Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Revisiting (UPDATED)

We suggested Newt Gingrich. Or Sarah Palin. Or even Lisa Murkowski.

But Blake Dvorak has a post up at RCP – and today it’s Marsha Blackburn who is issuing the challenge invitation for McCain to visit ANWR:

As one of the Republican members pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi to recall the House to vote on energy legislation, Rep. Marsha Blackburn today encouraged Sen. John McCain to revisit ANWR. McCain has called for drilling in the outer continental shelf but has drawn the line at the Alaskan region.

"I would encourage [McCain] to come back and revisit this area and revisit the issue and talk to the people," said Blackburn speaking over the phone from Barrow, Alaska. The Tennessee congresswoman traveled to Alaska today to learn how Alaskans living near the refuge feel about drilling.

We’re all for it. Not sure that Blackburn has quite the sway of Palin or Gingrich, though. But we’ll take what we can get.

Listen to her, Senator McCain.

INCIDENTALLY: Blackburn uses the word “revisit”. We were unable to find record of when McCain has ever been to ANWR. Was it one year ago? Five? Ten? Seventy-one?

UPDATE: (8/21) Rep. Blackburn pens a post at Red State about her recent trip to ANWR.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Exxon-Obama

Via Jim Geraghty at Campaign Spot, we have this from Jake Tapper at ABC:

As we close up a week wherein Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on the stump and in a TV ad accused rival Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., of being "in the pocket of big oil," and doing the industry's bidding -- not to mention a week during which the Democratic National Committee launched an Exxon-McCain '08 website to drive home this Democratic talking point -- the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics points out that the issue is a bit more complicated than it first would appear.

McCain has received three times more money from the oil industry in general -- $1.3 million for McCain compared to approximately $394,000 for Obama. But that said, Obama has received more campaign cash than McCain has from the employees of some of the biggest oil companies -- Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This might seem to complicate Obama's continual use of Exxon-Mobil on the stump.

Geraghty's post is titled:

Time to Create an Exxon-Obama SIte

Sorry we don't have time to create an entire site, but perhaps this will help...

Exxon-Obama

What's next, we find out that Obama is a puppet of Dick Cheney?


MORE: We had an actual point to make but forgot to do so at the time, rushing to get the logo posted. So we did so in a new post.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Don't drink and drive, continued

We are back home from vacation. The trip consisted of driving through parts of the following states:

North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Kentucky*
Indiana
Illinois
Missouri
Iowa
Nebraska
Wyoming
Idaho (where we spent our vacation)
Montana
Colorado
New Mexico
Texas

From Texas we took a flight that took us through Philadelphia before returning home.

Our wife and kids remained in Texas, and in three weeks we will fly back and then drive with them back home. This will take us through:

Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina

In all, we have driven just under 4,000 miles so far, with roughly 1,400 remaining on the Texas back to North Carolina trip. $4 gas isn't so much fun for such a thing. But now, another problem for such a trip is beginning to ripple around the news. The idea of bringing back the federal 55 mph national speed limit.

American Thinker covers the issue today. One point made in that article goes thusly:

Take for example coastal industries. Turn a three hour drive each way into a four hour plus drive each way to get to the beach, and you'll see far fewer folks doing it for the weekend. Turn a 12 hour drive to the Florida or Carolinas beaches into a 16 hour trek, and the week long vacations won't happen.

We certainly admit that our vacation is extreme, one not one undertaken by very many people. But let's do the quick calculation on the difference between the trip we have made at current speed limits, and the trip if 55 mph again became the federally mandated speed limit.

Our trip from North Carolina to Idaho was nearly all interstate, and we averaged just under 74 mph while the car was in motion (our GPS records such things). The trip from Idaho to Texas was a little less interstate, and we averaged just over 68 mph. To simplify for our purposes here, we will round the overall average to 72 mph. And for our purposes we will assume our trip from Texas back to North Carolina will also average 72 mph.

By the time we make it back home in three weeks, we will have spent 75 hours traveling 5,400 miles.

Now, if the posted speed limit was 55 mph maximum -- and we assume our overall average would be 58 mph -- slightly over the maximum speed limit -- our same vacation would consume 93 hours of drive time.

14 more hours.

Or to put it in terms this blog favors, it would have made a 27,000 bottles-of-beer-on-the-wall drive into a 33,480 bottles-of-beer-on-the-wall drive.

That's nearly 6,500 extra bottles of beer.

Now, as much as we like beer (and we really love beer), one can only take so many down and pass so many around before one is driven from being a fun, family road trip dad to a menacing road rage threat to any and all other vehicles along a 20-state route.

It would be enough to drive a man to drink.



MORE MATH: Adding the states up, we will have visited 40% of these United States by the end of the summer vacation travels.

TO BE CLEAR: We are using the traditional count of states, and not the Obama new math, which would put us at a mere 33%.



*Thanks to Strawman in the comments for pointing out my oversight in forgetting Kentucky.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

When the abstract rubber meets the concrete road

Dean Barnett has penned one of those, “why didn’t I think of that?” articles in the Weekly Standard. In it he points out that politicians (and pundits such as himself) do not personally feel the pain at the pump to the level that most Americans do, because to them, driving often and/or over substantial distances is only an abstract concept.

Dean describes his driving habits this way:

I live just outside of Boston. On most days, my morning commute consists of trundling from my bedroom to the den where my laptop awaits. When I get ambitious or antsy, I run out to Starbucks for a latte or Whole Foods for some provisions. The Starbucks is about 300 yards from my house. Sometimes I walk it! But even when I don't walk, I don't use much gas. The Whole Foods is a couple of miles from my house; that I never walk, but my fuel consumption is minimal. My principal leisure activity is heading off to the golf course. That's four miles away. Every now and then I take a more ambitious journey, but as you can see I have a carbon footprint that would make me eligible for an "Al Gore Responsible Steward of the Environment" prize. And I haven't even had to put phoney-baloney solar panels on my house to display my environmental purity.

My minimal amount of driving means I fill up my gas tank on average a little more than once a month. With a 12-13 gallon purchase per fill-up, I'm dropping about $50 each time I visit my pal Eric at the neighborhood service station. So the sharp increase from $2 a gallon to $4 a gallon costs me a grand total of roughly $25 per month. To date, I have found this burden bearable.

Though we might be tempted to dwell on the revelation that Dean is a Starbucks-latte-sippin’, Whole-Foods-arugula-lovin’ pundit, let’s press on.

After briefly describing Obama’s driving situation as being somewhat similar to his (in that he lives in a big city), Dean then makes this observation:

But there's an entire country that exists outside greater Boston and Hyde Park, Chicago.

Dean then uses the experience of a recent golf trip to eastern Colorado as his example.

He should have asked us.

We had been working on a post to help explain how the cost of gas is affecting our family – and we were going to use an upcoming road trip to show how in 2005 it would have cost us $370 in gas, but now it will cost us nearly $700 (yes, a long, cross-country trip we are making by choice – and to which we bitterly joyfully cling, no matter the price of gas – to go spend a couple of weeks with family).

But this article gives us an idea for a different approach. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of Senator Obama and his disciples, we will use Michelle to help us illustrate the point.

Michelle Obama has famously stated:

“We spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements. And summer programs… Do you know what summer camp costs?”

For our purposes here, we will assume that the cost of transporting the kiddos to and from these extracurriculars is included in the ten grand.

And for our purposes, let’s assume Michelle drives average of 10 miles per day for an average of 5 days per week, a total of 50 miles each week transporting the peanuts to and from these extracurriculars.

Finally for our purposes, let’s assume that $10,000 was the cost in 2007, and assume a 3% annual inflation in non-gas related costs, but a constant participation across the years in the same extracurriculars.

Now. Let’s take our family. We too have extracurriculars for our two precious chicken nuggets. Between them we have swim lessons, golf lessons, gymnastics and soccer. Oh, and no summer camp (oh, we hear you Michelle, it is expensive! And we haven't even written one best-selling memoir, let alone two like your husband). We go the cheaper route of touring the Vacation Bible School Circuit with neighbors, classmates and teammates. The back of the envelope calculation bring us to $1,200 a year for these extracurriculars for the little angels, before gas.

Ah, gas. Yes, we don’t live in a big city. We live past the outskirts of a medium-sized city. Because it is part of our neighborhood’s name, friends refer to us as living in the “Woods”, as in practically out in the woods in cabins – where our in-town friends are surprised to learn that we have running water and electricity. When we head in toward town to go to these extracurriculars, we stock up on survival provisions, should anything happen to us on the way or on our return. Having looked up the mileage from our house to the various venues of the extracurriculars for the little darlins, it comes to a rough average of 150 miles per week (just the extracurriculars, not going to school, or work or the store or other errands or stops).

So, if we look at the overall cost of giving our munchkins the proper participation in extracurriculars to put them on the path to prevail in life – and the impact of rising gas costs over the past five years, how do we compare with the Obamas?

Let’s make that a more graphical depiction of the change we’ve not been waiting for, charting the percentage rise in cost versus 2004 as the starting point:

Now, an 18% rise over the past five years in the overall cost of extracurriculars is nothing to sneeze at (You know, this conversation isn’t helping Michelle’s kids).

But I’m certain that that 18% rise goes nearly unfelt in the Obama household when compared to the 55% rise in ours.

In fact, the price of gas has not moved very much as a percentage of the Obamas overall extracurriculars spending. For us, on the other hand, it now costs more to drive the punkins to their extracurriculars than it does for them to participate in them.

And yet, we couldn’t be in a better place – surrounded by wonderful neighbors, our kids going to fantastic schools, in a church home filled with people who love and take care of each other. We wouldn’t move for the world.

The price of gas could double from here, and we would consider ourselves blessed beyond measure.

But there are certainly those for whom an 18% increase in the cost of providing extracurricular activities for their children would prove debilitating, and even moreso a 56% increase.

Dean makes this point regarding Obama’s ability to understand (or willingness to act on) this situation:

The fact that our pundit class can't imagine how most of the country lives is hardly surprising. But Barack Obama is another story. He's running for president of the United States, not king of Hyde Park. If he wins, he'll be leader of all the people, not just the ones who live in cities and for whom their cars are luxuries. It shows a shocking lack of imagination that he can't deduce how painful hyper-expensive gasoline is for most Americans. Either that, or his enthusiasm for $4 a gallon gas evidences a callous indifference.

We have the necessary supply of imagination to supply our answer to that choice.

Both.

--------------------------

The gas cost was calculated taking the total miles per week x 52 / 20 mpg x the average price of gas in roughly June of each year:

2004: $1.85
2005: $2.20
2006: $2.75
2007: $2.95
2008: $4.05



Fewer chickens in every pot and fewer cars in every garage

From Real Clear Politics…in response to McCain acknowledging that drilling for oil offshore would not provide immediate relief, but that there would be some psychological relief that would be good, Obama called him on “psychological relief” gimmick, and claimed the mantle of true relief giver with this:

Well the American people ... need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table. They need a long-term energy strategy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the renewable sources of energy that represent the future. That's what they need."

Did you follow that?

The American people need relief to help them fill their tanks and feed their families.

OK, I’m all for it! Now, let’s get to work. What are we going to do to provide real relief, Senator Obama?

A long-term energy strategy that invests in renewable energy of the future.

So, that puts gas in our tank and food on our table how?

Because, and forgive us for our impudence but, you do want to provide real relief now, don’t you Senator?

Oh, wait… (h/t Geraghty)

But to encourage a transition toward alternatives, Obama favors legislation that would make fossil fuel more expensive. Doesn't that mean more pain to come under an Obama presidency? "There is no doubt that in the short term, adapting to this new energy economy is going to carry some costs." But, he adds, citing the coal industry's ability to adapt to stop acid rain in the 1980s, "I would never underestimate the power of American innovation."

So, Obama is willing to say the American people need real relief – he’s just not willing to do anything to provide it.

Obama wants our gas tanks empty and our dinner tables sparse.

Got it, thanks.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Power to the people

Let’s devote some energy to this Jake Tapper report from earlier this week:

Last night in Detroit, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, assailed the process by which the 2005 Senate energy bill -- helmed by Vice President Cheney -- was created.

“When Bush assigned Cheney to create energy policy, he met with the environmental groups once, the renewable energy groups once, he met with the oil and gas companies 40 times," Obama said.

"Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.”


Riiiiiiiight. Those oil and gas companies are so overwhelmingly powerful, compared to the environmental groups.

Why the outer continental shelf is just teeming with oil rigs. Right?

Oh...

Huh, for such an all-powerful industry, with the weight of Dick Cheney himself behind it, those oil and gas companies sure show a disturbing level of impotency in getting to the oil.

OK, let’s read that last sentence again:

"Washington has become so dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, that the voices of the American people are no longer heard.”

Well. If we actually listen to the voices of the American people, what are they saying these days? You are interested in actually listening, rather than just talking about listening, right, Senator Obama?

Two out of every three voices of the American people are saying drill:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided.

Why won’t you listen to the voices of the American people, Senator Obama?

We’ll state the reason, since you likely aren't even listening to the question.

You have become dominated by the powerful, by the well-connected, and you have no intention of listening to the voices of the American people.

The oil and gas companies care more about Americans than Barack Obama.



MORE: Fred Barnes points out some more people-powered voices on drilling:

Not many polls bring good news to Republicans, but a new survey by John Zogby certainly has. Zogby found that 74 percent of likely voters favor drilling for oil and gas offshore in coastal waters. Here’s the breakdown of those who support drilling: 90 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents. Not bad, and it gets better. A quarter of the likely voters said they’d be more likely to vote for John McCain if they knew he backed offshore drilling for oil and gas, which he does.

If Obama cared to listen.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Issue the challenge, make him visit

Maybe we’re seeing some movement in the “challenge McCain to visit ANWR” theme started here?

Rich Lowry has put up a couple “from a reader” posts about a McCain visit on the Corner, here and here.

And Glenn Reynolds refers to McCain visiting ANWR, here.

We suggested Newt Gingrich issue the challenge, because of his Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less. campaign.

Or perhaps a milder form could be an invitation by Governor Sarah Palin or Senator Lisa Murkowski to visit the area?

One more note. Though in yesterday’s town hall, McCain reiterated his line likening drilling in ANWR to drilling in the Grand Canyon, remember that in his January blogger conference call he also included the Everglades in that formulation. Makes sense that he did, since the Florida primary was coming up, of course.

And speaking of the Everglades, this is from last Wednesday:

ORLANDO -- John McCain, who will venture into the Everglades for the first time as a presidential candidate Friday, on Thursday [...]

Visiting the Everglades is a rite of passage for politicians shoring up their environmental credentials in the nation's largest swing state.

OK. Well it’s time to make visiting ANWR the new rite of passage for politicians shoring up their "lower gas prices" credentials and "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" credentials, especially if they insist that drilling in ANWR would be no different than drilling in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades.

Issue the challenge, make him visit.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

A visit is worth more than 37 words

One of the more memorable events in the campaign so far has been the back and forth on Iraq between Obama and McCain. As it heated up and people began to pick up that Obama has not been to Iraq in over two years and has never had a one-on-one meeting with General Petraeus – McCain seized the moment and proposed a joint trip between the two. It was a politically savvy move, aimed at highlighting McCain’s multiple visits to Iraq and framing Obama as out of touch with the situation there.

Now, how about a replay. On a different issue. With a different set of characters. McCain would still be involved, but on the other side of the challenge.

When McCain was asked on a blogger conference call in January about drilling in ANWR, he responded:

As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world.

Has McCain been to ANWR? When was the last time?

Seven years ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote this article detailing his experience in visiting ANWR. It is hard to fathom how McCain would view drilling in ANWR as being anything remotely comparable to drilling in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades.

What if someone were to challenge McCain to visit ANWR, like McCain challenged Obama to visit Iraq? Someone with enough prominence to be noticed and someone who McCain would be hard pressed to ignore.

We nominate Newt Gingrich.

Bring Jonah along, too. He’s a good photographer.

MORE: Interestingly enough, the person who asked McCain that question on the blogger conference call in January is now deputy communications director for the McCain campaign, Michael Goldfarb.

Bring him too!



QUESTION THE TIMING! (Or Timing the Question?) Stephen Spruill reports from a town hall meeting on the campaign trail on the Corner:

I'm with McCain at a town hall meeting in Philadelphia today where the senator was asked for his position on drilling in ANWR and elsewhere. He wasn't happy the subject came up. "I knew I should have ended this [before that question]," he said.

He said that he opposed drilling in ANWR for the same reason that he "would not drill in the Grand Canyon... I believe this area should be kept pristine." (Proposed oil and gas exploration in ANWR would only affect 2,000 of its 19 million acres, or 0.01 percent.)

Seriously, we put this post up at 11:43am – and then Spruill reports the re-use of the Grand Canyon quote by McCain at 1:02pm?

Eerie.



AND FINALLY: Thank you Mr. Spruill for the Corner link! As a show of my appreciation, I am recommending to the powers that be that you be allowed to accompany Mssrs. McCain, Gingrich, Goldberg and Goldfarb to ANWR.