Senate race: The oilman vs. the enviro
Related
Advertisement
Stark contrasts on energy mark U.S. Senate race
6/21/2008 - 6/20/08
As gasoline prices crept past the $4-a-gallon mark, increasingly high-octane political rhetoric signaled the growing importance of energy issues in this year's election campaigns.
Perhaps nowhere are the lines more sharply drawn than in New Mexico's U.S. Senate race, in which Democrat Tom Udall, who comes from a family of noted environmentalists, is pitted against Republican Steve Pearce, who made a fortune in the oil industry.
Udall already is airing TV ads aimed at tapping into consumer frustration at the gas pumps and advocating we "get serious" about alternative energy sources. Pearce, meanwhile, fired off a barrage of news releases blaming Democrats and "the Tom Udalls of the world" for contributing to high fuel prices by restricting domestic production of oil and gas.
Democrats are intent on making the worldwide run-up in petroleum prices — and consequent inflation in costs for food and other consumer items — spell trouble for Republicans, the party led by an oilman in the White House. Don't be surprised to see attack ads featuring gasoline prices interspersed with images of President Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty.
But last week national Republicans went on the offensive. Bush and presumptive GOP presidential candidate John McCain — a longtime supporter of the nation's offshore-drilling moratorium — both came out strongly for more offshore drilling, trying to lay the problem of high gas prices at the feet of Democrats who have fought the idea.
Pearce, a longtime supporter of expanded offshore drilling, quickly lauded McCain's speech. "The far left's extreme agenda to lock up our own resources has created the situation we have now," Pearce said Tuesday in a campaign news release.
Udall, meanwhile, accused Bush of "playing politics with energy."
Recent polls indicate Republicans have taken a popular position with voters. In a Rasmussen poll released Thursday, 62 percent of Americans agree new offshore drilling should be allowed, while 27 percent oppose the idea. Rasmussen found 55 percent of those polled believe prices at the pump are likely to drop if such drilling is allowed compared with 38 percent who say prices won't be affected.
Polar opposites
When it comes to energy-related legislation, Udall, from Santa Fe, and Pearce, from Hobbs, rarely take the same side.
You can tell by how the special-interest groups rate their voting records in the U.S. House of Representatives. Udall gets a 100 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters — which stands for tough environmental restrictions — but a zero from The American Land Rights Association — which routinely fights environmental regulations. Conversely, Pearce gets a zero rating from the LCV and a 100 percent from the ALRA.
In general, Pearce votes for fewer restrictions on exploiting natural resources while Udall votes for tougher environmental regulations.
Udall this year voted for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, which would increase taxes on large oil companies while expanding tax incentives for renewable energy as well as for plug-in hybrid cars, and energy-efficient homes, buildings and appliances. Pearce voted against it.
Pearce has voted for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Udall has voted against it.
Udall voted for a measure to prohibit leasing public land for shale oil. Pearce, who has been a vocal supporter of extracting oil shale in Colorado, voted against it. He said in an interview last month that the United States could become "The Saudi Arabia of shale."
Pearce has voted against several proposals to establish renewable energy standards and tax credits for alternative energy sources. "We were implementing standards we don't have the capability to reach," he said last week. But he said he has supported other legislation relating to clean energy, such as setting aside 6.5 million acres in the West for solar collectors. He also has backed legislation to allow access through public lands for wind energy.
As for offshore drilling, Pearce said critics who say it would take up to 20 years to start producing significant amounts of oil are exaggerating. "Speculators would drive the price down if we had intent to pass legislation to open up offshore drilling," he said. "If we did that, (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) would start producing more."
Udall said he's not opposed to all offshore drilling. "We have been providing offshore drilling," he said. "There are 68 million acres leased, and the oil companies are sitting on it. It's clear that (the moratorium on new leases) is not what's holding up the supply. There's no way we're going to drill our way out of this."
America's oil production peaked in 1970, Udall said. "It's a cruel hoax to make people think we're going to bring domestic production back up to those levels."
Solutions
Udall said in an interview last week that three major things should be done in the short term to get gasoline prices down. He joins in what is a bipartisan call for increasing the country's refining capacity — with new, "clean" oil refineries. "It would be quicker to build refineries than to get oil by drilling offshore," he said.
The government should crack down on hedge-fund speculators who are inflating the cost of oil, Udall said.
And the country needs a nationwide conservation effort led by the president and Congress. "This president probably isn't interested in doing this," he said, "so we'll have to wait until the next one."
His long-term solutions include tax incentives for solar and wind power, serious renewable energy standards for electricity, setting biofuel goals at 25 percent by 2025 (excluding fuels from food crops like corn), government mandates for better fuel efficiency for cars, and a carbon dioxide cap and trade program in which the government would limit carbon dioxide emissions, allowing companies to meet increasingly tighter limits through a system of buying and selling permits to emit carbon dioxide.
Pearce on Thursday introduced a bill he named the Clean Energy, Lower Prices Act. It would remove moratoriums on drilling for oil offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"Both sides are right," Pearce said. "The people who tend to oppose drilling are right that we need a Manhattan Project for renewable energy," he said, using a phrase that Gov. Bill Richardson frequently repeated during his unsuccessful presidential campaign.
But Pearce said a short-term fix is also needed, and that's where the offshore and Alaskan drilling come in.
He didn't have an estimate of the amount of revenue for renewable energy his bill would generate, but he said it would be in the billions.
Does his bill have legs in a Democrat-controlled Congress? "With gas at $4 a gallon, I think it's got a pretty good chance," Pearce said. "If it gets up to $5 a gallon, it'll come alive."
Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com.
