Clean sources of energy and more drilling, too

Andrew Sullivan catches this. Is McCain unable to see the utter incoherence of this ad?

McCain promises to move to clean energy sources, in part because of the “threat to our climate”. And then he commits to end the moratorium on drilling for oil!

It’s kind of like treehugger, brought to you by Chevy trucks! (See previous post.) Honestly! — have people lost the ability to think logically?

Advertisements

3 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Bridgett
    Jun 24, 2008 @ 11:41:52

    I believe that may be true. Media being what it is, if you say something loud enough, often enough, it becomes a truth.

    Back when I was a la leche leader, my sister in law told me she was using this-and-such formula because “it has the same stuff as breast milk.” Because that’s what the commercials told her–it had 2 similar compounds. I was going to hand her an article that enumerated the 150+ compounds that were missing, but I decided it wasn’t worth it. Gerber baby food is another one–have to feed your kids puree, come on! The happy baby on the label! And here’s McCain telling us he’s pro-clean energy. It must be so.

    Reply

  2. Random
    Jun 26, 2008 @ 09:05:07

    “McCain promises to move to clean energy sources, in part because of the “threat to our climate”. And then he commits to end the moratorium on drilling for oil!”

    You’re missing out a key ponit of the argument Mccain is making here in order to brand him as inconsistent. Of course McCain is committed to greener technologies, and of course he is probably the most committed to such technologies of anybody on the Republican side of the Senate. However, not even a president who can command the waters to recede can make Americans switch to electric or biofuel cars the day after his election (he would need to be able to turn water into wine – or at least ethanol – to manage that… ). So oil is still going to part of the equation.

    This is where McCain the national security hawk comes into the debate. As the advert makes clear his willingness to resume drilling comes from national security considerations – the oil price at it’s current record levels is funnelling vast amounts of money to people who wish the West in general and the US in particular nothing but harm. It is definitely in the national security interests of the United States if as much of the oil it needs as possible is produced within the boundaries of the United States. This is not inconsistent with a policy of reducing overall dependence on oil, in fact it reinforces it.

    Obama by contrast is proposing to increase the US’s dependence on oil from unfriendly sources by restricting or even banning imports from one of the US’s few stable and friendly sources of supply. Seriously, following on from NAFTA as this does, if I were a Canadian I’d be worrying about now just why it is Obama seems to have it in for my country…

    Reply

  3. Stephen
    Jun 27, 2008 @ 08:17:08

    Not even a president who can command the waters to recede can make Americans switch to electric or biofuel cars the day after his election.

    McCain can’t produce oil from offshore drilling the day after he becomes President, either. It will take a decade for offshore oil to reach the market in any significant quantity.

    So offshore drilling doesn’t help immediately. It’s just another gift from the Republicans to their buddies in the oil industry. Let them make all the profits they can, even while you posture as a green candidate.

    If McCain is serious about reducing the USA’s dependence on oil, he ought to stick with alternative energy sources, and try to get them up and running within a decade.

    As for Obama, he’s right about the oil sands. Oil from the oil sands requires much more refining than oil from other sources, and thereby produces far more greenhouse gases during the production process. (It’s also significantly more expensive for the same reason.)

    Yes, getting oil from Canada is preferable from a security perspective. And maybe President Obama will have to pause to reconsider the security pros and environmental cons of oil from the oil sands.

    But from an environmental perspective, Obama is showing consistency where McCain isn’t. And that’s the point of the post.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: