Offshore drilling coverage roundup

Some big news last night: Obama announced his administration will lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, with various caveats. Some reactions:

• The New York Times: "The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation."
• Kate Shepherd: "It's an approach he's maintained as president, again calling for expanded drilling in his State of the Union address in January."
• Andy Revkin: "...Peter Maass, no friend of big oil, said here last year that it was more ethical to drill in United States waters than to continue to outsource our environmental problems."
• The New Republic: "Still, it seems bizarre to fork over this bargaining chip before the bill is even released. What kind of negotiating tactic is that?"
• Env-Econ (blog): "Thank goodness they aren't saying it will reduce prices."
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): “I commend Secretary Salazar for proposing a plan that makes available for leasing much of the potential offshore oil and gas resources that the Federal government owns."
• Ed Markey (D-MA): "President Obama’s announcement today demonstrates his commitment to a comprehensive view of our energy policy."
• Mike Pence (R-IN): “The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan. "
• Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): "...good first step, but there is more that must be done to make this proposal meaningful and the game-changer we want it to become."
• Scientific American (Sept. 2008): "Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market."
• Jesse Jenkins (July 2008) : "What we need is a new American energy agenda that secures our energy freedom."

Serious thoughts from serious people...perhaps with the exception of Mike Pence. I am personally torn between claims that offshore drilling will not result in nearly enough to move the US significantly towards energy independence; and the argument that, with out current domestic production of ~5M bbl/day and consumption of ~20M bbl/day, we are outsourcing environmental degradation and blessing countries hostile to the United States with $700 billion every year in revenues. More from Revkin's interview with Peter Maass, a journalist I take very seriously:

So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that opening up ANWR and the coasts of Florida and California would be a big deal in terms of addressing the oil-supply problem we face. It’s useful, but a very small wedge. My main reasoning is that there’s no justification, other than selfishness, for tearing up the rest of the world’s habitats in our search for oil and gas while preserving our own.

In political terms, I am inclined to agree with Dave Roberts over at Grist, who tweeted this morning, "If I'm a Republican who wants offshore drilling but doesn't want a climate bill, what incentive do I have to change my position?" But I also try to stop short of making strong political calculations, since I remain convinced that the Obama administration is more familiar with its political realities than I am.

All in all, the looming increase in offshore oil exploration/extraction seems like a disappointing political necessity to me. Oil will remain a major part of our energy input for decades to come, and the less we fund autocrats in Nigeria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the better. Keeping extraction royalties at home is another clear benefit. I only hope that Obama didn't give away the farm in negotiating an effective climate-energy bill, and that any increase in domestic oil revenues doesn't discourage our politicians from investing in the still much-needed renewables.

Update: Daily Kos has a substantively comprehensive (and pessimistic) take on the issue here.