There is No Common Ground between Different Realities August 27, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: Bias, Bipartisanship, Congress, Conservatives, David Vitter, Democrats, Fox News, Media Bias, Offshore Drilling, Oil Spill, Party of No, Political Climate, Politics, President Obama, Republicans, ThePoliticalClimate
To call Republicans “the Party of No” is not quite fair – they say a lot of things besides ‘no.’ But that is the full extent of their political output: speech. Currently, Republicans are more accurately the Party of Rhetoric.
Now this is partly because they are in the legislative minority, but I can’t think of any other period in our history during which the minority party decided to so fully abstain from policymaking. You can count on one hand the number of GOP senators willing to substantively work with the Democratic majority. It makes you wonder what the rest of them are doing with their time.
In the past, when our country faced a problem, our two political parties fought about which policy was better to address it. That is how our legislature is supposed to function.
You may have noticed that this occurs less today. Increasingly, the political debate has devolved into an argument not of HOW to act but rather IF any action is even warranted. Instead of debating solutions, we find ourselves arguing about whether or not a problem exists at all:
- This is true of climate change: conservatives don’t have their own solution, they simply deny that the problem exists.
- This is true of healthcare: how many times during the last year were we told that “America has the best healthcare in the world”?
- This is true of any policy that involves regulation (finance, pollution, offshore drilling etc.), because a push for deregulation instead of better regulation contains the implicit assertion that no problems exist (or that regulations somehow cause what problems there are).
Republicans deny that these problems exist altogether, and that is problematic because they are quite real.
Historically, even policies supporting inaction were not based on denial. Consider America’s now defunct isolationism. Advocates of non-intervention did not dispute the existence of foreign wars, they simply determined that staying out of them was a better course of action. At least everybody was still operating in the same reality – they debated the merits of different solutions.
In 2006, Stephen Colbert told President Bush that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” So conservatives simply left. Today, Republicans occupy their own reality. They get their own news tailored to that reality, and anything that contradicts this fictitious worldview is simply denounced as biased, even empirical science. No policy debate can occur because the conservative reality has its own facts and they distrust “ours.” Experts are just elitists anyways.
But this planet and this country face real challenges, even if conservatives refuse to believe them. Unfortunately, by the time they become full, immediate crises, it will be too late to act. Think of America as riding in an SUV speeding towards a cliff: everyone in that car is in trouble – even the kid in the backseat with his eyes shut tight, plugging his ears and singing loudly to himself (presumably Mellencamp’s “[This Is] Our Country”). But once the wheels leave the pavement, and likely well before then, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. That kid is only forced to finally acknowledge the outside world upon impact.
So how we can bridge this inter-reality chasm? It may not even be possible. But there is one way we can try (and the Daily Show has been attempting this valiantly).
The Party of Rhetoric, especially now that it has started drinking Tea, has begun to make some wild claims. Conservatives won’t listen to our words, so we must hope that they still believe theirs.
As Republican politicians increasingly resort to fear-mongering, they make ridiculous extrapolations and predict devastating futures that result from liberal policies. So when these disasters do not occur, we must repeat their words back to them.
It will be a while before we can utilize this strategy for most issues, but we can start small with offshore drilling now. Conservatives and the oil industry railed against the Obama administration for its perfectly justified temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling. They insisted that this most minimal safeguard against another massive oil spill would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and more economic devastation than the BP spill itself.
As the New York Times reported this week, that simply has not happened. Even the administration’s estimates were overly pessimistic (to a much lesser extent). Instead of hundreds of thousands of laid off oil workers, unemployment claims attributable to the moratorium are currently just in the hundreds.
I’m sure that the conservative reality has an explanation for this development or simply rejects it altogether. But if we can’t even look over our shoulder and agree about what just happened, how can we possibly look ahead and safely navigate the future?
Why the Drilling Moratorium Makes Sense June 9, 2010Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: Bobby jindal, BP, Bristol Bay, David Vitter, Deepwater Horizon, Drilling Moratorium, Gulf of Mexico, Joe Barton, Obama, Offshore Drilling, Oil Spill, Unemployment
-Fact: We do not yet know what caused the blowout that sank the Deepwater Horizon rig.
-Fact: We do not have adequate prevention or containment methods for a deepwater blowout, so a massive oil spill is guaranteed if a blowout occurs.
-Fact: A massive oil spill is unacceptably destructive.
-Conclusion: Deepwater drilling must be halted AT LEAST until we know how to prevent and/or recover from deepwater blowouts.
We have instituted a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in this country. Makes sense, right? Well politics take no heed of logic, and this drilling moratorium has plenty of critics, many of whom live right on the Gulf Coast:
“…the administration’s deepwater moratorium is a major mistake. Simply put, it will cost us more jobs and economic devastation than the oil spill itself.” -Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
No, David, it won’t (read on for proof).
Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of the world’s largest independent oil exploration and production companies, announced that it is closing 3 of its exploratory wells in the Gulf and moving the rigs to drill elsewhere. Other companies are following suit. And that is strengthening the moratorium critics.
You read that correctly: Oil companies are successfully creating political leverage against the moratorium on the oil industry. And their political contributions are paying off.
Oil state politicians are attempting rhetorical acrobatics as they decry the oil spill and renounce the drilling moratorium in the same breath. I would say they were walking a fine line if such a line existed, but one cannot rationally rail against and advocate for the same industry simultaneously.
That being said, here are their arguments:
“Shutting down the outer continental shelf, all that’s going to do is raise energy prices and cost American jobs,” Rep. Joe Barton* (R-TX).
*Barton is quite possibly the most scientifically challenged member of our legislature now that Ted “Internet = A Series of Tubes” Stevens has…“retired.”
“The last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more.” Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA).
In my opinion, the LAST thing we need would be to go through this ordeal again. Or potentially even at a second site concurrently before we cap this first one. But that’s a risk Bobby is willing to take.
Some even argue that we need the drilling jobs now more than ever because the fishing industry is dead. To them, I would say that the enemy of your enemy may be your friend, but the problem of your problem is not your solution.
Now, the first argument, oil prices/energy security, is just false. As I’ve previously explained in more detail, U.S. offshore oil reserves are so insignificant compared to world oil production that we cannot affect supply-side prices (which are determined on the global market) by more than a few cents if even that.
An energy consultant estimated that the moratorium could reduce domestic oil production by 80,000 barrels per day in 2011. That may sound like a lot on its own, but not when compared to the 19,498,000 barrels of oil we consume everyday. Bear in mind, this moratorium applies to deepwater drilling only. We are talking about up to 33 deepwater rigs leaving from among the approximately 4,500 total rigs currently in the Gulf. This argument does not hold any oily water.
So what about the second argument – jobs? Conservatives are gleefully pushing this point on account of our sluggish economy, but they are doing so in a decidedly dishonest manner.
It takes a remarkable amount of self-imposed tunnel vision to view such a massive catastrophe through the single lens of employment. But if you’re going to do it, you have to include the whole picture. This moratorium was not imposed out of arbitrary spite.
Yes, offshore drilling creates jobs. You know else does? Fishing and tourism. Offshore drilling has at least temporarily destroyed these sustainable industries in the Gulf region.
Halting deepwater drilling for 6 months may cost 40,000 jobs around the Gulf. Louisiana will be hardest hit, so let’s take a look there:
The moratorium could cost Louisiana 20,000 jobs if all the deepwater rigs currently off its shores leave. Ok, but many jobs did deepwater drilling cost the fishing and tourism industries? There are 13,000 commercially licensed fishermen in Louisiana, not including deck hands and crew. None of them can work. Louisiana’s nine coastal parishes supported nearly 15,000 tourism-related jobs. Do you know anyone planning any trips to coastal Louisiana right now? I sure don’t. So that’s well over 28,000 jobs within just Louisiana that are likely gone for at least immediate future because of this oil spill (as promised above, this proves Sen. Vitter is wrong,).
Tourism in the Gulf region is responsible for more $100 billion annually, or roughly 46% of the Gulf economy. Even more is generated through fishing, both recreational and commercial; the Gulf of Mexico accounts for more than 50% of U.S. recreational fishing and 40% of the seafood harvested in the contiguous U.S. (including 85% of our shrimp and 60% of our oysters – but most of the seafood we eat is imported).
Unlike temporary, one-time oil revenues, the billions generated by fishing and tourism can be relied upon to sustainably support families along the Gulf year after year after year. But not if the beaches are covered in oil, and not if the fisheries are poisoned or destroyed altogether. Thanks to offshore drilling, all the jobs that generated all that money are threatened.
The oil industry is fond of touting the one-time benefits of its extractive drilling while completely ignoring the recurring, sustainable benefits of the industries jeopardized by drilling. In 2007, President Bush decided to reopen Alaska’s Bristol Bay to offshore drilling (it was protected in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill). Industry spokespeople and their congressional allies explained that opening the bay offered compelling arguments both financially and for energy security.
I have previously explained how offshore drilling helps only oil companies, not America, and does not improve our energy security. So let’s look at the financial argument: opening the Bay offered an estimated $8 billion in oil – over the next 20 to 40 years. Meanwhile, sustainable fishing in that area brings in $2.2 billion ANNUALLY. In just 4 years, fishing in Bristol Bay generates more money than decades of drilling there would. And as BP is vividly demonstrating, that fishing is threatened by offshore drilling. (Obama restored protection to Bristol Bay as part of his offshore drilling plan in April.)
Why would we trade sustainable revenue for one-time drilling that threatens that sustainable future? Because it enriches oil companies that spend millions on lobbying.
By now you have probably heard some of the metaphors conservatives are using to [mis]characterize the moratorium:
Halting air travel because of one plane crash. -Sen. Vitter (R-LA).
Halting car production because of a 100-car pile up. –Lee Hunt, President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors.
You get the idea.
I’ll respond to ridiculous analogies with a ridiculous hypothetical: During World War II, the U.S. economy was as close to full employment as is likely possible. We set historic lows for unemployment (~1% in 1944) that we will probably never reach again. Was ending WWII wrong? It caused unemployment to rise. It cost millions of people their jobs as soldiers and workers in war-related industries. Should we start World War III now? It would solve our persistent unemployment problem (in more ways than one). This argument makes sense if all you care about is employment.
Even ignoring the environmental devastation, the jobs argument for offshore drilling is not compelling if you consider even the broader jobs situation. In some situations, there are other valid considerations beyond local job loss in one sector. This is one them.
Besides, if we pass a climate bill, we’re going to need a lot of people to help build wind turbines and install solar panels. Many of those wind turbines will likely go offshore…job training programs would be an appropriate component of either a Gulf recovery package or the climate bill.
In lieu of that, I hear there’s a big clean-up project ramping up in that area.
My research for this post was disheartening. If you want to know what subtle media bias looks like, read this poor excuse for journalism courtesy of Fox News’ more reputable cousin, the Wall Street Journal. This article presents startlingly narrow, one-sided coverage of the topic at hand, but most readers will never even know it. Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets do an unfortunately effective job of dressing up spin to look like news.
To be clear, I do not object to anyone’s right to make this argument. Or even to present only half of it as they have done. But to allow such slanted coverage to be considered “fair and balanced” and to parade under the guise of objective journalism is nothing short of intolerable.
Full list of oil spill questions/answers here.