Subject: [big campaign] Today's McCain Energy speech excerpts
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:05:53 -0400
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Excerpts From Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
Houston, TX
June 17, 2008
?
Among its other distinctions, this great city is known as the oil capital
of America.  But people in Houston and all of Texas understand as well as
anyone that the high price of oil and gas today is causing great harm all
across our economy.   People are hurting -- small farmers, truckers, and
taxi drivers unable to cover their costs, small business owners struggling
to meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks
falling.   All of this, in large part, because the price of oil is too
high, and the supply of oil too uncertain.   These citizens believe their
government has a duty to finally assure the energy security of this
country, and they are right.
I first addressed this issue at the outset of my primary campaign.  And in
just that time ? a little more than a year ? the price of a barrel of oil
has more than doubled.  And the price of a gallon of gas in America stands
at more than four dollars.  Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134
dollars.   And various oil ministers and investment firms have confidently
informed us that soon we can expect to pay 200 dollars for every barrel,
and as much as seven dollars for every gallon of gas.
?
Somehow the United States ? in so many ways the most self-reliant of
nations ? has allowed and at times even encouraged this state of affairs.
This was a troubling situation 35 years ago.  It was an alarming situation
twenty years ago.  It is a dangerous situation today.  And starting in the
term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy
future, and become once again the master of our fate.
The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not
just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded
it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for
America.  So in the days ahead I plan to return to the subject in a series
of discussions to explain my reform agenda.   And I will set forth a
strategy to free America once and for all from our strategic dependence on
foreign oil.
?
Among these is a challenge we hardly even understood back when America
first learned to associate the word ?energy? with ?crisis.?  We now know
that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere,
threaten disastrous changes in climate.  No challenge of energy is to be
taken lightly, and least of all the need to avoid the consequences of
global warming.
In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy
conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue.
Conservation serves a critical national goal.   Over time, we must shift
our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power
sources.  This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar,
biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented.  It will include a variety
of new automotive and fuel technologies -- clean-burning coal and nuclear
energy -- and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to
put the power of the market on the side of environmental protection.
But to make the great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels, we will need
all the inventive genius of which America is capable.  We will need as well
an economy strong enough to support our nation?s great shift toward clean
energy.  And this gives us only further incentive to protect ourselves from
the sudden shocks and ever-rising prices that come with our dependence on
foreign oil.
Up to a point, these sudden rises in the price of oil are explainable in
the terms of basic economics.  When demand exceeds supply, prices always
rise, and this has happened very dramatically in the demand for oil.  Two
powerful forces in the oil market today are China and India, nations in
which a third of humanity is suddenly entering the industrial era ? with
all the cars, construction, and consumption of oil that involves.
There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market,
which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or
delivery of oil.  When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the
1980?s, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic
volatility of oil pricing.  It takes several weeks to ship oil from the
Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana.  And for the buyers,
it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in
transit.  A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil
at a profit.
That?s the theory, anyway.  But we all know that some people on Wall Street
are not above gaming the system.  When you have enough speculators betting
on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on
rising.  And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper
profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end ? using more and
more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or
family car.
Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering,
unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the
market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and
pensions of millions of Americans at risk.  Where we find such abuses, they
need to be swiftly punished.  And to make sure it never happens again, we
must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so
that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks,
bonds, and other financial instruments.  In all of these markets, reform
must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.
?
At the time of OPEC?s oil embargo, we imported roughly a third of our oil.
Now we import two thirds.  At that time, every day, we produced more than
nine million barrels of oil domestically.  Now America produces five
million barrels a day.  Five million barrels sounds like a lot until we
compare the number with the oil we use, which comes to 20 million barrels,
or a quarter of all the oil used every day across the earth.
?
It takes a very short leap in logic to wonder why we produce less and less
crude oil, while we use more and more of it, or why politicians talk so
much about promoting alternative energy sources, but often do so little to
promote these alternatives.  A reasonable observer, presented only with
these numbers of consumption and production, might draw the conclusion that
America has accepted this fate because we have no choice in the matter, or
because we have no resources of our own.  But just the opposite is true: We
do have resources, and we do have a choice.
In oil, gas, and coal deposits, we have enormous energy reserves of our
own.  And we are gaining the means to use these resources in cleaner, more
responsible ways.  As for offshore drilling, it?s safe enough these days
that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage
from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston.  Yet for
reasons that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign
oil, the federal government discourages offshore production.
At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new
refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and
thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people ? especially in the
summer season.  But the policymakers in Washington haven?t got around to
that, either.  There?s so much regulation of the industry that the last
American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.
As for nuclear energy ? a proven energy source that requires zero emissions
? we haven?t built a new reactor in 31 years.  In Europe and elsewhere,
they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy.   But we?ve waited so
long that we?ve lost our domestic capability to even build these power
plants.   Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant,
and stable energy supply, as other nations understand.   One nation today
has plans to build almost 50 new reactors by 2020.   Another country plans
to build 26 major nuclear stations.   A third nation plans to build enough
nuclear plants to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its
people ? a population of more than a billion people.   Those three
countries are China, Russia, and India.   And if they have the vision to
set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don?t we?
So, taking stock of our energy situation, it is time we draw a few sensible
conclusions of our own.  In their sum effect on the American economy, the
policies of our government could hardly have left us more dependent had
they been designed to do precisely that.  This vulnerability is clear in
many ways, and never more than when American leaders are reduced to
supplicating for lower prices before the sheiks and princes of OPEC.  Of
course, they are unmoved by our troubles.  They regard even the need to ask
as a sign of weakness.  And in the end, they take their cues not from our
entreaties for relief, but from our failure to diversify and to produce.
Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our
country that are best left undisturbed.  When America set aside the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a ?refuge? for a reason.
But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy.  And with
gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the
luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians.  We
have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United
States.  But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy
exploration and production.  And I believe it is time for the federal
government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.
We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of
environmental protection.  And in states that choose to permit exploration,
there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state
governments.  But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a
matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and
assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.
We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to
come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us
from oil entirely.  But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will
serve us better.  In the short term, we must take the world as it is and
our resources where they are ? even as we press on with new and cleaner
sources of energy.  We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic
dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I?ll be offering a vision
that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who
are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other
necessities of life.
What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear
lessons along the way.  Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my
opponent.  He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that
they rose too quickly.  He?s doesn?t support new domestic production.  He
doesn?t support new nuclear plants. He doesn?t support more traditional use
of coal, either.
So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy?  Well, for starters he
supported the energy bill of 2005 ? a grab-bag of corporate favors that I
opposed.  And now he supports new taxes on energy producers.  He wants a
windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans
for coal and natural gas.  If the plan sounds familiar, it?s because that
was President Jimmy Carter?s big idea too ? and a lot of good it did us.
Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our
dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic
exploration and production we need.  I?m all for recycling ? but it?s
better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the
1970?s.
Oddly enough, though, Senator Obama doesn?t want to lower the gas taxes
paid by consumers, which would be the most direct and obvious way to give
Americans a break at the gas station.  Even in tough times for our economy,
when folks are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just
isn?t change he can believe in.  ?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---