Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 12 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

The Bush-McCain Myopic Energy Solution

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   3 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Deb Della Piana
Become a Fan
  (1 fan)


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.


Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Deb Della Piana Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Deb Della Piana is a corporate ex-patriot (30+ years in advertising & public relations) turned activist and aspiring revolutionary. Co-founder of the group #BecomeUngovernable, she invites everyone to stop by the web site, learn about the (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why George Bush is the worst president in American history

The Next Battleground: The World's Food Supply

Beware of them who must not be named

Gaza by the numbers

How low can Palin go?

A Battle for the Common Good: Join the May Day General Strike

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend