The Presidential Campaign and our Energy Future: Can Reality Replace Rhetoric?

Over the past weekend we got to hear President Bush, Senator McCain and then Senator Obama all supporting drilling for oil off our coasts. Both Bush and McCain maintain that the way to reduce gasoline prices is to develop more supplies of oil. They argue, and polling shows people believe, that drilling for more oil will lower prices. Although Obama is not crazy about drilling in fragile environments, he's willing to allow some drilling in exchange for a bill that would promote alternative energy.
For a brief moment I admired the artfulness and subtly of Obama's perspective-a little carefully controlled drilling can't do much harm, as long as our policy encourages renewable energy. I've also read those polls that show the American public buys the argument that more drilling will lower their gasoline prices. It is obvious that McCain was using Obama's opposition to drilling to show that Obama was out of touch and not a "regular guy". So, to show he's a regular guy, Obama supports a little drilling to try to defuse McCain's attack. McCain then shifts his argument and attacks Obama for changing his position and being a "flip flopper". It is truly a shame that McCain thinks that the only way to become President is to hire Bush's political team and stoop to Bush's strategy of character assassinating or "swift boating" his opponent. This year's model is to tag Obama with Britney and Paris. This is really pathetic. It's too bad that Obama is responding to all of this with messages that seem inconsistent with his principles.
Presidential campaigns have become media products that need candidates to rise and fall in the polls to create drama, build audience and sell advertising. Obama goes overseas, plays well and pulls ahead in the polls, only to return to be attacked by McCain and then fall back into a tie. Let's all get ready for Obama's convention build up, VP soap opera and brief post convention bounce, followed by a rapid version of the same for McCain. Stay tuned for next week's episode of "as the campaign turns..." This is not a media conspiracy, just the normal dynamic of Presidential politics.
Fortunately, there is a chance for reality to intervene in this campaign of images and distortion. There will be live, nationally televised debates, and there is also the reality of war and peace, global warming and our deteriorating economy. These realities are more difficult to spin, and perhaps will supplant the back and forth image dance we seem to be watching today.
This leads to the reality of this gas drilling issue. The problem with the Bush-McCain argument on supply and demand is that demand is growing. In fact in China and India it is growing at a far faster pace then even a rapidly growing supply will be able to handle. Assuming these guys can read the same data I can read, they must know that drilling for oil will not increase supplies enough to truly lower prices here in America. It is more of the same shameful pandering and symbolic "position taking" that is common to our electoral politics.
Obama is trying to demonstrate a statesman-like willingness to compromise, and I know this will sound naïve, but I think he has missed an opportunity to educate the American people about the futility of increased oil drilling. Drilling for oil to solve our energy crisis is a little like building another highway or adding a lane to an existing highway to ease traffic. At first, the traffic moves more freely and the congestion problem goes away. Then people start to move out to where the new road goes and soon there is more traffic than there ever was. The solution to auto traffic is not better roads because better roads lead to more cars. The solution to congested roads is alternative or mass transportation.
Similarly, the solution to higher gasoline prices is to stop using gasoline altogether. Fossil fuels are finite. While they are still relatively plentiful, they are only created once in the life of this planet. At some point they will become scarce and will eventually be used up. Things that become scarce eventually go up in price. We have built our economy around mobility and personal transportation. Now, it seems that our approach to development is being imitated all over the world, particularly in Asia. The winner in the world economy is going to be the nation that builds the first renewable energy industry. Drilling for oil is not going to help us win that competition.
In the past week, gasoline prices in this region started to head closer to $4 than the $5 that seemed to be coming. Still, consumers have changed their behavior, possibly for the foreseeable future. People are driving less and buying smaller cars. They are abandoning SUVs and the companies that build them are losing money. This is a moment when we have an opportunity to redefine our energy future. We know that our current President is not up to the job of redefining our approach to energy. That challenge will be left to our next President. At the moment, it's not clear that either of them is capable of providing meaningful leadership in this critical area.





















Well said.
Did anyone notice that while we are arguing about whether to drill or not to drill, the D.C. Court of Appeals invalidated the entire Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)? You know, the one that took about 8 years to make and was going to take care of acid rain, PM, and mercury emissions for the states East of the Mississippi?
(Here is the entire 60 page opinion: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200807/05-1244-11270...
I am saddened to see that in spite of the monumental effort represented by the CAIR and the CAMR (the mercury rule was counting on the CAIR for the first phase of mercury reductions), we can expect even greater delays before starting to see any results. On the bright side, perhaps a new EPA will produce a better regulation? But what if it takes another 8 years and then another court strikes that one down? There must be a way we can stop screwing ourselves.
Well, sorry for the distraction on environmental and public health. Now we can get back to the discussion of what we really need: inexpensive gasoline and more nukes.
What do you
have in your closet?
How long ago
was it when shoes were just footwear? You threw them on to go play out in the
back yard, or down on the playground. Today, however, having a pair of sneakers
has taken on a whole new meaning, especially when dealing with sports shoes.
What has really made the sneaker culture huge is the sport shoe industry, with
Nike and Adidas pulling up the front. These sports icons have been worn and
styled by not only top athletes, but by people in the music industry.
They say that it was the Nike Dunk
that started it all off. In 1985, Nike brought out the
Nike Dunk.
Originally these sneakers meant for the college community of basketball
players. Instead, this style of sports shoes started the sneaker sub-culture.
Although this style of sneaker was designed to be used during high intensity
basketball games, the spotlight quickly turned to the fashion of wearing them,
what they looked like, and which ones you owned. Twenty years later, Nike has
brought the Nike Dunk back on
the courts with all its retro style and performance.
But why stop
with basketball shoes? In 2000, Nike decided to jump into the skateboarding
scene with the new Nike Skateboarding product line.
With
Nike SB has come the
Nike Dunk SB. For years, before
skateboarding came out from the underground scene, skateboarders utilized the
rugged design of basketball shoes. Nike decided to capitalize on what Vans and
DC shoes had been monopolizing for years, and take what was already an amazing
sneaker, and fit it into the needs of skateboarders. What the
Nike Dunk
SB brought in the way of performance was extra-padded tongue and their
patented Zoom Air insole. In the way of style, this sneaker has already come out
with six series, and names for them like Grip, Forbes, and Vipers.
Another blast
from the past would be the Nike Air
Force 1. These sneakers first came out in the early 80’s. And like the
hip hop culture, their popularity grew. However, this band did not reach their
full fashion peek until 2002 when Nelly released the song “Air
Force Ones”.
The other major
sports shoe brand is the Adicolor
Shoes, an Adidas Original. The design became so popular because the
plain white canvas was adaptable by painting, drawing, and spraying on your own
personal design, and even accessories were sold to help you in your creativity.
In 2006 they pushed the envelope further with a new color series using artists
and designers from all over the world.
Another huge sneaker that was popular with the hip hop world was the
Adidas Superstar. A very raw
and controversial Hip Hop group that helped skyrocket the
Adidas
Superstar to stardom was Run-D.M.C. This cutting edge group was known for
wearing their Superstars out on stage, and even wrote a song dedicated to them
called “My Adidas”. Whether its Nike or Adidas, clean out that closet, dust off
your old sneakers, and get into the game.