Offshore drilling---whose issue is it anyway? The people's? Or the politician's?

On Thursday, August 7, MoveOn.org launched radio advertisement campaigns opposing offshore drilling in six congressional districts in Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Offshore drilling, states the ad, is a gimmick, not a solution. The ads target areas where congressional leaders have outspokenly supported new offshore drilling as the solution to the high cost of gas.

Opponents cite alternative and renewable energy sources as viable alternatives, and emphasize that offshore drilling will have a negative effect on the environment.

One advertisement is running in Texas' 7th district, home of Congressman John Culberson, who has recently been using social media tools such as Twitter to advance his agenda to proceed with offshore drilling.

His opponent, Democrat Michael Skelly immediately raised an objection to the MoveOn ads and in a press release, he said that it is, "time for MoveOn to move out of Texas."

But is that his call? Whose issue is this anyway? The politicians? Or the people's?

According to MoveOn spokeswoman Ilyse Hogue, the ad is for the people. She said MoveOn launched the ad on behalf of MoveOn’s thousands of members in Culberson's district who oppose his and other drilling proponents current energy bill. MoveOn compiled a petition demanding clean energy solutions to the national energy crisis. The petition received hundreds of thousands of constituent signatures, and MoveOn delivered them to the Republican Representatives. Finally, she made it clear that this ad was not on behalf of Skelly's campaign, and in fact, neither he nor the Democrats are mentioned in the ad.

However, it would be disingenuous to discount politics entirely. The ads were distributed by Congressional district; specifically mention the representative for that district and how much money (donations) he or she has received from "big oil;" politicians are the ones voting on this issue; and Michael Skelly is in a "fight hard-long shot" race with Republican incumbent Culberson.

Dylan Loewe, Communications Director for Michael Skelly for Congress, said, "We were pretty shocked yesterday to see how reckless MoveOn was being in our district. They clearly had no regard for our campaign whatsoever, which is incredibly disappointing. Michael has been on the record from the beginning as supporting drilling and a lot of his biggest supporters work for major oil and gas companies. And most Democrats in the district are in favor of drilling, as well."

Loewe said he'd recently read a poll that showed 74% of people support drilling.

Skelly is on the record as supporting drilling as part of the solution. In fact, in response to the ads, he said, "MoveOn’s opposition to drilling is 100 percent wrong, and so is John Culberson’s opposition to investment in renewable energy. We need a balanced solution to our energy challenges that includes both drilling for domestic oil and investment in renewables. We have to do it all."

Because law prevents it, the Skelly campaign was unaware of MoveOn's ad campaign plans until after they launched. "We learned of the ads from reading about it on TPM. Because MoveOn didn't couldn't communicate with us, they should have done their homework by checking out our website. They didn't. I don't think they understand how harmful this is to our campaign. This is basically a pro-Culberson ad," said Loewe.

The ad is actually extremely critical of Culberson and provides a strong public relations message refuting the information he and other proponents cite in support of offshore drilling.

For example, Culberson and others have stated that drilling is the quickest solution to the pain at the pump. In a Twitter message, Culberson wrote, "@zaren Then lets get started now! Just drilling will bring prices down right away - then we need to invest in new technology like nano/solar  04:37 PM August 01, 2008  from web in reply to zaren."

Unfortunately for Culberson, his logic is faulty. President Bush made the same mistake of thought when he lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling on June 16. According to US News and Word Report

Despite Bush's announcement and the drop in oil prices, however, CNN reports, "Gasoline prices in the U.S. maintained record highs at $4.109 a gallon Tuesday."

According to the same article, that's because

"The president's direct link between record gas prices and offshore drilling glossed over a key point. Even if Congress agreed, the exploration for oil would take years to produce real results. It is not projected to reduce gas prices in the short term. Even the White House routinely emphasizes there is no quick fix."

Proponents of the energy bill have also said that alternative methods of delivering energy are too far off in the future. Culberson wrote in a Twitter message, "Min Whip Blunt speaking now describing our bill to drill here drill now to get us through the next 10 to 15 years till we can get new tech 12:53 PM August 01, 2008 from TwitterBerry."

But then, in another Twitter message, Culberson contradicted himself and said, "@upadaria It takes years & epic big bucks to develop an offshore lease - must 1st survey, be CERTAIN its good, set rig, drill many holesetc 11:28 PM August 03, 2008 from web in reply to upadaria."

(In case you wonder if this is the real John Culberson, he assures you it is, "@hughweber I am doing all this personally 12:02 AM August 04, 2008 from web in reply to hughweber; @hughweber Scares my staff half to death! 12:02 AM August 04, 2008 from web in reply to hughweber")

MoveOn agrees with Culberson's reversal.

The MoveOn ad states, "We wouldn't see a drop of oil from offshore drilling for at least ten years. By then, who knows where prices will be?" MoveOn cites McClatchy (7/14/08 and 6/17/08):

Experts agree that it would take at least seven and probably 10 years before any benefits from overturning the ban on offshore drilling were evident. [McClatchy, 7/14/08]

Opening America's coastal waters to oil drilling, as John McCain has urged, is unlikely to provide Americans with more oil for at least seven to 10 years.  That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group.

Moreover, as Andrew Leonard wrote

There will be oil spills off the coasts of Florida and California, fouling beaches, killing wildlife, and harming tourism. Unrestrained burning of fossil fuels will continue to raise global temperatures and contribute to rising sea levels and devastating extreme weather events. A plunge in the price of oil will derail the current pressing economic incentives to improve energy efficiency and channel investment into research and development of alternative energy technologies.

And ultimately, these new oil fields will be exhausted, and the whole cycle of rising prices and economic pain will begin all over again. Only this time around, our children, or our children's children, will be in much worse shape than we are now. . .Prices will rocket even higher than our current worst nightmares. . .And those madmen and fools who counseled a quick-fix response to humanity's biggest challenge will be excoriated as some of the stupidest, most criminal leaders in human history.

What do you think? Was Skelly's response appropriate and correct---do the ads benefit Culberson?

Is this another epic tug of war between factions that will ultimately create more noise about the fight, and obscure the issue?

To read the text of the advertisement and to see the accompanying facts for the Culberson ad, click here. To listen to that ad, click here.

To see information about all of the ads, click here.

Julie Pippert thinks everyone is playing this issue like a game, and worse, playing the people like they are pieces in the game. You can find her in her personal sandbox and also in the sandbox with other moms.

Comments

[Natalie]

I think Skelly has a point, but I can't help but think he's up the oil companies behind's.

Drilling is not the answer, I equate it to putting a Batman Bandaid on a huge, gaping wound. Yeah, it will help. A little. Definitely not enough.

Andrew Leonard stated my own opinion better than I ever could.

[cynematic]

Jules, I'm so impressed by your use of Twitter cites/use of social media to supplementally source your story. That aside, it seems to me the issue is that MoveOn inserted itself into a local campaign by staking out an ideological position it claims has local support--no offshore drilling, via thousands of signatures of those who live there. Yet Skelly and Culberson point to a compromise alternate/offshore position and a full-on offshore drilling position (respectively) as also supported by constituents.

A couple questions sparked by your excellent post:
1) was the poll Loew cited ("74% in favor") specifically taken among constituents, or was it a poll of the general U.S. population?
2) if the MoveOn poll genuinely reflects a sizeable number of the people in TX CD-7, why does Skelly feel he can ignore this over his supporters "who work for major oil and gas companies"? Is it not one person, one vote, or do people who work for the petroleum industry get a weighted vote?
3) if Culberson has admitted that actual useable fuel from refineries won't be available until 5-7 years out from the date of drilling, why hasn't this been an issue Skelly drives home against his opponent?
4) has an independent group (MoveOn or anyone else) evaluated Skelly's commitment to renewable energy? What are those policies?

This is definitely a thorny and complex issue. I think it's well within MoveOn's rights to educate locals about offshore drilling and whether this is a good long-term fix or even a good short-term fix. They're trying to push Skelly left on this issue by letting him know some of his voters are not going to settle for his compromise position. The question is, how many voters will be persuaded by MoveOn, and how many by Skelly's arguments?

Seems to me Skelly may be a Democrat, but one a little boxed in by his corporate donors, what he knows about his constituency, and what he promises to do to push renewable energy. Couldn't his campaign reach out to MoveOn and have them help on the areas where they do agree--greater investment in renewable energy sources?

MoveOn might have to re-evaluate if it is letting the perfect (absolutist position on no offshore drilling) be the enemy of the good (get a Democrat in over a Republican) here, or if they've truly chosen the most effective way to educate and influence voters.

I'll be watching to see if a similar situation develops off the coast of southern California; we get periodic murmurs about "offshore drilling" too, with strong community backlash and varying positions in between.

[Lawyer Mama]

This is such a thorny issue for so many politicians. The congressional candidate I've been writing about has come out in support of offshore drilling and I'm about to ask him some uncomfortable questions about that.

I've heard some analysts say that part of the price of oil is psychological - that the perception of a shortage can increase prices just as much as an actual shortage. In that case, I could maybe see where supporting off shore drilling might help - with perception (unrelated to the reality of waiting 7-10 years for that oil, of course). But what happened in June when W lifted the executive ban shows that there's certainly NO guarantee that beginning the process will help at all.

[Andrew Peters]

Great post! I'd bookmarked it a while ago and have been so busy I hadn't been able to put anything here. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the resources on the energy crunch we’ve been compiling
over the last few months here at The Wilderness Society. Hopefully we can get in touch via email to discuss the opportunity a little more, but in the meantime, I’d urge you to check out a couple of our links:

http://www.wilderness.org/gasprices/
http://wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/ExpertsOnOilPrices.pdf

Thanks again, and I’m looking forward to hearing from you.
-Andy Peters