SAN DIEGO — 9 a.m. PDT

I’m on vacation. The means no TV reports. It does NOT mean no blog posts. The Bourbon Room won’t vacation until this campaign is finished.

This is a VERY long post, with a surfeit of news about today’s energy jousting and a good bit of campaign back-and-forth. I’m devoting a ton of space to it today under the guiding premise that energy in this election could provide to be the most important and cutting domestic issue — bigger than taxes, health care, education, and immigration.

Why?

Because it seems to me both parties are throwing enormous, er, energy behind their efforts to “win” the issue and because it’s become the central prism through which Americans have come to view th future of the economy and the environment. It’s also an issue that, ahem, drives the debate over which entity solves national problems more rapidly — the government or the private sector — and as such becomes a definitional issue for both parties and their view of government power versus private sector autonomy (yes, I know, these lines have long since been blurred, but as a matter of party and ideological identity, these distinctions still tend to matter).

What you will find here:

Overview of the issue.

McCain mocking Obama:

Obama camp on tire gauges and efficiency:

House GOPers in House of Representatives, by themselves:

House GOP leader Boehner Wall Street Journal energy op-ed:

New Obama energy TV ad script and back-ground data:

McCain campaign reaction to Obama TV ad, with its back-ground data:

Obama energy plan summary:

Obama energy speech:

Here we go.

OVERVIEW:

Sen. Barack Obama kicks off what aides describe as “energy week” today with a set-piece speech — meaning no standard stump oration, but a speech specifically crafted for the topic and from which excerpts will later be extracted for use in the standard stump speech — in Lansing, Michigan.

Obama has launched a new website that outlines a 6-page, single-spaced plan to wean the United States completely off Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil (meaning OPEC oil) in 10 years. It also calls for massive, government-supervised tax collection and pas-through investment in new technologies and energy efficiency whereby the government determines — alongside private sector partners — which energy technologies, retrofitting and manufacturing methods best suit the needs of a $14 trillion economy and more than 304 million souls.

MCCAIN MOCKING:

John McCain’s campaign is already mocking Obama’s policy roll-out by distributing tire gauges to traveling reporters with the words “Obama’s Energy Plan” printed on the side. This is a reference to Obama saying last week the nation could save as much oil by properly inflating tires on all its vehicles and keeping them tuned up as could be gained from oil exploration in currently off-limits zones on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

I asked the campaign for some data to backup that line of argument and it has yet to provide any. As it did to me last week, the campaign is pointing reporters in the direction of comments from GOP Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist of California and Florida that properly inflating tires would lower gasoline consumption and, possibly, reduce prices at the pump. Here’s the link: , http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-arnold27-2008jun27,0,4342876,print.story]

HOUSE GOP PROTEST:

Meanwhile, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, a rump group of Republicans are today staging their version of a sit-in to protest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to adjourn the House for the five-week “district work period” (otherwise known as summer vacation) without conducting a vote on the GOP-drafted plan to open the OCS and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas drilling.

Here is an up-to-the-minute account of the GOP “uprising,” courtesy of Fox’s intrepid Capitol Hill producer Chad Pergram who, unlike The Bourbon Room, is still hard at work:

[Begin Pergram report: A band of about 15 House Republicans are back in Washington to again press their on offshore drilling and other energy policies on the House floor.

The House adjourned Friday until early September. But House GOPers commandeered the floor in a bizarre pseudo-session...after the lights in the chamber were lowered and the cameras and microphones were switched off (again, these are NOT C-SPAN cameras. They are controlled by the institution).

Today, Republicans again plan to cajole tourists, aides and interns to attend the rump session, redux.

A few Members are now headed outside to handing out letters and petitions to tourists at the green visitor tents outside the Capitol to let them know what's going on.

By my count, a group of 18 Republicans spoke briefly to the press (on camera, without taking questions) about their second day of this.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says it will not invoke Rule One of the House which gives the Speaker administrative control of the body. In effect, if the Speaker wanted to, she could close the House floor arbitrarily, or, argue Republicans are using House resources for political purposes.

Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami says the Speaker will not do this.

Elshami also argues that the "GOP voted against 13 energy bills -- including some that bring immediate relief to consumers, force oil companies to use it or lose it and go after speculators."

Here are the highlights from the press conference.

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): "It's time for Congress to go to work. We demand that the Speaker call the House back into session."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): "To be on the floor last week was extraordinary. You are seeing the beginning of a sustained effort here in Washington, DC."

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): "It's shameful that Congress left without a vote (on offshore drilling)." End Pergram report:]

BOEHNER ENERGY OP-ED

The House Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio, has this op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Unleashing America’s Ingenuity By Unlocking Its Energy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121781034632208747.html?mod=2_1595_topbox

By JOHN BOEHNER
August 4, 2008

Last Monday The Wall Street Journal kicked off a debate on how best to allocate scarce resources to solve the world’s problems. Bjorn Lomborg offered a summary of the latest findings from his Copenhagen Consensus project, where he has enlisted some of the world’s top economists to address the issue. Over the next few Mondays we’ll offer views on the subject from top political and business leaders. How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?

The notion that Washington can spend its way out of any problem does not pass what I call “the straight-face test.” Rather than parceling taxpayer dollars out to fund a laundry list of government programs that will only paper over the problems facing our nation and the world, let the American people keep the $10 billion. They can use it far more wisely than Congress. Instead, let’s unleash America’s ingenuity to address the world’s challenges and improve the quality of life for every American, as we have throughout our history. And to do that, let’s begin by unlocking America’s vast energy resources — from our natural resources like coal, oil and gas to emerging technologies like alternative and renewable fuels.

The fact is, the best, easiest way to boost American investment in alternative fuels and lower our nation’s dependence on foreign oil won’t cost taxpayers a cent. Democrats in Congress have placed millions of acres of U.S. territory — far off our coasts, on the remote North Slope of Alaska, and in the Inter-Mountain West — off limits for energy development. By freeing those domestic resources and increasing the supply of American energy, we can fund development of better solar, wind, biomass and other breakthrough technologies. And House Republicans have a plan to do it — appropriately titled the American Energy Act, which reflects what we call an “all of the above” energy strategy.

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would allow a vote on our comprehensive energy plan — a vote House Republicans and hundreds of Americans demanded on the House floor this past Friday, after Congress adjourned, in a historic revolt — we could create more American jobs, reduce America’s energy dependence on nations with ties to global terrorism, cut emissions to promote a healthy environment, and raise our quality of life. And, we could do it without raising taxes — and even without spending $10 billion. How? From the production of new American energy under our plan.

For example, the Congressional Research Service estimates that at $100 per barrel (far below today’s price), producing the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska’s remote Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would generate $153 billion in new federal revenues. Consider the sums we could generate if we produced new American energy in the Outer Continental Shelf far off our nation’s shores, where an estimated 86 billion barrels are locked away, and in the Inter-Mountain West, where some 800 billion barrels of oil is trapped in shale deposits. The possibilities are seemingly endless.

Nothing is impossible with affordable energy and the promise it holds for investments in technology and higher standards of living. Water can be lifted from deep below the earth. The desert can bloom. Crops can grow where they never did before. Electric lights burn at night so that studying, reading and commerce can outlast the sun. None of this would be possible without affordable and available energy.

Reliable energy is among the most liberating forces in the world — socially, economically and intellectually. In those parts of the world where energy is scarce or too expensive for citizens, daily life is consumed with the drudgery that the absence of energy causes. My goal — and the goal of every parent — is to leave our nation and our world in better shape than we inherited it. Key to making that happen is to finally solve the energy crisis America — and the world — currently faces. That begins with a vote and real action on an “all of the above” energy plan, not with a laundry list of new, costly Washington programs.

Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, is the House minority leader.
Also, today Obama (who is celebrating his 47th birthday) is releasing this new TV spot attacking McCain’s links to oil companies. Here is the script and the Obama release:

OBAMA TV AD, RELEASE, SCRIPT BACK-GROUND DATA:

CHICAGO – As Barack Obama announces his New Energy for America Plan today, the Obama campaign unveiled a new ad, one that illustrates the clear choice in this election between an approach that keeps us sending billions to oil companies and foreign governments and one that gives middle class families a $1,000 rebate funded by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Barack Obama believes it’s time we had an energy policy that works for the American people.

Today Senator Obama is outlining his New Energy for America plan in a speech in Lansing, Michigan. Obama’s plan will provide an immediate energy rebate to Americans struggling with high gas prices, create five million new green jobs, and eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil in 10 years.

See below for the transcript.

Visual

Open on driver pumping gas. Super:

$143 Billion in Profits

Over the Last Year

[Securities and Exchange Commission, 2007-2008]

Pan to picture of McCain. Super:

John McCain

$2 million in oil contributions

[Center for Responsive Politics; Washington Post, 7/27/08]

Super:

[Vote 331, 11/17/05; Associated Press, 6/17/08]

$4 billion New Tax Breaks for Oil

[Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08]

Cut to Bush

Pan out and reveal he’s standing next to McCain.

Cut to Obama. Supers:

$1,000 Energy Rebate

New shot of Barack.

Read the whole plan:

NewEnergyforAmerica.com

Approved by Barack Obama. Paid for by Obama for America.
Audio:

Anncr VO: Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets.

Now Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions.

Because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks.

After one president in the pocket of big oil… We can’t afford another.

Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate.

A president who’ll stand up for you.

Barack VO: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

MCCAIN RESPONSE TO OBAMA TV AD WITH BACKGROUND DATA:

Comment from McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:

“Barack Obama’s latest negative attack ad shows his celebrity is matched only by his hypocrisy, after all it was Senator Obama, not John McCain, who voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that was a sweetheart deal for oil companies. Also not mentioned is the $400,000 from big oil contributors that Barack Obama has already pocketed in this election.”

MYTH VS. FACT ON BARACK OBAMA’S “POCKET” AD

OBAMA AD MYTH: Barack Obama’s ad claims that the oil companies have given $2 million to John McCain.

FACT: No candidate takes contributions from oil companies since corporate contributions were prohibited by law more than a century ago.

· FactCheck.org: No Candidate Can “Take Money Directly From Oil Companies.” “It’s true that Obama doesn’t take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can’t: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.” (Justin Bank and Viveca Novak, “Obama’s Oil Spill,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html, 3/31/08)

· FactCheck.org: Barack Obama “Does Accept Donations From Oil Company Employees, And He Has Two Oilmen Working As ‘Bundlers’ For The Campaign, Collecting Donations.” “We faulted him earlier for a TV ad in which he claimed, ‘I don’t take money from oil companies.’ In fact, he does accept donations from oil company employees, and he has two oilmen working as ‘bundlers’ for the campaign, collecting donations.” (Brooks Jackson and Lori Robertson, “Oily Words,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/oily_words.html, 4/11/08)

FACT: Barack Obama has taken nearly $400,000 from oil and gas company executives and employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

· Barack Obama Has Received At Least $394,465 In Contributions From Employees Of Oil And Gas Companies. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/31/08)

OBAMA AD MYTH: John McCain has proposed additional tax breaks for oil companies.

FACT: Barack Obama’s claim that McCain favors a $4 billion tax cut for oil companies is totally misleading. John McCain has proposed cutting the tax rate on all American businesses across the board from 35 to 25 percent. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain favors no special deal for big oil or anyone.

· PolitiFact: Obama’s Statement “Barely True,” As Obama Is “Cherry-Picking” On Tax Cut, As “The Corporate Tax Rate Reduction Would Apply To ALL Corporations.” “Obama is cherry-picking here. The corporate tax rate reduction would apply to ALL corporations. Yes, Exxon Mobil, but also to Wal-Mart, General Motors and Home Depot, to name a few of the other Fortune 50 biggies. Even everybody’s favorite, Starbucks, would get the same tax break. Obama’s statement is technically true, but singling out oil companies suggests McCain has targeted oil companies for tax breaks. He hasn’t. We rate Obama’s statement, and the claim in the ad, Barely True.” (“Big Oil, Like All Companies, Would Get Tax Break,” PolitiFact.com, Accessed 8/4/08)

· John McCain Will Reduce The Federal Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent. ” A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.” (John McCain 2008 Official Website, “Jobs For America,” http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/taxes.htm, Accessed 8/3/08)

· Columbus Dispatch: John McCain Has “Proposed [A] Cut In The Corporate Tax Rate For All U.S. Companies.” “McCain’s economic plan includes a proposed cut in the corporate tax rate for all U.S. companies, not just oil companies.” (Jonathan Riskind, “Campaign Ad Watch,” The Columbus Dispatch, 8/2/08)

FACT: Barack Obama said that he wants to cut corporate taxes as well, which under his logic, would mean tax cuts for oil companies as well.

· In An Interview With The Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama Said That He Was Considering Lowering Corporate Taxes. “Sen. Obama’s nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn’t say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system.” (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for the 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, which contained billions in tax breaks for big oil.

· Barack Obama Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Yea)

· The 2005 Energy Bill Included $2.8 Billion In Subsidies For Oil And Natural Gas Production. “The conference agreement provides for $14.6 billion in tax breaks and credits between 2005 and 2015, including: — $2.8 billion for fossil fuel production…” (Toni Johnson, “CQ Bill Analysis: HR 6,” Congressional Quarterly’s “CQ Bill Analysis,” www.cq.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

· John McCain Voted Against The 2005 Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, McCain Voted Nay)

· John McCain Criticized The 2005 Energy Bill’s “Handouts To Big Business And Oil Companies,” Calling Them Irresponsible. McCain: “This bill does little to address the immediate energy crisis we face in this country. The handouts to big business and oil companies are irresponsible and will be disastrous for people of Arizona. I cannot in good conscience, vote to pass legislation that does not adequately address issues related to energy efficiency, security, and energy independence.” (Sen. John McCain, “McCain, Kyl Say No To Flawed Energy Bill,” Press Release, 6/28/05)

OBAMA AD MYTH: Barack Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax will pay for his energy plan.

FACT: Barack Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax is more economic quackery. History shows it only decreases production here at home and only make us more dependent on foreign oil.

· Barack Obama Is Proposing A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies That Could Raise Taxes By $15 Billion A Year. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

· The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax In The Past Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. “From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%.” (Salvatore Lazzari, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

· The Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Supply And Increased Demand For Imported Oil. “The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil as compared with dependence without a WPT.” (Salvatore Lazzari, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

· During The Eight-Year Imposition Of The Windfall Profits Tax, Domestic Oil Output Fell To Its Lowest Level In Two Decades. “Skeptics who want to check the data need to search no further than the eight-year 1980s run of the energy industry windfall profit tax. During that time, domestic oil output fell to its lowest level in two decades.” (Editorial, “A Bleak Future,” Investor’s Business Daily, 5/29/08)

· The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Prices At The Pump. “The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost.” (Editorial, “Windfall Accounting Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)

· Heritage’s Ben Lieberman: The Windfall Profits Tax Ended Up Harming Consumers With Increased Energy Prices. “The track record for punitive measures like the windfall profits tax shows that they usually harm consumers along with the targeted industry. … In the end, the tax hurt consumers more through higher energy prices than it helped them through higher tax revenues, which turned out to be far lower than originally predicted because the tax discouraged production.” (Ben Lieberman, “Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Is No Way To Reduce Gas Prices,” www.heritage.org, 3/1/06)

· Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) Said Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax Is Bad Energy Policy; It “Will Produce Less Energy And Not More.” MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “John Breaux, you are from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?” Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA): “Well a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profits tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those that consume it, we are never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more.” (MSNBC’s “MSNBC Live,” 6/9/08)

FACT: Barack Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax would not generate the revenue necessary to pay for his energy plan.

· Barack Obama’s Own Campaign Says That It Would Only Raise $15 Billion A Year. “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year’s profit levels, a campaign adviser said.” (Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit,” Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

· The Congressional Research Service Found That When The Windfall Profits Tax Was Implemented From 1980 To 1988, Gross Revenues Were Significantly Less Than Projected. “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected.” (Salvatore Lazzari, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)
Lastly, here is a summary of what Obama will outline today in his big energy speech:

OBAMA ENERGY PLAN SUMMARY:

Senator Barack Obama will outline his New Energy for America plan in a speech in Lansing, Michigan today. Obama’s plan will provide an immediate energy rebate to Americans struggling with high gas prices, create five million new green jobs, and eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil in 10 years.
See the details of the New Energy for America plan at: <http://www.NewEnergyforAmerica.com>

New Energy for America

Barack Obama’s comprehensive energy plan will help Americans cope with the energy crisis in the short term, and make the long-term investments we need to break our addiction to oil. While Barack Obama is offering real solutions, Senator McCain continues to be part of the problem.

Putting Struggling Families Ahead Of Profits For The Oil Companies

During his time in Congress, McCain hasn’t done much to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel mileage standards and opposed legislation to provide tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels, solar power, and wind power. And Senator McCain initially rejected the recent bipartisan energy compromise in the Senate because it would pay for clean energy by taking away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon-Mobil-a corporation that makes $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with $4-a-gallon gas. He not only wants them to keep every dime, hes actually proposing that we give the biggest oil companies $4 billion more in tax breaks-including $1.2 billion more for Exxon. And, just this morning, John McCain’s RNC sent out an email highlighting a defense of the oil industry’s profits in the Wall Street Journal. It’s no wonder he and the RNC raised more than two million dollars in campaign contributions from the oil industry just last month. It’s time for leadership on energy that puts struggling families ahead of profits for the oil companies.

Obama’s plan provides immediate relief to families, invests in a clean energy future that creates jobs, and brings us closer to energy independence:
· Provide immediate relief to American families facing pain at the pump. Obama will use some of the oil companies record profits to provide Americans with an Emergency Energy Rebate of $1,000 per family or $500 per individual. He’ll also release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to cut prices.
· Within ten years, save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined. To do this, Obama will increase fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles, work with the auto industry to put 1 million plug-in hybrid cars-cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon-on the road by 2015 and he’ll invest in the development of new fuels.
· Help create five million new jobs by investing in a clean energy future. Obama will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to develop clean energy technologies-from jumpstarting the commercialization of plug-in hybrids to advancing the next generation of biofuels. That will create 5 million jobs that can’t be outsourced. And Obama will make sure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer these new technologies.
· Diversify our energy sources by adopting an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama will require that 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. That standard will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs.
· Promote domestic energy production. Obama will take a use it or lose it approach to existing oil leases, requiring oil companies to develop the land they have-68 million acres that are currently going unused-or turn it over to another company. He’ll also work to improve access to untapped and unconventional domestic energy supplies.
· Tackle climate change. Obama will implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. And hell work with our allies abroad to develop effective emissions reduction efforts.

OBAMA’S PREPARED REMARKS SET FOR DELIVERY LATER TODAY IN LANSING, MICHIGAN:

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery

New Energy for America

Michigan State University

Monday, August 4th, 2008

Lansing, Michigan

We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we’ve seen in generations. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is placing our planet in peril. Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime. When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century. And central to all of these major challenges is the question of what we will do about our addiction to foreign oil.

Without a doubt, this addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced – from the gas prices that are wiping out your paychecks and straining businesses to the jobs that are disappearing from this state; from the instability and terror bred in the Middle East to the rising oceans and record drought and spreading famine that could engulf our planet.

It’s also a threat that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation, and who we will be. Will we be the generation that leaves our children a planet in decline, or a world that is clean, and safe, and thriving? Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world’s oil wells? Or will we control our own energy and our own destiny? Will America watch as the clean energy jobs and industries of the future flourish in countries like Spain, Japan, or Germany? Or will we create them here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most talented, productive workers in the world?

As Americans, we know the answers to these questions. We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing. Not when we purchase $700 million worth of oil every single day from some the world’s most unstable and hostile nations – Middle Eastern regimes that will control nearly all of the world’s oil by 2030. Not when the rapid growth of countries like China and India mean that we’re consuming more of this dwindling resource faster than we ever imagined. We know that we can’t sustain this kind of future.

But we also know that we’ve been talking about this issue for decades. We’ve heard promises about energy independence from every single President since Richard Nixon. We’ve heard talk about curbing the use of fossil fuels in State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973.

Back then, we imported about a third of our oil. Now, we import more than half. Back then, global warming was the theory of a few scientists. Now, it is a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting off dangerous weather patterns as we speak. Then, the technology and innovation to create new sources of clean, affordable, renewable energy was a generation away. Today, you can find it in the research labs of this university and in the design centers of this state’s legendary auto industry. It’s in the chemistry labs that are laying the building blocks for cheaper, more efficient solar panels, and it’s in the re-born factories that are churning out more wind turbines every day all across this country.

Despite all this, here we are, in another election, still talking about our oil addiction; still more dependent than ever. Why?

You won’t hear me say this too often, but I couldn’t agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, “Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.”

What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it’s important to remember that he’s been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he’s really promoting is more offshore drilling – a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide “psychological” relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world’s oil reserves. Three percent for a country that uses 25% of the world’s oil. Even Texas oilman Boone Pickens, who’s calling for major new investments in alternative energy, has said, “this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.”

Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy. But it is not the solution. It is a political answer of the sort Washington has given us for three decades.

There are genuine ways in which we can provide some short-term relief from high gas prices – relief to the mother who’s cutting down on groceries because of gas prices, or the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and can’t even afford to drive around and look for a new one. I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now.

I also believe that in the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven’t touched. And if they don’t, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will. We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico. We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.

But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away.

Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I’ve worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I’ve been calling for on this campaign. It’s a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy.

Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don’t believe that’s a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it’s necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good – particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

And yet, while the compromise is a good first step and a good faith effort, I believe that we must go even further, and here’s why – breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face. It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy. This transformation will be costly, and given the fiscal disaster we will inherit from the last Administration, it will likely require us to defer some other priorities.

It is also a transformation that will require more than just a few government programs. Energy independence will require an all-hands-on-deck effort from America – effort from our scientists and entrepreneurs; from businesses and from every American citizen. Factories will have to re-tool and re-design. Businesses will need to find ways to emit less carbon dioxide. All of us will need to buy more of the fuel-efficient cars built by this state, and find new ways to improve efficiency and save energy in our own homes and businesses.

This will not be easy. And it will not happen overnight. And if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

But I know we can do this. We can do this because we are Americans. We do the improbable. We beat great odds. We rally together to meet whatever challenge stands in our way. That’s what we’ve always done – and it’s what we must do now. For the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we must end the age of oil in our time.

Creating a new energy economy isn’t just a challenge to meet, it’s an opportunity to seize – an opportunity that will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs. Jobs that pay well. Jobs that can’t be outsourced. Good, union jobs. For a state that has lost so many and struggled so much in recent years, this is an opportunity to rebuild and revive your economy. As your wonderful Governor has said, “Any time you pick up a newspaper and see the terms ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming,’ just think: ‘jobs for Michigan.’” You are seeing the potential already. Already, there are 50,000 jobs in your clean energy sector and 300 companies. But now is the time to accelerate that growth, both here and across the nation.

If I am President, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal – in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. To do this, we will invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates five million new American jobs.

There are three major steps I will take to achieve this goal – steps that will yield real results by the end of my first term in office.

First, we will help states like Michigan build the fuel-efficient cars we need, and we will get one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years.

I know how much the auto industry and the auto workers of this state have struggled over the last decade or so. But I also know where I want the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow to be built – not in Japan, not in China, but right here in the United States of America. Right here in the state of Michigan.

We can do this. When I arrived in Washington, I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise the mileage standards in our cars for the first time in thirty years – a plan that won support from Democrats and Republicans who had never supported raising fuel standards before. I also led the bipartisan effort to invest in the technology necessary to build plug-in hybrid cars.

As President, I will accelerate those efforts to meet our urgent need. With technology we have on the shelf today, we will raise our fuel mileage standards four percent every year. We’ll invest more in the research and development of those plug-in hybrids, specifically focusing on the battery technology. We’ll leverage private sector funding to bring these cars directly to American consumers, and we’ll give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy these vehicles. But most importantly, I’ll provide $4 billion in loans and tax credits to American auto plants and manufacturers so that they can re-tool their factories and build these cars. That’s how we’ll not only protect our auto industry and our auto workers, but help them thrive in a 21st century economy.

What’s more, these efforts will lead to an explosion of innovation here in Michigan. At the turn of the 20th century, there were literally hundreds of car companies offering a wide choice of steam vehicles and gas engines. I believe we are entering a similar era of expanding consumer choices, from higher mileage cars, to new electric entrants like GM’s Volt, to flex fuel cars and trucks powered by biofuels and driven by Michigan innovation.

The second step I’ll take is to require that 10% of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term – more than double what we have now. To meet these goals, we will invest more in the clean technology research and development that’s occurring in labs and research facilities all across the country and right here at MSU, where you’re working with farm owners to develop this state’s wind potential and developing nanotechnology that will make solar cells cheaper.

I’ll also extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy like wind power, solar power, and geothermal energy. It was because of this credit that wind power grew 45% last year, the largest growth in history. Experts have said that Michigan has the second best potential for wind generation and production in the entire country. And as the world’s largest producer of the material that makes solar panels work, this tax credit would also help states like Michigan grow solar industries that are already creating hundreds of new jobs.

We’ll also invest federal resources, including tax incentives and government contracts, into developing next generation biofuels. By 2022, I will make it a goal to have 6 billion gallons of our fuel come from sustainable, affordable biofuels and we’ll make sure that we have the infrastructure to deliver that fuel in place. Here in Michigan, you’re actually a step ahead of the game with your first-ever commercial cellulosic ethanol plant, which will lead the way by turning wood into clean-burning fuel. It’s estimated that each new advanced biofuels plant can add up to 120 jobs, expand a local town’s tax base by $70 million per year, and boost local household income by $6.7 million annually.

In addition, we’ll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste. And we’ll invest in the technology that will allow us to use more coal, America’s most abundant energy source, with the goal of creating five “first-of-a-kind” coal-fired demonstration plants with carbon capture and sequestration.

Of course, too often, the problem is that all of this new energy technology never makes it out of the lab and onto the market because there’s too much risk and too much cost involved in starting commercial-scale clean energy businesses. So we will remove some of this cost and this risk by directing billions in loans and capital to entrepreneurs who are willing to create clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs right here in America.

As we develop new sources of energy and electricity, we will also need to modernize our national utility grid so that it’s accommodating to new sources of power, more efficient, and more reliable. That’s an investment that will also create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and one that I will make as President.

Finally, the third step I will take is to call on businesses, government, and the American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15% by the end of the next decade. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption – and it will save us $130 billion on our energy bills.

Since DuPont implemented an energy efficiency program in 1990, the company has significantly reduced its pollution and cut its energy bills by $3 billion. The state of California has implemented such a successful efficiency strategy that while electricity consumption grew 60% in this country over the last three decades, it didn’t grow at all in California.

There is no reason America can’t do the same thing. We will set a goal of making our new buildings 50% more efficient over the next four years. And we’ll follow the lead of California and change the way utilities make money so that their profits aren’t tied to how much energy we use, but how much energy we save.

In just ten years, these steps will produce enough renewable energy to replace all the oil we import from the Middle East. Along with the cap-and-trade program I’ve proposed, we will reduce our dangerous carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and slow the warming of our planet. And we will create five million new jobs in the process.

If these sound like far-off goals, just think about what we can do in the next few years. One million plug-in hybrid cars on the road. Doubling our energy from clean, renewable sources like wind power or solar power and 2 billion gallons of affordable biofuels. New buildings that 50% more energy efficient.

So there is a real choice in this election – a choice about what kind of future we want for this country and this planet.

Senator McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today. His plan invests very little in renewable sources of energy and he’s opposed helping the auto industry re-tool. Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, he sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he’s found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long. In fact, he raised more than one million dollars from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives. His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies. And even though he doesn’t want to spend much on renewable energy, he’s actually proposed giving $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America – including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil.

This is a corporation that just recorded the largest profit in the history of the United States. . This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more.

So make no mistake – the oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain, and if he wins, they will continue to cash in while our families and our economy suffer and our future is put in jeopardy.

Well that’s not the future I see for America. I will not pretend the goals I laid out today aren’t ambitious. They are. I will not pretend we can achieve them without cost, or without sacrifice, or without the contribution of almost every American citizen.

But I will say that these goals are possible. And I will say that achieving them is absolutely necessary if we want to keep America safe and prosperous in the 21st century.

I want you all to think for a minute about the next four years, and even the next ten years. We can continue down the path we’ve been traveling. We can keep making small, piece-meal investments in renewable energy and keep sending billions of our hard-earned dollars to oil company executives and Middle Eastern dictators. We can watch helplessly as the price of gas rises and falls because of some foreign crisis we have no control over, and uncover every single barrel of oil buried beneath this country only to realize that we don’t have enough for a few years, let alone a century. We can watch other countries create the industries and the jobs that will fuel our future, and leave our children a planet that grows more dangerous and unlivable by the day.

Or we can choose another future. We can decide that we will face the realities of the 21st century by building a 21st century economy. In just a few years, we can watch cars that run on a plug-in battery come off the same assembly lines that once produced the first Ford and the first Chrysler. We can see shuttered factories open their doors to manufacturers that sell wind turbines and solar panels that will power our homes and our businesses. We can watch as millions of new jobs with good pay and good benefits are created for American workers, and we can take pride as the technologies, and discoveries, and industries of the future flourish in the United States of America. We can lead the world, secure our nation, and meet our moral obligations to future generations.

This is the choice that we face in the months ahead. This is the challenge we must meet. This is the opportunity we must seize – and this may be our last chance to seize it.

And if it seems too difficult or improbable, I ask you to think about the struggles and the challenges that past generations have overcome. Think about how World War II forced us to transform a peacetime economy still climbing out of Depression into an Arsenal of Democracy that could wage war across three continents. And when President Roosevelt’s advisors informed him that his goals for wartime production were impossible to meet, he waved them off and said “believe me, the production people can do it if they really try.” And they did.

Think about when the scientists and engineers told John F. Kennedy that they had no idea how to put a man on the moon, he told them they would find a way. And we found one. Remember how we trained a generation for a new, industrial economy by building a nationwide system of public high schools; how we laid down railroad tracks and highways across an entire continent; how we pushed the boundaries of science and technology to unlock the very building blocks of human life.

I ask you to draw hope from the improbable progress this nation has made and look to the future with confidence that we too can meet the great test of our time. I ask you to join me, in November and in the years to come, to ensure that we will not only control our own energy, but once again control our own destiny, and forge a new and better future for the country that we love. Thank you.

END EXHAUSTIVE ENERGY POST…MORE LATER TODAY ON SOME OF THE FINE PRINT IN OBAMA’S PLAN.