Last week, Red Green and Blue assessed the green credentials of John McCain’s potential presidential running mate, Charlie Crist. As the Florida Governor signs a landmark multi-billion dollar deal to preserve the Everglades, we ask again, is it possible to love big oil and be green at the same time?
Earlier this month, Florida Governor Charlie Crist won a lot of friends in the oil industry by suggesting that he could live with oil-wells off the coast of Florida. In the same week he also gained support from environmentalists for brokering an agreement that will reclaim 300 square miles of the Everglades from sugar farming.
So why should we care? Well it just so happens that Crist is the Governor of a crucial swing-state in the upcoming presidential election, as well as being a contender for the Republican Vice-Presidential slot.
Since taking office last year he has installed solar panels on the roof of the Governor’s mansion, and gained quite a reputation for his environmentally friendly policies, which include pushing state regulators to prioritise renewable energy and conservation projects over the approval of new coal-fired power stations.
Then came the announcement, this Tuesday, of his move to restore the Everglades wetlands by signing a $1.75 billion deal to purchase 300 square miles of land currently being used for sugar production by U.S. Sugar. The agreement effectively shuts down America’s largest sugar producer, while preserving one of the state’s most fragile ecosystems.
Just when he was almost in danger of changing the image of the Republican’s as the party of big business, Crist has made positive noises about the prospect of drilling for oil off the Florida coast. Environmental campaigners say the move could drastically alter the politics of oil exploration by putting a 27 year-old congressional moratorium on drilling in federal waters in “grave danger.”
Responding to critics pointing out that such a deal would accelerate climate change, Crist said, “We’re in an energy crisis now. You have to look at trying to help the American family, and try to get more domestic production in a responsible, safe, clean way, but at the same time realize that the long-term goal is alternative fuels, renewables.”
Is there a really a ‘middle way’ between oil exploration and alternative energy, one that enables politicians to walk the tightrope between economic and environmental concerns? Or is it time that our leaders got off the fence and sent out a stronger unequivocal message in favour of oil or renewable energy?
Related Posts About Energy Politics and Setting the Environmental Agenda:
- Potential McCain Running Mate Florida Governor Charlie Crist Has Green Cred-Is It Deserved?
- On Day One: Distributed Generation and the Power Grid
- Transmission Politics Hold Up Utility Scale Solar
- Offshore Drilling Ban Opens Discussion for Other Domestic Oil Options
- Want to Help Set the Agenda for the Next President?
- Meet Joe Green #15: McCain’s Vision for Renewable Energy
Image credit - Bill Ingram/Palm Beach Post Via The Associated Press
]]>
This was a big week for our Presidential candidates and energy policy, specifically domestic oil drilling. With the recent decision by a House Sub-committee to continue the ban on more offshore drilling, spirited discussion regarding domestic oil has sprung up everywhere. This week John McCain extended his support for offshore drilling, stating that he thinks the ban should be lifted however he also made the statement that he opposes any drilling of ANWR. Barack Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and ANWR drilling.
As Americans, we have a lot to think about. The fact is we do have domestic oil that we are not extracting. Geologists report we have billions of barrels in both the Bakkan Shale and ANWR. Why is John McCain in favor of lifting the offshore drilling ban while at the same time opposed to ANWR drilling? Is it politically convenient? Is it a possible attempt to satisfy both sides of a debate? Why is Barack Obama opposed to all new domestic drilling? Despite the fact that offshore drilling is technologically at its best, we have other options in other areas.
There is very strong opposition to opening any new domestic areas for drilling oil. However to what extent are we, as a nation, willing to go? We continue to import oil and there is no indication that this will cease. In the Anchorage Daily News online, Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post Columnist, states:
“The entire Arctic refuge is one-third the size of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland and Wales). The drilling site would be one-seventh the size of Manhattan Island. The footprint is tiny. Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we’re not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world’s most wretchedly poor.”
Strong environmental policies coupled with technological advances for extraction can give us access to the massive amounts of resources at our fingertips. This does not mean we have to deplete our resources, however, with good stewardship we can use what is ours. Acquiring our own oil is something that should be realistically explored from all fronts instead of continually shut down. Energy Independence will benefit all Americans and it will take the use of our own traditional resources such as oil, in addition to a passionate pursuit of alternative energy sources to accomplish this goal.
Related Posts:
- McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston? by Tim Hurst
- US Will Export $440 Billion For Oil in 2008 by Clayton B. Cornell
- Help Set the Environmental Agenda for the 44th President by Tim Hurst
Photo Credit: Victor Geere via Flickr under a Creative Commons Liscence
]]>
Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed John McCain right before the Florida Republican primary. His endorsement might have been a significant factor in McCain winning the Florida primary, and subsequently the Republican nomination.
Speculation began immediately thereafter that Crist might make a great running mate for McCain, given his popularity in Florida, and his potential ability to swing the crucial electoral state toward McCain during the general election.
One reason why Crist is popular is because there is a public perception that he really cares about environmental issues, much more so than the typical governor or politician (Republican or Democrat). As Crist might become McCain’s running mate, it seems worthy of investigation as to whether or not the Governor’s green credibility is rightly deserved– especially after Crist’s reversal Tuesday on his position as to lifting the U.S. ban on drilling offshore for oil. Now he says we should do it.
Here are some of the environmental highlights from Charlie Crist’s first 2 years as governor of Florida:
- In July of last year, Crist hosted a Climate Change conference in Miami. The conference served as a national platform for Crist to sign executive orders pledging the state of Florida to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, among many other initiatives to combat global warming. It places Florida among the most “green” southern states, at least in government philosophy and legislation. The conference included notable guests such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt IV (a relative of the famous conservation-minded president).
- Right after the conference, Crist returned to Florida’s capital city of Tallahassee and showed off some improvements that he made to the Governor’s Mansion. A $70,000 hydrogen fuel cell now powers the house, and solar panels help heat the pool and circulate water. The Governor’s staff estimates that the eventual reduction in carbon emissions will be approximately 20%. The hydrogen cell, however, won’t pay for itself in cost savings until sometime around 2031. The solar panels have already paid back their cost financially in energy savings (they only cost $3500).
- Crist said several weeks ago that he would veto a bill that would allow developers to destroy sea grass, a crucial keystone species in Florida’s ocean waters, under the condition that developers would replant elsewhere. Environmental groups cheered this decision.
- Crist came out early in his term and said that he supports restoration of Florida’s famous and important Everglades Ecosystem. Just last week, he and John McCain toured a part of the Everglades. McCain’s blogging daughter discouragingly confused the Everglades Safari Park for being Everglades National Park (in fairness, the Everglades is a huge area, and the distinction might be lost among most Americans as to which part is in the national park. Full disclosure: I used to work for Everglades National Park). The tour group traveled via airboats. They are rarely used in Everglades National Park because they, among other reasons, are thought by some to destroy sea grass. McCain also took some heat from reporters and also Barack Obama for having voted against a bill last year in the U.S. Senate to fund Everglades restoration. He claimed that he would have supported a bill for restoration if it had not included spending elements unrelated to the Everglades. Crist supported the bill, which eventually passed in Congress with a 2/3 majority. This majority was necessary to override a veto from President Bush. Nonetheless, when asked, Crist said that he believed McCain’s word when McCain said that he really did want to protect the Everglades. McCain also said that he does not support a federal catastrophe relief fund, angering Floridians who know well about the damage that hurricanes can create.
- Finally, John McCain recently has stirred up controversy and negative press by releasing an energy plan that would allow for the moratorium on drilling offshore for oil to be lifted (today President Bush said something like, “Great idea! Let’s start now!”) McCain and Bush’s reasoning is that this will allow Americans some relief at the gas pump, and less reliance on foreign oil. McCain at the time of his 2000 campaign for President had a different opinion and supported a ban. Governor Crist, trying to help defend his future potential running mate, has also reversed his own opinion on the matter. He used to oppose drilling offshore. Some people believe that drilling offshore might pollute Florida’s beaches, which are extremely important to the state’s tourism industry and economy.
So, what do these things tell us about Governor Crist’s level of credibility as a green advocate? My personal assessment is that so far he has shown himself through words and actions to be a true friend to the environment. However, the reversal of his position toward offshore drilling combined with his shrugging off of McCain’s negative vote toward the restoration of the Everglades reak of political opportunism. Such compromising of principle for political gain is disconcerting. Plus, drilling offshore for oil is an idea that I believe is a very bad one, and also utterly lacking in creativity as a method for lessening the burden of the energy crisis.
My guess is that ultimately McCain will chose Crist as his running mate. Florida’s Governor has proven himself a loyal soldier, and the McCain campaign will probably find Crist’s advantages as a wingman too hard to resist. Given Crist’s environmental record so far, this choice might be something to cheer. If McCain and Crist are to win the White House, perhaps they can outfit it with some new solar panels. I’d support my taxpayer dollars going to that. I’m not sure about heating the pool though– that seems a little bit extravagant (and who needs to heat a pool in Florida anyway?)
Read More about McCain’s Plan to Drill for Oil Offshore:
- McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston?
- Oil: Our National Dog and Pony Show
Photo Credit: fredthompson on Flickr under a Creative Commons license
]]>In a recent post, my colleague Jennifer Lance asked whether Hillary Clinton can take on big oil. Among other things, Jennifer concluded that despite the good intentions of Senator Clinton,”A gas tax holiday will not solve the problem of peak oil.” And that is exactly the same message the Obama campaign wants to deliver in an ad now running in North Carolina ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.
The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.
See Also:
“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”
]]>
In recent news, both Democratic front runners, in an attempt to woo voters, called for renegotiations of NAFTA. They also threatened to pull out of the trade agreement if U.S. demands aren’t met. Clearly a case of, “do what I want because our economic and military might can beat up your economic and military might.”
The North American Free Trade Agreement, has been under scrutiny since its inception.
Thankfully we have Republican Candidate John McCain to defend this groundbreaking trade agreement.
NAFTA isn’t perfect. It was the first time a free trade agreement existed among such economically disparate countries. It was definitely a great experiment, and a lot has been learned from the results. There is no denying that there have been significant advances in a globally sustainable market that was enabled by NAFTA.
The U.S. economy thrives under NAFTA. As do Canadian and Mexican economies. But more important than just the economic benefits of NAFTA are the environmental impacts of the accord (not the car, although there are some positive environmental effects of high gas mileage as well). Within NAFTA was written a supplement, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. It’s the first time that environmental provisions were written into a trilateral free trade agreement. NAFTA has set the framework for government environmental protection and support.
However, the NAAEC only provides regulations for countries to enforce their own environmental laws. To deal with the non-enforcement of environmental regulations the NAAEC created the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation to ensure the enforcement of environmental laws and monitor the adverse environmental impacts of the trade agreement. In conjunction, the NAAEC also created the North American Development Bank to financially assist in environmental projects.
With so much on the line, why would Democratic candidates, who seem to want to find solutions to the economy and the environment, threaten to pull out of such a promising trade agreement? There is room to environmentally clean up NAFTA. John McCain has a vision to lead the U.S. into a sustainable global economy. We can do all the green we want at home, but if we can’t work with our neighbors to do the same, the planet is still doomed. NAFTA’s laid the groundwork to make that happen. Let’s not let our childish threats ruin a good thing.
