An Oily Mess
Bush's offshore drilling plan splits Florida's GOP
For all their partisan bickering, Florida Republicans and Democrats have usually come together on one point: opposition to offshore oil drilling. But soaring gas prices and presidential politics have ruptured that consensus and now threaten to split the state GOP. The resulting disarray could have significant implications in the Sunshine State, which both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama consider vital to their chances in November.
In the wake of McCain's announcement this week that he favored overturning a moratorium on drilling along the country's coastline—a reversal of his past position—some Florida Republicans have quickly fallen into line. Gov. Charlie Crist, often mentioned as a potential veep pick for McCain, and Sen. Mel Martinez abandoned their past opposition to offshore drilling and declared that they were now open to the idea. "It has become increasingly clear that we must be pragmatic in protecting both our beaches and our economy," said Crist in a statement.
Other Florida GOPers, however, reiterated their opposition. "Our energy policy should not completely disregard the importance of protecting our natural resources and the environment," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in a statement, noting that her district includes a marine sanctuary with one of the largest coral reefs in the world. "We must continue to protect and preserve our economic interests by safeguarding against near-shore drilling." Among the other state Republicans who rejected McCain's position: Rep. Vern Buchanan, who represents the coastal city of Sarasota, and the incoming Speaker of the Florida House, Ray Sansom.
Still others sought to stake out more nuanced positions. Florida state Sen. Burt Saunders, who chairs the environmental preservation and conservation committee, says he's recently come around to the idea of offshore drilling. Yet he makes clear that it wouldn't solve the nation's immediate concern about rising fuel prices, since it would take at least eight to 10 years to get an oil platform up and running. "What bothers me is that you will have politicians saying that drilling will drive down the cost of fuel," he says. "That is a false promise."
The most anticipated reaction came from former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who sought to limit offshore drilling while in office (and, some say, helped keep his brother's advocacy of drilling in check). "The world has changed" as a result of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, the president's brother said at an education summit Thursday. "We need a national energy policy that includes increasing supplies of oil and gas inside the United States." However, he continued, it should be done in a way that protects the state's coastline. His proposal: that Congress reconsider a plan he and former California congressman Richard Pombo put forth unsuccessfully in 2006. It would have imposed a 100-mile protective buffer around the state while also opening up millions of acres in the central gulf for new exploration. (Currently, drilling is prohibited within 125 miles of the Panhandle coast and within 235 miles of Tampa Bay.)
Despite the cracks McCain's announcement is creating in the state GOP, he's apparently decided that he's found a winning issue. A Rasmussen survey conducted in the Sunshine State after McCain's comments seemed to back him up. When respondents were asked about McCain's and Obama's positions on offshore drilling and whether drilling would impact fuel prices, 61 percent sided with McCain's views, compared to 34 percent who backed Obama's (state Democrats argue that the way these questions were phrased skewed the results). "I don't think this will weaken support for McCain" in Florida, says Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida. "The economy is trumping the environment for some people."
But the reaction from other quarters has been searing. An editorial in The Miami Herald called McCain's proposal "a shameful, cynical calculation." Environmental groups, already furious over McCain's opposition to funding for Everglades cleanup, condemned it as a disastrous approach that would do nothing to bring down gas prices. And Democrats, of course, turned the outrage dial to maximum. "Voters aren't stupid, and they don't like being tricked," says Mark Bubriski, spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party. "If McCain and Crist are willing to shamelessly deceive us about this vital issue, can Floridians really trust them on anything now?" Lance DeHaven-Smith, a professor of public administration and policy at Florida State University, thinks McCain's move could backfire on him in the state. "This policy has the potential to mobilize Democrats and moderates in Florida against McCain," he says. "I think it gives Obama an issue that is perfect … to hammer McCain on." Consider it the latest front in what's sure to be a bruising battle for Florida.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 8:03:40 PM
Comment: 7,925 gallons of uranium solution spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site in France. Let us time travel back to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or the Incident in Ohio. This is not a good record. Proponents of Nuclear Power like to claim that with modern advances it is very safe to expand its use. Well, two of the four incidents I mentioned both occurred with modern advances in technology. There is no guarantee that even with new technology another Chernobyl would not happen here in the USA. What we do not realize is the fact that even with all the technology in the world Human Error is always a factor. Building more Nuclear Plants is not an answer to the price at the pump. It is not a Renewable Resource. So the price will increase as Uranium becomes scarce. There is the waste issue and potential devastating accident factor, which make it a very unstable source of power with multiple thousand-year storage costs. A lot of people are unaware that some of the same energy companies that deal in oil and gas also deal in Nuclear Power Plants. Solar energy is permanent or renewable, cheap, and can be installed on an individual basis. That is why large energy companies are not in any rush to push that form of energy. We could all be independent of an electric bill if solar technology is funded with the money that would have gone to Nuclear power plant development. But that would leave the electric companies out of business. If we put dollars into producing affordable solar panels or nano-solar technology we could allow each individual citizen the ability to produce their own energy and use as much of it as they wish with no reliance upon any outside monopoly. The proponents of Nuclear are either greedy or blind to the potential in other much safer forms of energy.
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 8:03:18 PM
Comment: For all the money we would spend on clean coal or nuclear energy we could develop actual solutions like the multiple renewable forms of energy. The estimated amount of coal in the US is about 250 years. That number was tallied before anyone ever mentioned using coal reserves for gasoline. We use coal mainly for electricity. The use of coal for gasoline would drive up the cost of coal and possible cut the supply for electric use by half. This is not a solution. Instead it is creating a slow moving blood clot that will eventually reach the brain and end in stroke. Nuclear power is not any better. It is another non-renewable energy. Uranium supplies are estimated at around 150 years. The cost will continue to rise just as with coal or oil. Therefore nuclear is not a real solution either. You might ask, ???What are the solutions,??? there have been so many renewable sources of energy. Many are very creative. Like the use of Ocean currents, Ocean wave movement, Tidal movement, Wind, Solar, Biochemical technology and other Biological Engineering concepts show promise or are already in development and production. That is where our money should go. But the real solutions free individuals from being attached to large energy companies. Oh, that is just awful, for them, but liberating for us. Imagine a source of energy that will never go up in price due to the fact that it is renewable. I already have, can you?
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 07/09/2008 8:03:00 PM
Comment: Cont: We must investigate energy that is renewable, cheap, clean, and put it in the hands of all who require it. There is too much to loose if people can be energy independent, especially if the new technologies allow people to be independent of large energy corporations. Solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-chemical and many other alternative forms of energy would allow people a freedom from the tyranny of submission to Big Energy. That may be the underlying reason why there are so many who wish to delay energy liberation for as long as possible. If I had invested trillions in oil infrastructure I would want to milk it for all it was worth, it is the bottom line that drives all motivation by any business. Why should it be any different for API and the bottom line they represent?