When President Obama announced recently that he’d open new coastal areas to offshore drilling, there was considerable speculation as to what the political fallout might be. Most progressive pundits were baffled by the decision, and the general consensus seemed to be that it was a political move designed to influence key decision makers. The immediate reaction from the right was apoplectic, with Republican leaders like John Boehner taking great offense. Senator Murkowski, whose vote some Democrats consider possible on climate legislation, is exactly the type of oil/gas friendly legislator this move was likely intended to influence. Within days of the decision, though, she went out of her way to make it clear that she was not impressed.

Sometimes in situations like this it makes sense to work backwards, by determining which segments of the American population a political decision actually appeals to. To that end, I took a look at the latest Economist/YouGov poll, which provided considerable data on who exactly among the American populace favors offshore drilling. Several folks have already taken a look at various aspects of this poll, but as far as I know no one has taken a close look at the offshore drilling data.

Using data from page nine of the full results of the Economist/YouGov 4/3-4/6 poll, I created a quick chart:

As you can see, the decision to increase offshore drilling for oil and gas is most popular among Republicans, people who are 65 and older, whites and males. It is least popular among Democrats, people under 30, Latinos, African Americans and females. Aside from political identification, this decision seems to appeal most to a similar demographic to that of the current United States Senate. Consider the Demographics of the Senate:

• 83% male
• 97% white
• About 50% over the age of 65 and 90% over the age of 55

Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the obvious here. The segment of the American population that truly stands to benefit from Obama’s foolish decision on offshore drilling is quite small: a handful of multinational oil and gas companies. These companies are among the most profitable in the world, and they spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually lobbying in order to hold policymakers hostage. Judging by Obama’s decision on offshore drilling, they seem to be getting their money’s worth.

I have to disagree with my friend Adam Bink on this one:

In other words, while I see headlines in other progressive media spaces "Obama flip-flops on drilling!!" and "which guy did we elect President again?!", I see it less as a flip-flop than a validation of (a) a previously-held position and (b) that he is more of a Conservadem than many are willing to admit.

While Adam is correct to point out that then-candidate Obama pivoted on offshore drilling in the final months of the Presidential campaign, he misses a few important points.

1. The piece he cites begins as follows: "Obama said he might support more drilling if it were paired with comprehensive energy conservation measures and alternative energy development."

Obama’s announcement on offshore drilling this week was a standalone measure. It was not in fact "paired with comprehensive energy conservation measures and alternative energy development." By taking this action without the accompanying positive measures, this is a step further in the wrong direction than what was signaled during the campaign.

And indeed, this is the bulk of the complaint from many progressive commentators. Joe Conason calls it "surrender, then negotiate" strategy. Matthew Yglesias doesn’t understand why Obama did this without getting anything in return. Steve Benen and Kevin Drum have similar concerns. While there would have been complaints on the substance of the policy either way — it is after all, extremely bad policy — they probably would have been more subdued if it wasn’t such a baffling move politically.

2. Adam writes, "Drilling has always been on the list of expendable issues." This is simply not true. If Obama said anything prior to August 2008 indicating he was willing to budge on the issue, I haven’t seen it. From at least 2005 until August 2008 — after he had secured the Democratic nomination — Obama argued convincingly against offshore drilling repeatedly. Think Progress has several examples:

"The days of running a 21st century economy on a 20th century fossil fuel are numbered – and we need to realize that before it’s too late."

"The truth is, an oil future is not a secure future for America."

"We could open up every square inch of America to drilling and we still wouldn’t even make a dent in our oil dependency." 9/15/05

"It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it’s just not possible." 2/28/06

"Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems." 8/1/06

"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close." 8/28/08

So yes, for the last 90 days of the Presidential campaign, Obama expressed willingness to concede on offshore drilling. But for the previous 3+ years, throughout his Senate career and the long primary campaign, he argued against it over and over again. This is when all of us got to know Mr. Obama and what he stood for, and this is when Democrats selected him as their candidate for President.

In conclusion, I think it is perfectly reasonable for folks to express disappointment and outrage now that he has actually gone through with a 180 degree reversal on the issue. I’m not sure what any of us have to gain by pretending drilling was "always" an expendable issue or that this was exactly what he campaigned on.

This strikes me as a really, really bad idea:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Here are the areas that will now be subject to frequent oil spills, especially during hurricane season:

Here is what Obama said about similar proposals during the campaign (video):

"Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today,” he said. "It would not lower gas prices tomorrow. It would not lower gas prices this year. It would not lower gas prices five years from now. In fact, President Bush’s own Energy Department says we won’t see a drop of oil from [offshore drilling] until 2017."

This is a foolish move, both substantively and politically. Obama is either an exceptionally bad negotiator, or he actually believes in some truly awful policy ideas. Neither of these possibilities bodes well for environmental policy.

Read the rest of this entry →

The hits keep coming for the embattled United States Chamber of Commerce. On Saturday, I wrote about the Chamber’s overwhelming hypocrisy on climate legislation:

While the Chamber claims it “continues to support Federal climate legislation”, it is actually continuing its 17-year old campaign against it. Representative Ed Markey on Thursday issued a point-by-point explanation of how his legislation, which the House passed in June, meets all of the Chamber’s criteria for successful legislation. Energy Secretary Chu even took a few shots on Thursday as well, but the ever-defiant chamber remains unrepentant.

This follows an unprecedented string of public relations disasters that have left the Chamber grasping for straws.

Pete Altman at NRDC is keeping track of the fallout over the last few weeks regarding the Chamber’s climate change extremism:

Quit US Chamber over climate: Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, PSEG, Levi Strauss & Co.

Quit US Chamber Board over climate: Nike.

Say Chamber doesn’t represent their views on climate: Johnson&Johnson, General Electric, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, Alcoa, Duke, Entergy, Microsoft.

It is starting to look like the only actor in the debate over clean energy legislation less credible than the Chamber of Commerce is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which is currently facing investigations for sending 14 fraudulent letters opposing the bill to members of Congress.

In the last few weeks a diverse group of activist, NGO and labor campaigns have launched to escalate the pressure on the Chamber and its member companies. Here is a brief summary of current efforts:

The Natural Resources Defense Council has been leading the fight. In addition to Pete Altman’s prolific coverage of the story as it develops, they have launched a website — whodoesthechamberrepresent.org — to ask the question: “Who Does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Really Represent?” Read the rest of this entry →

Three more Republican politicians have now used the heavily discredited and factually incorrect $1,761 figure as a per-family per-year price tag for cap and trade legislation, bringing the current total to 12.

• John Cornyn issued a press release saying "According to a the Department of Treasury’s analysis, new taxes would be between $100 and $200 billion each year, costing families up to 1,761 each year." Unlike some of the others, Cornyn didn’t even try to hide his source. He linked directly to the conservative blogger who came up with the $1,761 figure. He attributes the figure to the Treasury Department — which is false.
• According to user casinclair on Twitter, Sarah Palin repeated the lie at her speech in Hong Kong yesterday. I’m assuming this is paraphrased, and am trying to find a full transcript: "Cap and tax (trade) will cause unemployment. Say it will cost $1800 per Americans and cause no change."
• Republican Senate Candidate Scott Brown said yesterday: "They want a "yes" vote on cap and trade, even if it will raise energy costs on the average family in this country by $1,761 a year."

Finally, this is not a new addition to the list, but according to Media Matters, House Minority Leader John Boehner repeated the lie for the third time yesterday:

Responding to President Obama’s climate change speech on September 22, 2009, House Minority Leader John Boehner cited a cap-and-trade cost estimate snatched from documents analyzing a cost-estimate of an out-dated, abandoned cap-and-trade plan that immediately auctioned 100% of carbon allowances.

If you are aware of or come across additional examples of politicians — Republicans or Democrats — repeating some variation of this lie, please let me know. Read the rest of this entry →