm the environment? I agree with Cole, Obama is pulling the same thing Hillary did, making both sides think hes a great compromiser and they are both getting what they’re wanting when thats not true. Obama is also dictating to America how we need to stand up for what we want and be the America we can be, but how can we do that when he is the one up there contradicting himself and throwing his beliefs out the window just to win? What sense does that make?? Obama is one of those people that says something, and then when its questioned or scrutinized, he changes his stance to fit what the media wants to hear. We want a president that sticks by what he says and isn’t afraid to stand up for what he belives in, and if Obama is going to be constantly changing his story, maybe he isn’t fit for the presidential shoes.
It is somewhat concerning that Obama decided to change his mind on a fairly controversial issue this close to the election. After taking such a strong stance, it would be nice to see some follow through. Especially since Obama stated that he has little confidence in the positive effects of off-shore drilling, I do not understand why he would change his mind. On the other hand, given the fact that 60% of Florida residents polled support off-shore drilling, such a compromise could be the right decision. The headline makes it sound as though Obama completely changed his mind on the issue, but in the article it sounds like he is willing to give a little, but not completely back down. It would have been nice if the piece had provided more information on the specific changes and compromises in the plan that caused Obama to change his stance. If it was, indeed, a necessary concession for the introduction of a “broader energy package,” as he stated, I respect his willingness to negotiate. With nothing more than the information provided, it is really hard to tell if we are looking at a smart and sensible compromise or simply another political ploy to draw in last-minute votes.
In response to Meagan:
I agree with you on. It’s hard to say if Obama is just being flexible and open, or if he’s just another politician trying to please us all. I would like to be optimistic and say that he’s just trying to work outside the usual political box. He has before by trying to go after Republican states. He did state, “I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.” Who knows if he truly meant that. There’s always that sneaking suspicion that he might not be strong enough in his views to stick with them. As Meagan said as well, it would have been better if the article included more about his compromises.
In response to Ashley,
The reason that our gas prices are so high is because of our dependence on foreign oil. The Middle Eastern countries can charge anything they want for oil because they know we have no other option but to buy their oil. Gas prices are so high because of supply and demand. The United States has too much of a demand and in order to lower this demand we must drill in our own country, while at the same time cutting back on our consumption. Obama changed his mind on this issue because he realizes that offshore drilling is the best for the country. One of the main reasons our economy is failing because of high energy costs. We do need to continue research for alternative energy sources, at the same time conserving where we can, but the US is not all the sudden going to stop using oil all together.