« Compounding Disaster | Main | Bush Adminstration is the Cause Behind Higher Oil Prices »

Senator Lindsey Graham Was Against Oil Drilling Off The Coast Of South Carolina Before He Was In Favor Of It

Now that Senator Lindsey Graham is the national co-chairman for the John McCain presidential organization, he has taken a flip-flop on the issue of oil drilling. Lindsey Graham previously had spoken out against oil drilling off the coast of South Carolina which could result in possible environment damage to some scenic beaches, many owned by resort hotels or other private interests who maintain their beauty and livability. But since he joined up with McCain, his positions are falling in line with both McCain and Bush on the oil drilling issue.

On Sunday's MEET THE PRESS program, temporary host, Brian Williams asked Graham about what changed that he now reverses himself and supports oil drilling off the South Carolina coast, and Graham responded, "$4.00 gas". And again today, Graham again voiced more support for oil drilling off the South Carolina coastline on CNN to Wolf Blitzer.

Graham was given just a 17% voting record on issues dealing with support for energy independence by CAF, but now is part of the McCain team pushing for the McCain campaign energy independence proposals that McCain is now promoting as a campaign issue, however it was CNN's Dana Bash that also questioned McCain on some serious incoherence on energy policy. McCain has previously opposed legislation supporting biofuels and solar power, but now talks like some sort of a born again environmentalist because he's running for president.

It might sound real good to many voters to open more oil drilling, since a full 67% of the public support more oil drilling right now in a late Rasmussen poll. However, very few of these persons really realize that it may take up to 10-20 years to actually see any real oil from any of this drilling. In reality, there are few short term fixes to the oil price or supply crisis. And in 10-20 years, it may be possible that enough technology breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cell or electric vehicles might make a need for expanded oil resources unnecessary. But for the short-term political consumption, it certainly sounds real good to some voters for John McCain and his campaign co-chairman to sound like they're actually talking about some serious proposals.

One of the best hopes for more oil supplies in the short-term is a new oil refinery that is being completed in India. Despite rising demand for oil in India as well as China, India only uses one barrel of oil per person per year, while China uses two barrels per person per year. The American average is the world's highest at 25 barrels a day.

Another huge problem related to the 42% price increase in oil since January is oil speculation. Obama favors a crackdown on some of these abuses of commodity trading that have made gasoline so expensive since just the beginning of the year. So far, McCain hasn't really addressed this important issue that has added so much to the price of oil and hurt the American consumer, and instead offered his own energy independence proposals that seem to often run inconsistently with his previous record in congress or the senate.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.7/5 (7 votes cast)


Comments (9)

ke_future:

is it a flip-clop to change your opinion on something when the situation changes? i don't think so. i think being able to evaluate situations that change and re-evaluate your stances in relation to those changes is a good thing.

and for the record, i've iffy on the off shore drilling, against biofuels that use corn, and in favor of solar power. especially with the new technologies that look to be coming in that area.

i'm not sure how much oil we could get how quickly through off shore drilling. i am concerned with long term environmental impacts. however, we must reduce our usage of foreign oil, and alternative energy (wind, solar and nuclear, bio-fuels are a scam) is at least as far out as new oil production, and have their own issues. i'm concerned with putting all of our eggs in one basket.

interesting statistic on Indian and Chinese oil consuption. How do those two economies rate as far as GDP/capita and pollution/capita? how about quality of life ratings? i think those would be interesting numbers to go with the oil usage ones.

i keep hearing that speculators are abusing the system, and that obama wants to crack down on them. what, exactly, are they doing that is abusive, and what does obama propose that we do about it? really, this is an honest question as i have seen specific information.

Ke, if new oil dilling would provide more oil for the American public within a few months to a year, then I personally could overlook some of the environmental risks to resort beaches, etc., especially gas is over $4 a gallon. However, this is unfortunately yet another election year conversion by some folks involved with a political organization, and not really a serious proposal. The fact of the matter is that the internal combusion engine may be on the way out within 10 years, and certainly within 20 years, the time it would take any new drilling to yield any meaningful amounts of oil.

Development of China and India is not complete compared to the U.S. About 500 or so large cities in China are heavily developed, where automobiles and industry are common. But in many smaller towns and villages, scooters or bicycles are common. India is somewhat similar, but generally much less developed than China and the economy is growing at a slower rate. interestingly, in a city like Portland, bicycles are very common, which is also like a roll backwards towards the level of China. I own a big Oldsmobile that gets just 16mpg, and look like a real SOB driving a car that large during times of $4 gas. But I mostly enjoy driving a CPI Sport 50 motorscooter that gets 50mpg, and is fast like any motorcycle in city traffic. I used to drive a 94mpg scooter with a Honda style four stroke GY6 engine. I prefer the scooters because they're fun to drive and I can put three bags of groceries in the two trunks on the CPI scooter. So these scooters are fine for local shopping as well as Summer fun. I can afford the 44 gas because I own and rent homes, however I just like motorscooters a lot. In China and India scooters were a main mode of transportation until only a few years ago where cars by Chinese brands like Chery and Geely are catching up. Some cars like the Geely CD(Chinese Dragon) are real good lookers, and look as good as anything coming out of Japan or South Korea. Some scooters can actually get as high as 141mpg.

Ke, I did notice one typo that I made in the feature. The yearly, not daily American oil consumption is 25 barrels.

ke_future:

because mccain and graham have reached a different conclusion than you in their evaluation, that makes them guilty of pandering? wow.

any claim that the internal combustion engine will no longer be used after 20 years, let alone 10 years, is just plain wrong. there are too many people, industries, and nations that rely on it for too many things for there to be a conversion to what is still a young technology.

and while i appreciate the information on china and india that you gave, it really didn't address my point, which was that the US gets far more per barrel of oil used than the 2 nations that are fast rising consumers of oil with bad pollution.

bicycles are common in portland, but not as common as you make out. portland is too spread out for them to make that big of an impact in transportation. seattle is the same way. they're common, and the city is making a big push for bike paths, but they really aren't taking many cars off the roads

ke -

"Is it a flip-clop to change your opinion on something when the situation changes? i don't think so. i think being able to evaluate situations that change and re-evaluate your stances in relation to those changes is a good thing."

In today's political climate, it seems to be pretty much impossible to EVER change an expressed opinion, regardless of how circumstances may change. Everyone's locked in, it would seem, or they risk displeasure of the parties and constituencies that provide their support. (See Obama, and how he seems to be losing support from the progressive community for NOT being hard-line left...)

The enforced inflexibility seems kind of stupid to me - how can you NOT change your stance on something if the situation changes and you must react to it? Being against drilling made sense (I guess) when oil was cheap. But now?

My fear is that the Saudis will drop the price of oil down to a point where it's just barely more expensive than developing alternatives. And once again - we'll just ignore development on the things that'd free us from the oil teat.

Lee Ward:

"and for the record, i'm iffy on the off shore drilling, against biofuels that use corn, and in favor of solar power. especially with the new technologies that look to be coming in that area...

...however, we must reduce our usage of foreign oil, and alternative energy (wind, solar and nuclear, bio-fuels are a scam) is at least as far out as new oil production, and have their own issues."

The payback on alternatives is a lot quicker than the decades it takes to get new oil fields fully developed -- and the alternative energy initiative described by Obama creates thousands of new jobs... instead of lining the pockets of Exxon executives.

that's the central issue -- and Republicans just keep on walking the same path that got us to $5 gasoline in the first place.

Peak oil is real, and the supply of oil is on the decline. McCain's proposing building more horse-drawn cart factories. It's time to get away from the old and onto the new.

It's time for a change.

Jeff:

this is a flip or a flop but not a flip-flop ...

a flip-flop would be: against, then for, then against ...

And for all you "The Fact of The Matter" morons ... you have such a weak grip on any facts that you really should stop spouting that nonsense at the start of your sentences. Don't claim facts not entered into evidence, cite them with a link. The worst being that the IC engine will be gone in 10 - 20 years. Right ...

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

No question our reliance on the IC engine will be greatly reduced in 20 years, probably closer to 10.

And a flip-flop (in political terms) is a change in position, not a change in position twice.

But Jeff, as usual, doesn't read before he craps on our comment threads...

"Don't claim facts not entered into evidence, cite them with a link. The worst being that the IC engine will be gone in 10 - 20 years."

What Paul wrote was...

And in 10-20 years, it may be possible that enough technology breakthroughs in hydrogen fuel cell or electric vehicles might make a need for expanded oil resources unnecessary

So there's Jeff, claiming facts not entered into evidence, as she spews his nonsense. Paul wrote that it "may be possible" that breakthroughs would result in a reduced need to find new oil.

Get your head out of your butt for once, Jeff. Your clown act is getting old.

ke_future:

paybacks on alternaive energy is not the same as being able to provide capacity. two different matters entirely. i don't know what the payback numbers are on alternative energy off the top of my head, but if you look at the sheer current capacity of the ICE, there is no way to convert more than a freaction of that in 10-20 years.

and lee, it is NOT the responsiblity of government to create jobs. and if you think that pockets are not going to be lined by what ever boondoggle the government does (regardless of the economic sector) you obviously don't know politics.

lee, take a look at the price charts for oil, they really took off AFTER the democrats got into power. that's because everybody knows that democrats are opposed to any interal oil/refinery development. that creates an artificial restriction on future supplies.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.