Tags for This Article:

McCain-John (3606)  Oil (1370)  Iraq (1083)  Energy Policy (341)  Energy Consumption US (94)  Energy Nuclear (94)  Energy Costs Prices (88)  Energy Solar (78)  Energy Wind (58)  Energy Exploration - Offshore Drilling (47)  Waste (38)  Energy Exploration - Public Lands (19) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
July 7, 2008 at 11:39:58

The Bush-McCain Myopic Energy Solution

by Deb Della Piana     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

Remember when George Bush went on national television to tell us that we were hopelessly addicted to oil and he was going to do something about it? He did. He started an illegal and immoral war in Iraq for oil so that we can continue to feed the addiction. As the war rages on and people die on a daily basis, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron (along with a host of smaller U.S. companies) are in the final stages of negotiating a no-bid contract with the Iraq Oil Ministry to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. American companies will be back in Iraq after losing their contracts 36 years ago to nationalization of Iraq’s oil industry under Saddam Hussein. Does anybody really still believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people?

Of course, this little fact of the war has gone unreported in the mainstream media. That’s pretty much par for the course these days. Also unreported is the fact that no-bid contracts are very rare in this industry. In this case, the United States has managed to squeeze out of contention offers made by more than 40 other companies including those in Russia, China and India. While these contracts are small at the outset, it gives the participating companies a foothold in the development of new fields, which will provide longer-term deals and lucrative profits. Put all of the little pieces together and the reason we are in Iraq becomes very clear.

George Bush is so intent on feeding the addiction that he is calling for the lifting of a 27-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling to help make us less dependent on foreign oil. He wants us to be energy independent. His mirror image, John McCain, believes that lifting the ban “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” That’s funny because Bush’s own Energy Information Administration has stated that there will be no effect on U.S. production or prices until at least 2030. That’s 22 years from now. The real kick is that the U.S. offshore oil amounts are so small that it wouldn’t have any effect on prices anyway. * The U.S. controls less than 3% of the global oil and gas deposits, but accounts for 25% of the global oil consumption.

Alternative’ energy sources

Both talk about ‘alternative’ energy sources. If wind and solar immediately come to mind, think again. For Bush and McCain, ‘alternative’ means nuclear and coal. The present crisis has created a call by our fearless leader and his water boy for a renewed commitment to nuclear energy. George Bush called for this back in 2006 and it will comfort Americans to no end that John McCain envisions a nuclear future. McCain is calling for a ‘crash’ program to construct 45 new reactors by 2030. Of course, neither Bush nor McCain mentioned that the entire country gets only 20% of its electricity today from 104 operating nuke plants across the country. They also failed to mention that many of these plants are nearing the end of their licensing period. Sound like a solution to you?

Then there’s the little matter of safely dumping nuclear waste. In a major policy speech, McCain never talked about this aspect of nuclear power. Bush, however, has proposed that we ship thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country to the still-to-be-built nuclear storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This deadly cargo would pass through as many as 44 states. As it passes thorough the District of Columbia, it would pass within half a mile of 50 million people. **

By the way, industry experts point out that construction on new nuclear plants could not begin for at least five years because of the requirements necessary to ensure safety. This would involve a complex licensing process, emergency response planning, operator training and radiation protection. There is also the little matter of coming up with a $5 to $10 billion dollar investment per facility.

While the Bush administration has stopped talking about the so-called ‘clean’ coal project McCain, in the same policy speech he made on nuclear technology, has committed to providing $2 billion per year to support clean coal technology. While it is America’s most abundant resource, burning coal is also a major contributor to global warming.

Indulging in outright deception

McCain’s new energy ad blatantly seeks to deceive the American people. The ad claims that McCain has bucked his own party when it comes to supporting action on climate change. That much about the ad is true. However, the images shown in the ad are of windmills and solar panels. The fact is that McCain does not support subsidies for either of these technologies. He does, on the other hand, support subsidies for nuclear power facilities. No nuclear facilities are shown in the ad, perhaps because he understands the emotional response this topic inspires given the memories of Three Mile Island here in America and Chernobyl in Russia. Nevertheless, the ad is deceptive and should be pulled immediately. Apparently, the Republicans believe that the ends justify the means and it is acceptable to lie to the American people.

Throwing billions against the wall and hoping something sticks

The plan advanced by our present imperial president and his potential successor amounts to throwing billions against the wall in the hope that something will stick. It will take billions of dollars to open up offshore drilling. It will take billions to revitalize the nuclear industry. It will take billions to develop ‘clean’ coal technology (another of those oxymorons). The American people would be better served if all of this money was invested in true ‘alternative’ energy sources, like wind and solar, rather than being spent on the same old technologies that have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Once the technical obstacles are overcome, the energy source is clean and doesn’t require disposing of waste. While we may never be completely free of the need for oil, at least we may be able to bring our need down to manageable levels.

*The same holds true for the oil and gas we would recover from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another brilliant idea by our innovative leader.

**There are a great many myths about the Yucca facility that have been perpetrated by the Bush administration. I have a fact sheet about this facility in PDF format. If anyone would like a copy, please send an email to me at permanent.vacation@yahoo.com

 

http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com

Deb Della Piana is a corporate ex-patriot (30+ years in advertising & public relations) turned liberal political blogger. She lives in the great state of Massachusetts with her life partner, two children and three cats.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 comments

Deb Della Piana is a corporate ex-patriot (30+ years in advertising & public relations) turned liberal political blogger. She lives in the great state of Massachusetts with her life partner, two children and three cats.
Deb Della PianaDeb Della Piana is a corporate ex-patriot (30+ years in advertising & public relations) turned liberal political blogger. She lives in the great state of Massachusetts with her life partner, two children and three cats.

Unreported, yes.

Hi. I'm sure some papers run some information. However, I don't consider something appearing in two newspapers as being "covered" by the mainstream media. There are a lot more "mainstream" vehicles than those two. Unfortunately, both of the newspapers you mention pick up things sporadically. 

Again, most of the people I know who want to delve into issues no longer rely solely on newspapers for their information. In order to be informed (and with this administration one cannot afford to be ill informed), one has to look beyond the mainstream media.

 

by Deb Della Piana (24 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Monday, July 7, 2008 at 10:16:03 PM
 


Jeremy R. Hammond is the owner, editor, and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, a website dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the "war on terrorism" and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media. He has also written for numerous other online publications.
Jeremy R. HammondJeremy R. Hammond is the owner, editor, and principle writer for Foreign Policy Journal, a website dedicated to providing news, critical analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to the "war on terrorism" and events in the Middle East, from outside of the standard framework offered by government officials and the mainstream corporate media. He has also written for numerous other online publications.

Yes, reported

The fact is that it was reported in the mainstream media.

If you want to criticize how it was covered or the extent to which it was covered, that's one thing.

But it's simply factually incorrect to say, as you do, that "this little fact of the war has gone unreported in the mainstream media."

And it wasn't just the New York Times and the Washington Post. I mentioned those two because they are the most popular and respected mainstream newspapers in the nation.

And it was a headline stories in both papers, as well.

I agree with you on your position about this matter, but I just wanted to correct that statement of yours about it going unreported.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (31 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 84 comments) on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 7:50:01 AM
 

 

3 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

The Mailer That Put the Final Nail in the McCain Campaign Coffin by Rob Kall

On Naomi Wolf's Sounding the Alarm by Dr. Dennis Loo

Obama Must Appoint a Consumer Protectionist as FDA Commissioner by Stephen Fox

Race in the 2008 Election by Sally Liuzzo-Prado

FEMA Official States Bush Is Planning To Implement Martial Law by William Cormier

Capitalism Condemned in Scriptures; Let's Dump It by Jay Janson

Sarah Palin; Secessionist-- powerful new Youtube Video by youtube

PECK, PECK... SQUAWK! by Rip Rense

Cindy McCain Blames Vets for PTSD by Stuart Steinberg

Resignation letter from the McCain Palin Campaign by Robyn Crane

Go To Top 50 Most Popular