More On McCain and Offshore Drilling: Once Called His New Position “Incredibly Arrogant”

I referred to this in an earlier post, but the particular problem is most pithily summarized by blogger Hilzoy (my emphasis):

John McCain:

“Tomorrow, I’ll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.”

The radical environmentalist Wall Street Journal:

“As politicians debate whether to open federal offshore waters to oil and natural-gas drilling, there is agreement on at least one point: It isn’t a short-term fix.

If the bans were lifted tomorrow, it would be at least seven years — and likely as long as a decade — before the first oil began to flow off the coasts of Florida, California and the eastern seaboard.”

Hilzoy also notes that the most optimistic projection is that this could lower gsa prices by eight cents a gallon a decade from now, and that projection is far from universal.

There’s another level of deception, though. Take this exchange from last week’s Fox News Sunday:

MR. WALLACE: Governor Kaine, Obama opposes drilling in Alaska, opposes drilling offshore, opposes nuclear power until you solve all of the safety problems. How does he end our dependence on foreign oil?

GOV. KAINE: Well, a couple of ways. He’s a strong supporter of increasing investments in cleaner coal technology. The U.S. has sizeable coal reserves, and we need to be investing significantly to clean up coal. And we can; it’s been done in past generations, and we can keep doing it.

He wants to, as he pointed out in the clip that you just showed, use greater taxes on the oil companies to plow into alterative energy research, which is something that other nations in the world have done. But we haven’t had an energy policy in this country.

I mean, to think about it, a country with no energy policy, and that is one of Barack’s top priorities is to push us toward a robust level of investment and research so we can expand alternative energy sources. And that’s at the core of his energy plan, and it’s the direction our nation needs to go.

MR. WALLACE: Governor Pawlenty, McCain is almost as liberal on a lot of these energy issues as Obama. He opposes drilling in Alaska. He would leave it up to individual states as to whether to allow offshore drilling which, in most cases, means that they wouldn’t do it. He wants a 60 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

He talks about a national campaign for energy independence, but he’s even less specific than Obama is.

GOV. PAWLENTY: Well — because he’s been very specific on a number of things, and — I would also say this is another example of separating the rhetoric from the reality.

Senator McCain has led on this issue to — much to the chagrin of some parts of the Republican Party. Senator Obama continues just to toe the line robotically with the Democratic Caucus in Congress. He votes 95 or so percent every year. What change has he really led? What big thing has he crossed over and said I’ll work with the Republicans on? The answer is nothing.

Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty completely ignored the specific premesis of Wallace’s question (in short: “What about McCain?”) and instead only tried to hit Obama. Now, the charges he made may or may not be true, depending on your candidate of choice. He instead turned to a line of attack on Obama - which Wallace immediately picked up on. In the end, there was no answer to that question that Wallace initially posed. (Off topic: Note to Chris Wallace: if you want to emulate Russert, make sure politicians answer your questions first before you let them change the topic.)

Lastly, it remains to underline not just the pragmatic shift taking place here, but the philosophical one. In 1985, the California Congressional delegation made a push to allow the state to allow drilling. John McCain was not pleased and stated unequivocably why:

Interior Secretary Donald Hodel said he hasn’t begun negotiating a new California offshore oil leasing agreement because other states claimed it was a national issue for all to decide.

Hodel testified Tuesday before the House Interior energy subcommittee that Texas and Louisiana congressmen ”roundly berated” him for not inviting them to the negotiations, and asked for congressional guidance how to proceed.

The subcommittee is considering a bill by Rep. Leon Panetta, D-Calif., backed by two-thirds of the California delegation, which is almost identical to a preliminary leasing agreement Hodel rejected in September offering 150 of 6,460 tracts for leasing.

Hodel spurned the proposal after oil companies said the tracts were worthless. He promised to renegotiate for different tracts, but weeks passed without a new deal.

”We don’t really know where the tracts are that are on the geologic structure (containing oil),” Hodel said.

Panetta’s bill opens tracts in the Eel River and Santa Maria Basins, Santa Monica Bay and Camp Pendleton areas for leasing and allows exploratory wells in Point Arena, Bodega Bay and Santa Cruz, at least 18 miles offshore.

The other 6,310 tracts would remain under moratorium for the rest of the century, along with especially scenic offshore areas such as Big Sur and the Farallon Islands.

Some Republicans on the subcommittee complained that oil off California is a national resource.

”This resource belongs to all Americans,” Rep. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. ”It seems incredibly arrogant for the California delegation to think (it belongs to their state.)‘‘

UPI, November 13, 1985, via Lexis. McCain didn’t exactly mince words back then, either.