|
Our Environment:
|
|
POSTED 8/22/08
The thinking behind our endorsement Why Environment America supports Barack Obama for president
Environment America is endorsing Barack Obama for President because he will bring to the Presidency the clearest solutions for and strongest commitment to the protection of our environment. He has publicly committed to fully addressing the pressing problem of global warming and carrying the United States toward a new energy future. He has made energy and the environment some of the top issues of his campaign and as a public servant has a long and consistent record of supporting the environment.
This paper is an explanation of Environment America’s endorsement of Barack Obama. What follows is an examination of the environmental records and positions of both Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. In light of those records, this paper explains why Barack Obama is the right vote for the environment.
History of advocacy and a plan for the future
Since he has been in public office, Senator Obama has distinguished himself even amongst other environmentally conscious officials. In 2003 he was one of only six members of the Illinois legislature to earn the 100 Percent Environmental Voting Record Award from the Illinois Environmental Council.
Over his career as a U.S. Senator he has voted with Environment America 86% of the time, including 90% in the 2008 Environment America Congressional scorecard. His one vote missed in our 2008 scorecard was an absence rather than a vote in opposition. The League of Conservation Voters has calculated Obama’s lifetime rating of 86%. In 2005 he voted to repeal oil company tax breaks and against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He voted in favor of raising automobile efficiency through higher CAFE standards in both 2005 and 2007. Additionally he co-sponsored the strongest, most compelling global warming legislation ever to be introduced to the Senate, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. It is the only one to meet the scientifically imperative 80 percent carbon reduction.
A champion of a broad range of environmental issues, such as clean air, water and preserving our open spaces, Obama has voted to end taxpayer subsidies to build new logging roads in the Tongass National Forest. In 2005 he voted for $600 million to cleanup storm water that runs off of roads and highways.
|
|
Press Release from the Sierra Club POSTED 8/14/08
Obama Would Defend Scientists, Protect Threatened Wildlife San Francisco, Calif.—On Monday the Bush administration announced a
plan to gut the Endangered Species
A spokesman for Senator Barack Obama today said that Obama would throw out the plan if elected. Meanwhile, Senator McCain refused to comment on the issue. But McCain's voting record shows an alarming pattern of supporting politics over science in endangered species decision-making. In 1995, McCain voted to prohibit the addition of any new species to the endangered species list. (S. 889, Roll Call Vote 106, 3/16/1995), and cast the deciding vote to effectively continue the listing moratorium in 1996 (vote to table S.Amdt.3479 to H.R. 3019, Roll Call Vote 30, 3/13/1996). He has also voted against enforcement of ESA regulations on several other occasions. Statement of Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall: "A politician is not the best judge of whether or not an animal is in danger. By voting to stop new listings of endangered species, Senator McCain put politics and special interests ahead of science and critical protections for our wildlife. And now he won’t even comment on the latest effort by the Bush administration to gut one of our nation’s most important environmental laws." "When it comes to protecting wildlife, we need to listen to the scientists who have spent their lives studying these animals. Senator Obama has indicated a commitment to making decisions based on science rather than politics—not just when it comes to Endangered Species listings, but on many other fronts." "If John McCain is elected, we'll see more of what we've seen under the Bush administration, including political meddling in science, distortion of facts, and silencing of wildlife experts. If John McCain the candidate is unwilling to even speak out against an assault on one of our nation’s bedrock environmental laws, it doesn’t seem likely a President McCain would do much to protect them either. "If these Bush administration regulations had been in place twenty years ago, we would not have brought the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Senator Obama understands that the protection of our wildlife should be left to scientists, not politicians. “John McCain wants to have it both ways. He says he supports renewable energy, but then votes against it. He says he supports environmental protection, but then votes against enforcing some our nation’s most important environmental laws. He says he’ll put science before politics, but then stands silently by while the Bush administration continues its unlawful assault on science and the law. It’s time for John McCain to be honest and give voters some real straight talk about his record on these important issues.” |
|
Press Release from the Sierra Club POSTED 8/14/08
Interior Department Makes Biggest Assault Yet on Landmark Environmental Law
Statement of Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope This plan repeats and includes all of the disdain for science and political trumping of expertise that has characterized previous Bush Administration efforts to dismantle fundamental environmental laws. These rules send a clear signal that the Administration will spend the rest of its days razing what remains of the rules and regulations that have kept wildlife like the bald eagle from going extinct. The new rules take decision-making on endangered species listings out of the hands of scientists and wildlife professionals at agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and instead put those decisions in the hands of agencies working on projects that may be adversely affected by a listing. For example, under these proposed rules, the Department of Transportation, not wildlife biologists, would decide whether an animal is threatened by a highway project. The Interior Department is now trying to use administrative tricks do what Congress would not allow--a complete deconstruction of the Endangered Species Act. This plan to render the ESA impotent would exclude federal biologists from the decision about whether a federal project threatens endangered wildlife. It also specifies that if an agency chops its projects into small enough pieces, then "by definition" the project is so small that it cannot be a threat. This is the most egregious and sweeping assault in a string of attacks on the Endangered Species Act by this administration. If these regulations had been in play for the past few decades, we would not have brought the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. |
|
From the Defenders of Wildlife POSTED 8/14/08
Proposed revisions to Act remove safety net and science; put species at risk of extinction The following is a statement by Bob Irvin, Senior Vice President for Conservation Programs at Defenders of Wildlife:
The so-called “narrow revisions” are just wide enough to ensure that agencies can go ahead with projects without being subject to checks and balances, or consultation. This calculated and political decision leaves America’s most threatened species at the mercy of a wholly inadequate review process, with no requirement for a scientific understanding of the impact on affected species. In fact, many of the agencies now required to determine the impact of an action on a species do not even have biologists on staff. By unilaterally allowing agencies to decide that consultation is not necessary, the burden of liability is placed wholly on the individual agencies, leaving them open to citizen suits. And, by putting a 60 day limit (subject to a 60 day extension by FWS) on completion of informal consultations, the proposal will increase the likelihood that harmful agency actions could slip through, again necessitating more citizen suits. Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s narrow definition of what actions would actually be subject to consultation means that consideration of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on polar bears or other wildlife affected by global warming is completely off limits. This narrow definition will also affect all listed species and critical habitat from being protected from a host of indirect effects resulting from federal actions, permits, or funding. Proposing these drastic changes with only five months to go in the administration is clearly an effort to secure changes that the administration has been unable to achieve through legislation. The concepts of self-consultation and deadlines that place the burden of delay on listed species protection were both key elements of the Pombo bill that died in the Senate. This is an egregious example of leaving the fox to guard the chicken coop. |
|
Press Release from the Sierra Club POSTED 8/14/08
Ad Watch: McCain Campaign Fabricates Support for Renewable Energy in False, Misleading New Ad Washington, D.C.—The Sierra Club today denounced a new John McCain
ad, "Family," as completely false and The ad can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DxDBH9nn4 Partial script: Text on screen: McCain Energy Plan [images of wind turbines] Announcer: Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence. That’s John McCain. John McCain Offers Nothing More Than Empty Rhetoric on Renewable Energy John McCain talks about renewable energy every single day, yet has actively opposed the policies needed to make the clean energy economy a reality. John McCain—like President Bush, coal companies, and the utility industry—opposes a Renewable Electricity Standard and has consistently voted against such a standard in the past. (Sources: 2005 Senate Vote #141, 6/16/2005; 2002 Senate Vote #50, 3/14/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #55, 3/21/2002; 2002 Senate Vote #59, 3/21/2002) John McCain believes the renewable energy industry is "doing fine" and doesn’t need any incentives. While he offered a $300 million gimmick on electric cars, he has voted against $290 million for clean energy. Meanwhile, John McCain favors billions in new and existing subsidies for dirty, dangerous, and distracting nuclear power. (Sources: Grist, 10/1/07; 2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006) If key clean energy incentives that are in danger of expiring soon are not renewed, it could cost more than 116,000 hardworking Americans in the wind and solar industries alone their jobs and sacrifice $19 billion in economic growth. Twice, when every single other Senator voted and measures to renew these critical incentives lost by just a single vote, John McCain didn’t even show up to vote when he could have made the difference. (Sources: Navigant Consulting study, 02/04/2008, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Tax_Credit_Impact.pdf; 2007 Senate Vote #425, 2008 Senate Vote #8) Statement of Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club Political Director "It's shameful that John McCain and his campaign continue to deliberately mislead voters about his record on renewable energy. Hundreds of stump speeches and millions of dollars in ads cannot change a two decade-long record of consistently voting against renewable energy. "While his ad may talk about creating jobs, John McCain's failure to support key clean energy tax incentives could cost the 116,000 hardworking Americans in the wind and solar industries alone their jobs. It will also sacrifice billions in lost economic opportunity. "John McCain could've been the deciding vote on this issue twice -- something that would've truly helped America's workers and moved us toward energy independence -- but he was the only Senator who didn’t even bother to show up and vote. And just last week, John McCain's allies in the Senate blocked extending these energy incentives twice because they were determined to hold Congress hostage in order to push the Bush-McCain-Big Oil energy agenda at all costs. "When it comes to energy independence, America needs a plan -- not political platitudes. All talk and no votes -- that’s John McCain." |
|
Press Release from the Sierra Club POSTED 8/14/08
Washington, DC: In a speech today, Senator Obama outlined a
comprehensive energy plan that focuses on Senator Obama's plan will put America on the path to a clean energy future because it prioritizes efforts that will benefit working families instead of the outdated fossil fuel industries. Senator Obama supports creating millions of jobs by investing in the cleanest, cheapest, and fastest technologies to meet our energy needs and stimulate our economy. The mix of short and long term measures includes key goals like: A windfall profits tax on Big Oil to pay for $1,000 in immediate consumer relief 5 million green jobs A comprehensive and science-based plan for tackling global warming that invests in clean energy and protects consumers from rising energy prices Increased fuel economy standards A national renewable energy standard Dramatically increased energy efficiency investments, including retrofitting 1 million homes a year and making all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030 On the other hand, Senator McCain's Energy Policy focuses on the wrong priorities. Instead of helping move America off oil, expanding our clean energy options or investing in a clean energy future that will create jobs our nation desperately needs, John McCain is offering more of the same policies that have devastated our economy. It's no coincidence that these failed policies are demanded by Big Oil and backed up by the more than $2 million in contributions to McCain. McCain’s plans won’t give consumers relief, but they will mean more profits for the oil companies and a third term for the Bush energy policies that have benefitted wealthy and powerful special interests, while leaving ordinary families behind. |
|
Press Release from the Sierra Club POSTED 8/14/08
Oops, He Did It Again! McCain Prefers Own Rhetoric to Facts, Actual
Experts on Offshore Drilling Washington, D.C.--In Florida today, Senator John McCain said he was convinced offshore drilling would yield immediate oil—despite hard data to the contrary from experts like the federal government's Energy Information Administration. According to the EIA, it would take 7-10 years for oil to come online from new drilling, and twenty years to reach peak production. And, as the New York Times recently noted, because of a recent shortage in drilling equipment, it could likely take even longer. But McCain said: "…So I disagree with those experts and I've talked to the actual people that do the work, that are in the business that say within months and certainly within a very short time, we could have additional oil supply for this nation. So we ought to drill now." (Video HERE) Statement of Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall "Senator McCain may 'disagree with the experts,' but that doesn't make the facts go away. New offshore drilling simply won't provide any oil for roughly a decade. And even then, the Bush administration itself admits that drilling will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices today, tomorrow, or even two decades from now. "Oil companies aren't interested in lowering gas prices. Keeping supply tight and oil prices high keeps Big Oil rolling in record profits. The oil companies are spending almost ten times more—a full 55 percent of their record profits—on stock buybacks and dividends than they are on exploration. This drives up the price of their shares, their profits, and the paychecks of their executives. "This episode is eerily reminiscent of Senator McCain's insistence that his misguided 'gas tax holiday' would benefit consumers and not simply add to Big Oil’s record profits. McCain and his aides continue to insist that the 230 leading economists -- including 4 Nobel Prize winners -- who denounced his plan are simply wrong. "We're in an energy crisis. Americans do need short-term help to offset the cost of gas, and Senator Obama has a plan to give it to them. He has proposed a $1,000 refund check paid for by taxing Big Oil's record profits that would offer us immediate relief. That's something new drilling won't do, no matter what John McCain says." |
|
From the League of Conservation Voters POSTED 8/14/08
LCV Responds to Senator McCain's Energy Proposals WASHINGTON, DC - In response to Senator McCain's speech at the Fermi nuclear facility in Monroe, Michigan, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski issued the following statement: "It's appropriate that Senator McCain speaks today at the site of nuclear meltdown. He supports billions in subsidies to Big Oil and the nuclear industry. That kind of thinking by George Bush has led to today's energy crisis and four more years can only lead to a total meltdown of America's energy policy." "Instead of billions for new nuclear plants with no plan in sight to deal with dangerous nuclear waste, America should invest in clean, renewable energy sources that will create millions of American jobs. That's why Barack Obama's plan calls for $150 billion for renewable energy development." |
McCain
Silent on Bush Assault on Endangered Species Act 
Act
(ESA) and take protection of wildlife out of the hands of seasoned
agency scientists and put it into the hands of political appointees and
others not qualified to make such determinations. 
Washington,
D.C. - A new set of draft rules proposed by the Bush administration and
reported by the Associated Press today would effectively eradicate the
key laws that protect endangered species in the United States. 
Washington,
D.C. – Yesterday’s announcement by the Bush Administration regarding
changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was a last-ditch effort by a
near-extinct administration to impose the same fate on America’s
endangered species. 
misleading. The ad attacks Barack Obama and then goes on to tout
McCain’s supposed support for renewable energy and energy independence.
McCain has a long record of consistently voting against renewable
energy. 
moving America forward with sensible clean energy proposals that will
create jobs and meet our energy needs. Below is a statement from Sierra
Club Political Director Cathy Duvall: 
|
From Free Internet Press POSTED 7/23/08
League Of Conservation Voters To Endorse Obama In an election all about change, environmental groups are doing the usual - endorsing the Democratic presidential candidate. The League of Conservation Voters will become the latest green group to back Democrat Barack Obama in five separate events across the country Monday. Its pick shouldn't be a surprise. Its scorecard of votes on environmental issues for the first session of the current Congress gave Obama a score of 67 and Republican John McCain a zero. The Arizona senator did not show up for any of the votes the group scored. "When you look specifically at the twin challenges of cutting global warming pollution and moving toward a clean energy future, on those issues Barack Obama has the most comprehensive plan we have ever seen for a presidential nominee," said league president Gene Karpinsky. The league has endorsed presidential candidates since the early 1980s, but not once has it selected a Republican. Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club announced their support for Obama earlier this year, citing McCain's support for more offshore drilling, expanding nuclear power and a gas tax holiday. Neither group has ever backed a Republican presidential candidate, although in 1988 Sierra Club made no choice because both Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Michael Dukakis would have been good stewards of the environment, said spokesman Josh Dorner. Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, which has yet to announce its endorsement, said McCain's renegade image as a Republican crusader on global warming doesn't square with his record. (THERE'S MORE -- CLICK HERE From Free Internet Press POSTED 7/23/08) |
||
|
POSTED 7/19/08 (From MyDD by ChitownDenny)
AL GORE: Green Energy by 2018
(7/17 Speech)
Gore: "end our reliance on carbon-based fuels" and Obama Quotes in Support. (From the Daily KOS by TomP )Update: "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," Gore said. Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace. Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change Gore will be giving a major speech today on energy security, climate change, and the economy, which he correctly sees as interrelated. Update: But some Dems are running scared already. We need to have Al's back on this. Some Dems are grumbling: The Hill: Some finding Gore’s timing inconvenient The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand. "This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels." snip To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and so-called clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, he said. Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change Unlike McCain, there are no 45 new nuclear plants. As for "clean coal," I have my doubts, but "dirty coal" is worse. [Update: Gore in his speech does not mention "clean coal." To the extent it is used, it would have to be "truly clean carbon free." Gore does speak of giving jobs to displaced coal workers, so if "clean coal" is a part, it does not seem to be a big one] Overall, Gore is exactly right in tying climate change, economic problems, and security. It's time for us to convince Americans that we can't afford not to change our energy policies. Al Gore on the moral imperative to solve the climate crisis: Gore on morality and climate change We need to build a Clean Energy Economy: Thousands of new companies, millions of new jobs, and billions in revenue generated by solutions to the climate crisis -- this is the clean energy economy we can adopt with today's technologies, resources, know-how, and leadership from our elected officials. Although our reliance on fossil fuels has created global warming, we now have the opportunity and obligation to begin a transformation towards a robust clean energy economy -- one that is supported by highly efficient industries, fueled by clean, renewable resources (like wind, solar and geothermal energy), and based on modern infrastructure and smart transportation planning. A clean energy economy is a win for American jobs. A recent report showed that investment in a clean and efficient economy would "lead to over 3 million new green-collar jobs, stimulate $1.4 trillion in new GDP, add billions in personal income and retail sales, produce $284 billion in net energy savings, all while generating sufficient returns to the U.S. treasury to pay for itself over ten years." snip But, in order to fully transition to a clean energy economy, we need our elected officials to take action. Absent policies from government, the private sector may continue to invest in old-fashioned, polluting technologies. More than 70 coal plants without technology to capture carbon pollution are now being considered. If these projects go ahead, this will be billions of dollars invested in technology that is outdated and not "clean coal." We need effective policies that unleash American ingenuity and innovation to propel growing clean energy industries forward. America is up for the challenge. In the past two decades, the United States took the lead in the high-tech revolution, exporting trillions of dollars worth of products around the world and employing millions of American workers. We can do it again, this time with clean energy technologies, from solar panels to hybrid vehicles. Help by joing the WE campaign and taking action. This commercial was fun to watch. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson. If they can get together, we all can work to do this. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton Commercial on
Climate Change Update I: Some Dems run scared already. They need a backbone transplant!!! Let's give them one. The question some Democrats have is whether a high-profile speech about the importance of protecting the environment might be exploited by Republicans who want to portray their ideological opponents as caring more about polar bears than Americans who have had to pay record prices for gasoline. "It depends on how it’s presented," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who emphasized he did not want to "pre-empt" Gore’s speech by telling him what to say. "I think the American public will be much more receptive to arguments about climate change when gas prices aren’t so critical," said Rep. Zack Space, a freshman Democrat who represents a mostly rural district in Ohio. The Hill: Some finding Gore’s timing inconvenient There is no "inconvenient time" to save our nation and the planet. We need to have Al's back here and get Lautenberg and Space to screw their heads on right. WE CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO ACT. Update II: CNN will air Gore's speech live at 12:00 noon, eastern time. In addition, Gore will be on NPR's Talk of the Nation today. Tips to ArtSchmart and Lineatus for the info. Update III: Gore's on now. "We're borrrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn in ways that destroy the planet." He says it all must stop. We need to get off carbon based fuels. Solar is one way. "We need a new start." I hope somebody does a diary on his speech and there are You Tubes available. It is excellent. We must provide the people power Gore and our nation need. More: "We should tax what we burn, not what we earn." Gore endorses a reduction of payroll taxes and a carbon tax to include the cost of environmental damages in the cost. "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," Gore said. Gore touched on an array of the nation's current woes, saying the economic, environmental and national security crises are all related. "I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously," Gore said. To begin to fix all the problems, Gore said, "the answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." |
||
|
POSTED 7/16/08
Bush Lifts Presidential Ban On Offshore Drilling President Bush Monday lifted a long-standing presidential ban on new
oil and gas drilling off the nation's Yet the wall of opposition on Capitol Hill to relaxing the drilling ban, though softening, appeared to be holding. A congressional moratorium remains in place, but expires Oct. 1 unless Congress acts. Lawmakers are growing increasingly nervous in the election year about high gasoline prices, and polls show increasing support for expanded domestic energy production. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential candidate, recently changed his position on the offshore drilling ban, coming out in favor of letting states decide whether to allow energy exploration off their coasts. In his announcement at the White House, Bush shifted pressure on the issue directly onto Congress. (THERE'S MORE -- CLICK HERE From Free Internet Press POSTED 7/16/08) |
||
|
POSTED 7/16/08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 10, 2008
Big
Oil Rakes In $610 In Profits For Each American Driver
“Having Big Oil’s best friends in the White House has crippled our economy and hardworking Americans are suffering,” said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club National Political Director. “Barack Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers what they needed to hear—that they must make cars that get better gas mileage; John McCain went straight to Houston and told the oil industry what it wanted to hear—that he strongly supported their desire to begin the wholesale, unfettered ‘exploitation’ of our coasts. It’s clear that America simply cannot afford another president from the ‘Grand Oil Party.’” Big Oil Raking in Record Profits at the Expense of American Drivers An analysis of the record-breaking 2007 profits of just the five biggest oil companies—ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips—shows that they made an astonishing $123,300,000,000 last year alone. With approximately 202 million American drivers on the road, that means Big Oil is raking in about $610 in profits for each and every driver. As oil and gas prices continue to surge, the amount every driver is paying to pad Big Oil's bottom line will only keep increasing. “Big Oil has American consumers over a barrel,” said Duvall. “We literally cannot afford to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration, but it seems unlikely that a campaign full of oil industry lobbyists and awash in millions made at the expense of American consumers is going to stand up to Big Oil and deliver the kind of change we need. By contrast, Barack Obama has stood up to special interests and has a plan to help Americans get through today’s crisis, while putting us on the path to energy independence in order to rid us of Big Oil’s chokehold once and for all.” New Campaign Finance Reports Show Big Oil Has Funneled over $5 million to McCain and the Republican Party
Campaign finance reports
filed June 30, 2008 and analyzed by the non-partisan Center for
Responsive Politics show that
John McCain has received $1,001,668
from the oil and gas industry, while the Republican Party has separately
raked in
an astonishing $4,002,662. These
new reports show that McCain hauled in nearly $210,000 from the industry
in the month of June alone—a month in which he flip-flopped on offshore
drilling and held numerous fundraisers in Big Oil’s backyard. “It looks like the Big Oil fat cats in Texas gave John McCain more than just a couple standing ovations after he flip-flopped on offshore drilling and gave them exactly what they wanted,” noted Duvall. “And is it just a coincidence that the Republican Party hauled in over $4 million from Big Oil and then turned around and bought $3.4 million worth of false and misleading attack ads riddled with blatant lies about Barack Obama’s energy plan?”
Lobbying disclosure forms
also indicate that at least 22 lobbyists who lobby on behalf of some of
the biggest oil companies in the world are involved in John McCain’s
campaign. Obama’s Plan for Real Short-Term Relief v. John McCain’s Gas Tax Gimmick
Obama’s Plan for 50 MPG Cars v. John McCain’s $300 Million Giveaway Gimmick
Obama’s Plan on Speculators v. McCain’s Empty Rhetoric
Obama’s Plan to Make Big Oil Pay Its Fair Share v. McCain’s Texas-Sized Tax Cut for Big Oil
Offshore Drilling Reality v. Rhetoric
*Profits per driver were calculated using 2006 figures (the most recent available) for the number of licensed drivers in each state and the 2007 profit figures for the five largest oil companies: ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.
# # # |
||
|
Statement from The Wilderness Society POSTED 7/16/08
Americans Support Continued Protection for Arctic Refuge - Don't Believe Big Oil's Misleading Claims on Gas Prices
Statement from The Wilderness Society WASHINGTON (July 2, 2008) - Despite a multimillion-dollar campaign to convince lawmakers that they should allow drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the American public is not buying the oil industry's arguments, according to a new national poll conducted over the past week and released today. The poll found that 55% of the American public supports continued protection for the Arctic Refuge, while only 36% favor opening the Refuge to drilling. The Arctic Refuge, a pristine landscape that is home to 250 species including caribou, grizzly bears, musk oxen, threatened polar bears, and tens of thousands of migratory birds, is critical to the Gwich'in people who rely on the Refuge's resources for their subsistence culture. The Refuge has long been the target of drilling advocates, and calls to drill have intensified in recent weeks as gas prices have climbed. A large majority (74 percent) of those polled said that investing in new energy technology, renewable fuels, and more efficient automobiles is a better way to address energy prices and our long-term needs than is relying on more drilling for a limited amount of oil. According to the poll, only 35 percent of Americans believe that allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will result in lower gas prices for American consumers. A majority (53 percent) believe drilling in the Refuge will have no effect on the price they pay at the gas pump. "Big Oil has spent millions trying to convince the American public that if only Congress would open the Arctic Refuge and other protected lands, gas prices would go down. It's a myth the American people just aren't buying," said Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League. A majority of Americans also believe that the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge is far too valuable to risk the permanent damage that drilling would cause. Some 56 percent of those polled said Congress should not allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because "this is one of the most valuable wilderness areas left in the U.S. and it would be permanently damaged by drilling." According to William H. Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society, "protecting America's public lands and waters for future generations has been a cornerstone of our American values since the first national parks and wildlife refuges were created in the late 1800s. It is extremely gratifying to see that these national values remain strong in the face of the current energy challenges being faced by the American public," Meadows said.
The poll also probed whether opening the
Refuge made sense when the oil companies already have obtained the right
to drill for oil and gas on millions of acres of federal land that they
are not using. Today's poll found that a large majority (68 percent) of
Americans believe that there is no reason to open up more Alaskan
wilderness to drilling given that oil companies have not drilled in the
acres already available to them. The poll, conducted by Washington, D.C., research firm Belden Russonello & Stewart, surveyed 817 adults between June 26 and 30, 2008. The margin of sampling error is 3.5 percentage points. |
||
|
POSTED 7/16/08
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 14, 2008
Bush,
McCain, Grand Oil Party
Bush Administration
Admits Offshore Drilling
Washington, D.C.—President
Bush is set to announce today that he is lifting the executive
moratorium on new offshore For more on facts on offshore drilling, visit: www.sierraclub.org/coasts
"This is the most cynical of political ploys. Even the Bush administration admits that offshore drilling will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices, today, tomorrow, or even a decade from now. This is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the suffering of hardworking Americans in order to pad Big Oil’s bottom line. "John McCain, George Bush, and Big Oil are working in lockstep to push for the ‘exploitation’ of our coasts, as McCain himself called it. It is the failed policies of the Bush administration that have crippled our economy and caused energy prices to skyrocket—and John McCain is just calling for more of the same. In fact, he also wants a Texas-sized tax cut for Big Oil--$1.2 billion for ExxonMobil alone. America simply cannot afford another president from the Grand Oil Party. "Barack Obama knows that simply seeking a bigger fix is not the way to end our addiction to oil and won’t do anything to ease our pain at the pump. He has a plan that will make the oil companies pay their fair share on their record profits in order to giving hardworking Americans a $1,000 tax cut to get us through today’s crisis. In addition to real relief at the pump now, Obama’s plan will put us on the true path to energy independence and break Big Oil’s chokehold on our economy once and for all."
---- The Department of the Interior: The number of drilling permits on federal lands doubled in the last five years while the price of gas almost tripled. More drilling does not lower prices. House Natural Resources Committee: Oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and waters — an area the size of Nevada — that are producing nothing. Oil production on these lands could cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third. John McCain On the effect of more U.S. oil drilling on the price of gas: "I don’t see an immediate relief.... Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Fresno, June 23, 2008 T. Boone Pickens: "I’ve been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of." June 8, 2008 The U.S. holds 2% of global oil reserves but consumes 24% of the world’s oil. We can’t drill our way to energy independence. Conservation, alternative energy sources and technological advances are the cheaper, faster, cleaner, surer way to meet America’s energy needs while reducing the threat of global warming.
|
||
|
From the Los Angeles Times POSTED 7/3/08
Tuesday 01 July 2008 by: Noam N. Levey, The Los Angeles Times The Republican presidential candidate has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the government's role in energy policy.
"We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents," the presumptive Republican nominee told a crowd of oil executives in Houston. But McCain's record of tackling energy policy on Capitol Hill shows little of the clear direction he says would come from a McCain White House. Instead, the Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government's role in energy policy. At times he has backed measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Other times he has voted to keep them. He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry. He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing "nothing to increase our energy independence." Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a "vital, vital alternative energy source." Senior McCain policy advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain's positions reflected a pragmatic approach to governing. "Sen. McCain is interested in getting results," he said. But many environmentalists see it as inconsistency. "There is a very sporadic pattern here," said Tim Greef, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters. THERE'S MORE -- GO TO LOS ANGLES TIMES ARTICLE POSTED 7/3/08 |
Former
Vice President Al Gore laid out his plan to address America's energy
crisis. "The United States should be making all of its electricity with
renewable and carbon-free energy in 10 years." Stressing the need for
America to end its dependence on oil and coal, Gore laid out a plan for
the country to "produce all of its electricity from renewable and
carbon-free sources", a goal he compared to President Kennedy's
challenge for the country to put a man on the moon. Utilizing Sun, wind,
and eco-friendly resources, America can contribute to a reduction of the
"threat of climate change", relieve itself from the economic impact of
"rising oil prices", and reduce the "transfer of wealth to oil producing
countries". "I don't remember a time in our country when so many things
seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously....America's security,
environmental and economic crises are all related", Al Gore said
Thursday. 
coastlines and urged Congress to remove its own restrictions on offshore
energy exploration, stoking the battle over how Washington should
respond to high gasoline prices. 
Washington,
D.C.—
drilling
off our coasts. This will have no impact on the Congressional
moratorium, which is renewed annually through the appropriations
process, and still remains in place.
|
POSTED 6/29/08
(From MichiganLiberal.Com by: Eric B.) I'm told the state Senate ripped apart the energy bills that have been working their way through the state Legislature the last several months. Although I'm a bit short on details, since it was a Friday night massacre, I'm told that the end product was an utterly laughable RPS goal of 7 percent by 2015 (Consumers, the state's biggest utility, has already exceeded more than half that goal, and has in the past said it could meet the originally proposed goal of 10 percent without breaking a sweat ... provided it got what it wanted). What this really hurts is the growth of the alternative energy industry in this state, since a higher RPS encourages investment and, you know, the creation of green jobs. Frankly, it's just more evidence that one of the things holding back this state is a fear of innovation among some powerful parties. |
|
|
POSTED 6/29/08
Granholm Says Mascoma Agreement Puts Michigan at Forefront of Next Generation Fuels Historic investment set for production facility in U.P.'s Chippewa County
LANSING - Governor Jennifer M. Granholm and Mascoma Corporation CEO Bruce A. Jamerson today announced that the Massachusetts-based company has entered into a series of key strategic relationships to further Mascoma's efforts to build its first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Agreements with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), JM Longyear, and alliances formed with Michigan State University (MSU) and Michigan Technological University (MTU) will help bring the plant to Chippewa County, south of Sault Ste. Marie, where clean-burning, fuel-grade ethanol will be produced from wood fiber. The agreements build on Mascoma's decision announced last July to locate in Michigan. "Long before the current run-up in petroleum prices, we declared
Michigan's intention to lead the nation in
Mascoma's single-step cellulose-to-ethanol method, called consolidated bioprocessing, or CBP, uses advanced technologies to make ethanol from non-food based renewable sources such as wood chips and other biomass. The clean-energy technology is critical to producing ethanol more quickly, efficiently and economically. Mascoma chose Michigan for its first commercial-scale facility based on the vast sustainable forests and agricultural materials available and the expertise provided by JM Longyear. In addition, Mascoma will collaborate with MSU and MTU to develop and hone scientific processes that utilize Michigan feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production. "Working with the state of Michigan, two of its leading universities, and JM Longyear on this significant project brings us closer to commercial scale production of biofuels that can promote energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulate regional economic development," Jamerson said. Since becoming governor, Granholm has been an advocate of growing an alternative energy and alternative fuel industry in Michigan. Under her leadership, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), led by President and CEO James C. Epolito, has worked with Mascoma to secure one of two locations in Chippewa County. Engineering work is underway to finalize the site that will be secured through a land swap under negotiation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Yesterday, the Center of Energy Excellence (COEE) legislation was passed through the Michigan Legislature and with the governor's signature, Mascoma will be eligible for a $15 million grant to become Michigan's first Center of Energy Excellence. "There are great synergies in Michigan for Mascoma, not only in the ready supply of wood fiber across northern Michigan, but also great research institutions with a long-time focus on this science and our 21st Century Jobs Fund that is tuned to bringing job-creating alternative energy ventures to Michigan," Epolito said. "This new facility will mean more jobs in our agriculture, timber, and manufacturing industries while benefiting our environment and energy security as a nation," he said. Mascoma and Marquette-based JM Longyear, a leading natural resource company, entered into a strategic relationship to combine Mascoma's technology with JM Longyear's significant project development experience, including its recent $1.6 billion Minnesota Steel project and its deep natural resource experience. "Mascoma's revolutionary technology combined with site integration and innovative supply chain strategies position Michigan to lead the nation in the advancement of new, clean energy production and job creation," said JM Longyear CEO Stephen Hicks. Mascoma is collaborating with research partners globally to identify and patent additional biomass-to-ethanol technologies. MSU will provide expertise in areas primarily relating to pretreatment technology for cellulosic ethanol production and assistance with renewable energy crops that can be utilized by the biorefinery. MTU will contribute its knowledge of sustainable forestry management practices and access to its automotive engineering laboratories for analysis of the biofuels produced at the project site - part of its "wood to wheels" initiative. Prior to the announcement of its first commercial-scale production facility in northern Michigan, Mascoma announced a pilot project in Rome, New York, which is now under construction and will be completed by the end of the year, and a 2MMGY pre-commercial scale facility to be run on switchgrass in Tennessee. Last month, Mascoma announced equity investments by General Motors and Marathon Oil Corporation (NYSE: MRO) as part of a $61 million third round of funding. "Sustainable transportation fuels will be part of the infrastructure much sooner than most people expect," said Beth Lowery, GM vice president of environment, energy and safety policy. "It is exciting to see these latest moves by Mascoma to make next-generation biofuels a reality." "Collaborative, private-public partnerships such as this initiative on the part of the state of Michigan and Mascoma are integral to our ability to bring next-generation, environmentally friendly renewable fuels derived from non-food feedstocks out of the laboratory and into full-scale commercial production," said Cliff C. Cook, Marathon Petroleum Company senior vice president, supply, distribution and planning. About Mascoma Mascoma Corporation is a leader in advanced, low-carbon biofuels technology based in Boston, Massachusetts. Using proprietary microorganisms and enzymes developed at the company's laboratories in Lebanon, New Hampshire, Mascoma is collaborating with research partners globally to identify, patent and deploy a new generation of microbes and low-cost processes for producing advanced cellulosic ethanol technologies across a range of non-food feedstocks. Mascoma is developing demonstration and commercial scale production facilities in locations across the United States. For more information, visit www.mascoma.com. About the 21st Century Jobs Fund The 21st Century Jobs Fund is a $2 billion initiative conceived by Governor Granholm, approved by the Michigan Legislature, and administered by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation to accelerate the diversification of Michigan's economy. For more information, see the MEDC Web site at www.michigan.org. |
|
|
POSTED 6/29/08
Governor Granholm Says Water Package Marks Defining Moment in Michigan History
"This is a defining moment in Michigan history," Granholm said. "We must do our part to ensure that our Great Lakes are protected and preserved for generations to come - this legislation fulfills that promise." Michigan will be the first state in the country to manage both surface water and groundwater as one interconnected system under the compact. The bipartisan package ratifies the Great Lakes Compact agreement that creates historic protections for the Great Lakes by banning diversions outside the Great Lakes basin with strictly regulated, limited exceptions. The compact ensures that in those limited circumstances where a diversion proposal can be brought forward for regional review, each Great Lakes governor has veto power based on criteria outlined in the compact. "I applaud Senator Patricia Birkholz and Representative Rebekah Warren for their excellent leadership on this issue," Granholm said. "The Great Lakes literally define Michigan, and this package that passed today represents the best of Michigan's spirit." The compact also requires each state to develop a comprehensive framework for managing the water resources in a sustainable way within their borders. The legislation passed today:
Lakes Compact Flows Onward, But Some Issues Remain (From the Detroit Free Press) The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, proposed under the Great Lakes Charter Annex Implementing Agreement, was signed in December 2005 by the governors and premiers of the eight states and two provinces that border the Great Lakes. Following the initial agreement signed in 2005, each state agreed to seek ratification through the legislative process. Congress must ultimately give its consent for the agreement to take effect. Governor Granholm has urged Michigan's congressional delegation to work with their colleagues from the region to ensure the compact is quickly ratified once final action is taken by all the Great Lakes states. Three cheers for Michigan lawmakers! Perhaps it was the shame of knowing Ohio legislators got ahead of them, but the Legislature finally made Michigan an official signatory on the Great Lakes compact, the region's best hope for keeping Great Lakes water within the Great Lakes basin as increasingly thirsty outsiders look on. Ohio's compact legislation is on the governor's desk, so it will be a race between him and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm for the formal signature. But with Pennsylvania yet to weigh in, at least Michigan won't end up last. The compact, which also requires congressional approval, provides a tighter legal framework than previously existed for the Great Lakes states and provinces to say no to requests for bulk water transfers out of the lakes. Legislation that accompanies the compact also puts new rules in place for keeping tabs on water use within the state and helping to assure that major users locate in places with ample supplies. The rules matter, because it will be increasingly hard to defend the lakes, even with the compact, if residents are seen as not caring enough about the water to use it wisely themselves. Conservationists had hoped the new rules would also explicitly extend the state's "public trust" doctrine to groundwater. The Constitution already implies as much ("The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources ... from pollution, impairment and destruction"). THERE'S MORE - GO TO THE DETROIT FREE PRESS POSTED 6/29/08 |
|
|
(From the Center for American Progress POSTED 6/22/08)
(Center for American Progress) In 2006, President Bush said that the United States was “addicted to oil.” But in a speech yesterday, he echoed an old line when he called for Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, allow access to oil shale, increase refinery capacity, and allow offshore oil drilling in areas that have been off-limits since 1982. There are many reasons that offshore drilling in sensitive coastal areas is a bad idea. These 10 are only the beginning: 1. We can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis. According to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources Majority Staff: “Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361 percent, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically, contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.” 2. We don’t have enough oil to meet our demand. The U.S. oil supply-demand balance is insurmountable. We have less than 2 percent of the world’s known reserves, yet use 25 percent of its oil. Even if we drilled off of every beach, and inside every national park, refuge, and forest, we could not produce enough oil to offset our growing demand. 3. Oil companies have not utilized the leases they have now. Why open up new areas to drilling when oil companies hold over 4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of Mexico? What’s more, the government already leases 44 million acres offshore, of which only 10.5 million—or one quarter—are producing oil or gas. 4. Offshore drilling would have an “insignificant” effect on long-term prices. Offshore drilling in sensitive areas would increase domestic oil production by 7 percent by 2030 compared to a reference case, according to the EIA. But “because oil prices are determined on the international market…any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” 5. Drilling could lock us in to a future of expensive gasoline. By committing to costly recovery, oil companies are betting that oil prices (and gas prices) will stay high enough to justify their investments. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf could never bring us back to $2-a-gallon gas, but would ensure that companies that develop the newly available oil have an interest in keeping gas prices high enough to justify their investments. 6. Production would be expensive, would not start for a long time, and would have no short-term effect on oil prices. The average oil field size in the OCS is smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already being developed As a result, much of the oil in the OCS would |
alternative
energy production and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil,"
Granholm said. "Mascoma's next generation biomass-to-ethanol
technologies are integral to wide-scale ethanol production, and this
plant will put Michigan on the leading edge of technology that will
create good-paying jobs for Michigan citizens." 
