Republicans are the party of optimism. Really. What you see as disaster, they see as opportunity.
For example, you see the tragedy and destruction of 9/11; they see an opportunity to create Disneyland Iraq. You see lives lost or displaced by Katrina; they see a chance to break up a bothersome concentration of Democratic voters. You see high oil prices forcing families to cut back on luxuries, education, even food; they see a buffet table loaded with more goodies than Thanksgiving dinner and a Fourth of July BBQ rolled into one.
With connections just as clear as those stretching between the Twin Towers and Baghdad, Republicans have advocated drilling off America's coasts and in our wildlife refuges as a remedy for today's pump prices. That's despite reports issued from inside the Bush administration that these activities won't significantly affect the price of oil, despite the fact that they already have large undeveloped reserves, and despite the fact that it would take at least seven years before any additional oil could reach the market. They're betting you don't know that. Really, they're betting you're in such a blind panic that you don't care.
It's a test, a kind of national SAT. Are you so desperate to cut down on the cost of filling your SUV, that you'll let us despoil the nation's most scenic places and wreck its last wilderness, even when the evidence shows that it won't help? Republicans think you'll do it.
Even though the connections between what they want to do and the problem they're pretending to solve is just as tenuous as the connections between Osama and Saddam, they think you'll go along with it. You'll put a greasy thumbprint on that yellow ribbon magnet and salute, substituting fear of the gas pump for fear of al-Qaeda. Heck, bin Laden's on the far side of the world somewhere, the gas pump is right down the street. They're counting on you being more afraid now than on September 12th.
Earlier this week, John McCain swooped in for another serving from the oil disaster buffet.
Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
There are currently 104 commercial reactors in the United States, generating from 19-25% of our national demand for electricity, so proposing 45 more plants is a tremendous increase -- and McCain wants another installment of 55 when those are done. That's especially impressive when US demand for electricity went up only 0.2% last year and growth is expected to be 0.6% this year. Forty-five new nuclear plants is simply more than we need -- that is, unless McCain plans to stop the 114 new coal plants (.pdf) that are planned, with 47 already under construction. But of course, McCain won't do that, and in fact has pledged $2 billion toward "clean coal." Based on what McCain has proposed for nuclear plants, and the coal plants on the way, we'll have enough capacity to meet demand through the end of the century and then some. That's not counting the dozens of natural gas plants also on the way, and it's not adding a lick of renewable power to the mix. And obviously it doesn't consider anything so silly as conservation.
John McCain is fond of saying that we should stay in Iraq 100 years, or 1000 years, or 10,000 years. So why stop at 45 nuclear plants? Make it 100. Hell, let 1,000 nukes bloom in every neighborhood across this great country! I suppose 45 does have something of a precision feel, like John McCain might actually know something, but as long as you're just making stuff up and proposing plants for which there's no economic demand, why stop with a piddly little number like 45? After all, McCain is surely aware that this number of plants won't be built, not because hippie treehuggers stand in the way, but because there's very little interest in building multi-billion dollar facilities unless you can get a good return on your investment. Let's settle on 10,000 nuclear plants -- one for each year McCain wants to spend in Iraq.
The goal of McCain and the Republicans isn't to build new plants, it's to tear down the regulations that make sure plants are sited and built safely, with opportunity for public feedback. They're counting on your fear of the gas pump to provide the shock and awe they need to destroy federal oversight. They want to wave the scary pump in your face, and use it to smash safety and environmental laws.
The Republican narrative for 2008 is that the oil crisis is your fault. It's not their fault for throwing the Middle East into turmoil. It's not their fault for blocking decades of conservation measures and failing to support alternatives. It's not their fault for voting just last week, to block legislation that would allow better controls on speculators. It's your fault -- you and everyone else who ever spent a moment worrying about health or safety. Because the Republicans don't see the problems at the pump as just an opportunity to walk off with prizes they've wanted for years, they see it as a political opportunity to smear Democrats for the direct result of Republican policies.
It may be too much to ask that the media do their job in taking apart this web of misstatements and exageration, but you know what would be really helpful? What would please me no end? If the press would point out, just once, that John McCain is lying when he says building more power plants would save oil. Not exaggerating, not extrapolating, lying. Prevaricating. Telling a falsehood. Bagging you big time. Hosing us like there's no tomorrow. Lying.
Oil and nuclear power do not compete. Say it with me again. Oil and nuclear power do no compete. Even if you park a reactor out back of every Texaco station, it won't save any oil. None. Not a drop.
Yes, there is a tiny amount of oil used in this country for electrical generation, but almost all of that goes to backup generators and small "campus" facilities. Oil and electricity are not fungible. Oil, is transportation. Coal and nuclear plants are not.
When any politician tells you that by building more coal plants, or more nuclear plants, or even more wind farms, they are going to help our problem with oil, that politician is snickering at your ignorance. And every time the press reports these stories straight up, without challenging that proposition, they're feeding that ignorance -- and displaying their own.
Could electricity and oil compete? Yes. If we had a significant number of electrical vehicles on the road, there might be some argument that more Midwest kilowatts equal less Middle East crude. But we're not there yet, not by any stretch of the imagination, and building new power plants won't move us even one inch closer. That's not an anti-nuclear statement, it's just a fact. In fact, even if a significant number of our cars and trucks were running from electricity, it's not clear that we would need to build more power plants, since these vehicles could recharge at night when most plants are now running below capacity.
The next time John McCain suggests that building more power plants will reduce our need for oil, can't some reporter at least ask him how? He's you're buddy right? He's the guy who you say gives you such great access. So go on, ask him how building forty-five nuclear plants and investing in coal will reduce our need for oil. Here's a hint on how to interpret what he says: he's lying.
