In this election of "hope" and "change," it is easy to believe the Democrats' energy policy is the right solution for our country. But is it possible that the Republicans, the party so many have grown to despise, could actually have the right energy policy? And if so, would people be too caught up in "change" to acknowledge that the Democrats have become too idealistic? The Republicans have crafted an energy policy that deals with both supply and demand — drilling and alternate fuels — while the Democrats have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the realities of the world we live in.
Let me first refute some basic stereotypes that have clogged this debate. I support drilling; however, I care greatly about the environment, I support alternative fuels, and I completely agree that we need to drastically decrease our need of oil. On too many accounts people have tried to counter my energy policies with the above statements in the belief that I am a cruel, heartless, oil-loving guy. Take my word for it (or ask my friends), I'm not.
This image stems from the Democratic slogan that the Republicans and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) only seek to "drill our way out of the energy problem." Such could not be further from the truth. Drilling is not the solution but part of a solution that first aims to make us energy independent and then, eventually over time, completely take us off oil.
The arguments against drilling follow: It will take five to 10 years to make a difference, it is bad for the environment, "Big Oil" is corrupt and steals money from ordinary citizens, and it prolongs the inevitable need to switch from oil. All of these arguments stem from the public's false image of the Republicans and their energy plan.
Yes, drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will not make much of an impact for some years (no energy plan will), but when did we, as a society, forget to plan for the future? We have gotten so caught up in seeking independence from oil that we have forgotten to ask ourselves when we will actually get off oil. The answer is not pretty. Ninety-seven percent of our transportation energy is based on petroleum, and thus, it is naïve to believe we will be off oil in 10 years, let alone 30.
Changing a country's entire energy infrastructure overnight is not possible, and so it is easy to see that even in 10, 20 and 30 years, despite substantially lowering demand, we will still need oil. Why then should we not drill for something that we need? Over the past 30 years, countries like Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have created state-owned companies that we depend on. Our American "Big Oil" companies now produce less than 13 percent of the world's oil. In terms of national security, it is imperative that we drill, as we cannot rely on rogue states in an unforeseen future.
Furthermore, drilling creates jobs and would eventually keep billions of dollars within our borders, thereby strengthening the dollar. Drilling will strengthen national security, help the economy and put us on a path towards energy independence. And all of this will come from the pocketbooks of "Big Oil." At the same time, the government will lower demand and help spur alternative fuels.
As for the environment, while it is important to be cautious, we must be realistic at the same time. Drilling technology has greatly changed over the years and has become very safe and clean. For example, during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there was hardly any spillage because of the technology advancement. Nowadays, almost all oil spills result from transportation, not drilling. There is no dispute that oil adds to global warming, but if we have a demand for oil, I would much rather supply that demand with American oil. The goal of achieving oil independence is independent of whether or not we are drilling within our borders.
Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) and the Democrats have recently tried to tie John McCain to "Corrupt Big Oil." It is an easy accusation with the recent profits by Exxon; however, it is never mentioned that 15 percent of the cost of gas goes to taxes, while only four percent goes to oil company profits. The reason "Big Oil" is making record-breaking profits is a result of the oil industry's need to supply the global energy demand. Oil companies are not stealing money from us; rather, they are just smart enough to supply an energy source that the whole world demands.
Furthermore, Obama's accusation that McCain will give a tax break specifically to the oil industry is not true. McCain has proposed a tax cut to all companies (including the oil industry) that encourages more corporate investments in new technology and infrastructure. Obama's windfall tax goes completely against the capitalist society we have built and was used roughly 30 years ago, only resulting in higher gas prices. Rising taxes solely targeting the oil industry for the better of individuals is an outright oxymoron. All of our families, in some way or another, own part of the oil industry. With mutual funds, private investors, pension funds and IRAs, only 1.5 percent of oil stocks are actually owned by corporate management.
Many people do not support drilling because they see it as preventing a spur of innovation. I respect such an argument but disagree. High energy prices are here to stay, regardless of whether or not we drill. Thus, the economic and environmental incentives to develop greener cars and alternate fuels are independent of "Big Oil."
As I sat in the Senate gallery this summer, I watched as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denied votes on 38 Republican amendments, all for the reason of protecting Sen. Obama. At the time, Sen. Obama opposed drilling, and as roughly half of the amendments dealt with drilling, a successful vote on a drilling measure (which would have happened) would have left Obama out to dry. Nevertheless, the other half of the amendments dealt with lowering demand and alternative fuels, but those too were denied votes.
Thus, the Democratic stubbornness to allow any Republican input into an energy bill put Congress into recess with no energy solution. House Republicans stayed on the floor for weeks demanding a vote while Obama, on the day Congress went into recess, stated that he would now allow compromise. Such perfect timing allowed Obama to appear as the great bipartisan leader when, in fact, his politics prohibited an energy plan for the past two months.
The Democratic stance to now allow some drilling is more rhetoric than an actual compromise. What we need is an "all of the above approach" that increases supply, lowers demand and invests in alternative energies. As we seek energy independence, we must diversify our energy sources, and that includes drilling, nuclear power, solar power and wind power. The Democrats have done a great job of promoting the environment and alternative energies that has now carried over to Republican policy; however, Democrats have failed to acknowledge that oil will still play a major role in energy policy for many years to come. This failure has allowed the Republicans to craft a policy that acknowledges and deals with environmental concerns and at the same time, incorporates realistic goals.
--
Evan Lacher is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He is also the co-head of Tufts for McCain.
