McCain's Energy Policy: Reality vs. Rhetoric

The MOMocrats were invited to participate in an Obama campaign press conference call today.  The topic of discussion was John McCain's energy policy press release, and the difference between the "reality" of his voting record versus the big rhetoric he's been espousing lately.  On the call from the Obama campaign were Hari Sevugan, Jason Grumet and Jason Furman. 

Obama's campaign noted that in 26 years in Congress, Senator McCain has had ample opportunity to make a difference in our energy policy, but didn't. In fact, he has stood in way of people like Obama, who want to make a difference in both our dependence on foreign oil and carbon emissions standards that impact global warming.

The Obama camp noted that McCain's energy is "designed to kick off relief for oil companies who are struggling with record profits." There is nothing in his policy statement that provides immediate or long-term relief for American families, just more windfalls to oil companies.

Jason Furman noted that McCain's voting record shows that McCain has consistently voted against imposing and enforcing CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) that regulate average fuel efficiency or MPG in an automanufacturer's fleet of vehicles.  Although McCain now supports CAFE standards, he is not proposing any improvements. He now says he supports a tax credit for 0 emissions cars, but consistently voted against such tax credits during his tenure in the Senate.  McCain proposes to work voluntarily with auto companies, but consistently voted against any measures with real teeth that would force automakers to live up to such standards.

Justin Hyde of the Detroit Free Press later questioned them on this, noting that McCain co-sponsored with John Kerry a 36 miles per hour standard in 2005, which was much more stringent than what later passed into law in 2007.

At that point, Jason Grumet noted that McCain's energy records shows a lack of consistency.  From  2002-2005, McCain consistently voted against CAFE increases, then had moment where he advocated it for a couple of months, and was a no-show on energy vote in 2007.  He noted that based on his record, the American people have no way to predict what McCain will do from day-to-day, whether he will support what is in the interest of big oil or support increased fuel economy standards.  There is a fundamental lack of consistency in his record.

Furman noted that McCain was sponsoring CAFE standards at same time as he was opposing Bush Tax cuts, but has now flipped to supporting tax cuts and opposing CAFE

McCain's energy plan is offering a research prize to develop a battery, but in the past described $15m grant for electric vehicle development as "egregious".  According to the Obama campaign, he now trying to walk away from that record and pretend he's in favor of a strong energy policy.

Jason Grumet noted that McCain is fond of using heroic rhetoric, calling energy a "national security and economic security" issue, but did not even attempt to tackle transportation and fuel efficiency in his policy.  In May, 2006, Obama stepped up and forged coalition to address CAFE standards when he and Senator Lugar wrote a letter to Bush to encourage strengthening fuel economy standards.  Obama and Lugar forged a bipartisan coalition, worked with labor, and car companies and in July 2006 , proposed the Fuel Economy Reform Act.  The law that eventually passed in 2007, included the same set of proposals Obama put forth in 2006.  McCain has been notably inconsistent.

Grumet noted that the US needs to make a serious shift in oil consumption, and that real change will only come from a bifurcated approach:  Reduce America's dependence on oil, and diversify to other types of energy.  McCain's approach, he said, was to "tinker around the edges"  and use an "old bag of ineffectual tricks." 

Other Questions:

Greg Coy, Comcast News Network, posed a question regarding recent articles questioning Obama campaign ties to the ethanol lobby.  He cited the fact that a top advisor, Tom Daschle sits on board of an ethanol company.

Jason Grumet responded that Senator Obama thinks that we should fracture oil dependence.  Corn-based ethanol is leader in alternative fuels, but it will take much more than that to solve the energy dependence problem.  Obama recognizes that ethanol alone is not the answer, and that we could never grow enough corn to do provide more than 8-10% of the country's fuel consumption needs. He said that we need to look at next generation of biofuels.  The reason for the press for ethanol right now, is that we currently have an ethanol infrastructure to work with.  Obama promotes other biofuels that are lower carbon, and not food-based. Over time, we need to decrees subsidies for ethanol, and increase subsidies for other biofuels as stated in the current Farm Bill.

Jason Furman added that ethanol is needed to decrease dependence on oil, but is a transition.  We need to look at all energy subsidies.

There was no mention of Daschle's role by the Obama campaign during the call, but this was covered in a New York Times article today.

Tom Christopher of AOL News asked what the campaign thought of the McCain campaign's assertion that energy policy is "too important for make believe."  He noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press recently said the reason for changing position on energy and off-shore drilling, is  that "$4 per gallon gasoline is a game-changer" for him and that might account for McCain's change in tune.

Grumet countered that McCain is not offering real relief for the consumer.  In order for off-shore drilling to occur, it will be 10 years out for the sites to actually produce produce oil.  He noted that long-term energy efficiency benefits people in US.  There would only be a trickle more oil from off-shore drilling, and it is a fundamentally bad idea, based political opportunity.

Hari Sevugan noted that even McCain says this will not affect price of gas.  Sen. McCain said in a town hall meeting in Wisconsin recently that off-shore drilling would take years to develop and would provide no real relief.  This is clearly an election year ploy.

Steve Power of the Wall St. Journal as that if a Renewable Fuel Standard may contribute to the global food crisis, then why continue on this path? 

Grumet noted that the Renewable Fuel Standard contains provisions to evaluate fuel standards by EPA.  The standard has provision to determine whether the demand causing economic harm, and look at whether the recent floods may cause feedstock shortages.  Obama thinks that EPA should manage those standards. 

Rodney Livingston, STTN Television Network (not sure of the name) asked about development of tritium batteries that are lifetime and non-renewable.  He questioned whether US conservation might push oil to other countries who are willing to pay more and raise prices even further.

Furman stated that the US must be ambitious about conservation.  Obama's plan would create 5 million new green jobs, and reduce amount of oil consumed by 30% by 2030.  Furman noted that this is an overall economic policy, and would be in the best interest of the economy.  They did not answer the battery question.

Rachel Pulfer, Canadian Business Magazine, asked about how the Canadian tar sand fields would be included in the Obama energy policy.

Grumet answered that we must have policies in place on climate change and energy dependence.  On the Canadian tar sands, they believe that carbon emissions needed extract oil from it would exceed the amount of energy actually extracted.  If the technology is developed that does have unacceptable impact on water, carbon, then it should be considered, but he does not believe that those resources will be viable.

This was the first time I've participated in a conference call with the Obama people, and it was informative.  I came away feeling that I had a better understanding of his energy policy, and at least one example of something in his record to cite as his willingness to move legislation forward on energy.  I wish that they had given more examples of this type of work done by Obama in the Senate or in the Illinois Senate. 

It was interesting to me that they did not take the bait and talk about ties to the ethanol lobby.  I'm sure McCain's campaign will try to make haycorn with that one, but it's a non-starter.  Someone from South Dakota with ties to the corn lobby?  OH MY GOD! Wait, isn't that where The Corn Palace is located?  Who would have thought?

After this, I'm thinking of sending John McCain some flip-flops.  Obviously, he's comfortable with them.

UPDATE:  You can listen to the conference call at the Huffington Post's Off the Bus.

Glennia blogs at The Silent I and Kimchi Mamas, when not trying to find out the location of the Corn Palace and other trivia.

Comments

[NewsmaxTV]

NewsmaxTV's Ashley Martella reports that John McCain proposes handing out a $300 million dollar government prize.

[Scheherazade Khan]

One of the most important bits of information that I got out of this particular post is the fact that the Obama campaign recognizes that ethanol is a transition fuel, and not a proposition for long term energy supplies. Given the terrible loss of feedstock that has occurred as a result of the recent flooding, it would be difficult to justify converting food (in potential short supply) to fuel. The recommendation for an increase in support for other biofuels is also quite excellent. Obama's energy policies seem quite reasoned, as simply relying on a mono-fuel solution to the (existing) energy crisis will not serve the public's interest.

[Karoli]

I was lucky enough to be invited to a conference call with Barbara Boxer and Lois Capps this afternoon about the McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling. I have a blog post about it here: http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/06/mccains-coastal-flip-flop-global-disaster/

Of everything that McCain has said and done in this campaign, his position on energy is the one that most has me shaking my head. What percentage of his soul did he have to sell to be the nominee for the Republicans? Seriously, flipping on tax cuts and flopping on energy? I detest the term 'flip-flopper', since it implies that politicians should never re-evaluate their positions... However, in McCain's case, I'm willing to make an exception because he has so blatantly sold himself out to the hard-liners in the Republican party. It's truly amazing.