Did Paul Ryan actually float the idea of using government spending to kill an industry that bankrolls his party? (Photo credit: Flickr user JD Hancock)
In 2008, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan gave a floor speech in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANRW). He boasted that this could generate $191 billion in revenue. What did he want to do with this revenue? He suggested that it could be used for a new “Manhattan Project” to put “fossil fuels out of business”:
RYAN: If we just did ANWR, according to the CRS, the federal government would see a surge in revenues. No new taxes, not even cutting spending. $191 billion. $191 billion, according to the CRS from just doing ANWR, that’s the smallest of all our reserves. Think of all we could do with $191 billion. We could cut the deficit, we could create a Manhattan project for research and development of renewables to put fossil fuels out of business. But no, we’re doing none of this.
Watch Ryan’s remarks (the pertinent section starts at around 0:49):
Drilling in ANWR is not actually a good way to create revenue or save the earth. It would destroy a precious environmental reserve and it would take more than a decade to produce oil that would do little to dislodge our addiction to fossil fuels.
Yet it’s interesting that Ryan would endorse the idea of spending up to $191 billion on a Manhattan Project (referencing the public works project that created nuclear technology) Ai??to put “fossil fuels out of business.” Those aren’t exactly the words you’d expect from an Ayn Rand acolyte like Ryan. But now he’s a standard-bearer for a party that relies on Big Oil for its electoral success.Ai??In fact, “oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle,Ai??75 percentAi??of which has gone to Republicans.”Ai??Ai??So it’s unlikely that we’ll see him bring up this good idea again — but the media should ask him about it regardless.
Ryan’s stand is so ludicrous it makes me want to belly laugh! Destroying the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drill for oil so that we can end fossil fuel consumption is such a contradiction in efforts that my mind boggles. Even funnier is his statement in light of the funding of his campaign by Big Oil … is he masochistic in addition to being stupid?
Of course,what Ryan was r e a l l y doing is trying to convince people to drill in the Reserve so that his Big Oil friends can get wealthier at the cost of all the wildlife and wilderness values of the north coast of Alaska. He was lying by hinting at investment in fossil fuel reduction.
Regarding fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy, here is what we really ought to do instead of some “Manhattan Project”:
1) STOP IMMEDIATELY ALL NEW DRILLING LEASES for oil and gas, whether under the ocean or on land, and ALL NEW coal mining operations of whatever type and ALL NEW nuclear plant construction on a PERMANENT basis. What the oil, gas and coal titans have now is as much as they should ever have or need. (They certainly made exorbitant profits off their current holdings; there is no need to expand at the cost of our planet.) I would also stop construction of any NEW dams.
2) Fund research and development of solar, wind, wave and other energy technologies that prove to be non-polluting and not dangerous, including training for jobs in these technologies.
3) Seriously ENFORCE and STRENGTHEN all safety regulations and requirements at each and every utility company, power plant, extraction site, pipeline, etc.
4) Make British Petroleum pay the FULL COSTS of the Deepwater Horizon disaster clean-up and REPARATIONS to all communities in the United States and other Gulf nations that were in any way damaged sufficient to restore those communities to viability. And, in the future, were any other “accidents” to occur, hold those corporations morally and economically responsible for repair of all harm.
5) Mount an “energy efficiency campaign” through the media (television, internet, radio, newspapers and magazines, public speeches) to motivate the public into practices that save energy, such as proper insulation of homes, habits of voluntarily limiting energy use, using public rather than private transportation, etc. Such campaign must include incentives to be energy efficient.
6) Ration energy both to individuals and to businesses: so much allotment per month and no more. Any overage would precipitate a brown-out to that individual or industry.
7) As the CLEAN technologies develop, provide incentives both to businesses and to individuals to convert from whatever polluting energy source used to a clean one — including increases in energy allotments and assistance with setup costs. Simultaneously, I believe government should set deadlines for such conversions, after which ALL polluting energy sources would be COMPLETELY CUT OFF.
8) Only if necessary, would I nationalize energy production and distribution. If corporations successfully fought the above measures, I would be in favor of nationalization.
Yes, such measures as I believe are necessary will entail profound changes in Americans’ lifestyles. For one thing, individuals would have to choose carefully how they spend those energy allotments. Shall I use my energy to play a video game or cook supper for my family? Shall I work at a job to which I must commute by car or work in my neighborhood where I can walk or bike or bus? For entertainment, shall I take a walk with my friends through the park or enjoy rides at an amusement park? Businesses would have to decide how many hours they operate to stay within energy allotments, how many items they can produce for consumption on their allotments, what activities that require energy are ACTUALLY necessary for operation. For the last few centuries, people in Western civilizations have operated on a premise of unlimited growth that has become a veritable mania: individuals can and should consume-consume-consume every more materials, improve-improve-improve their status (called upward mobility) with bigger homes and bigger incomes and shinier cars, etc.; corporations must increase profits every quarter and get huger every year, eventually going global; nations must continually increase their GNP and influence over other nations. Unlimited materialistic expansion is neither a real nor worthwhile goal because this is what is exhausting our resources and causing the disparities among people that lead to the resentments, anger, misery and violence we experience daily. Under capitalism, for instance, achieving a profit entails one gaining MORE value from an enterprise than the value one invests in that enterprise. So, corporations strive to keep overhead down and prices up. But that means corporations must exploit the productivity of their workers by paying them less than the value of the products they create (investment) and by acquiring materials at less value than the products they furnish. Inequity is at the heart of the capitalist scheme.
A change in perception is needed around the world. Individuals need to become content with “enough” instead of anxious for “more” with regards to material resources. To explain this idea better, I will use specific examples to clarify. I currently live in a 1963 five-room mobile home with my daughter; it is sufficient to provide us shelter, so it is “enough.” Last night we each ate a ham and cheese sandwich and yogurt and that was “enough” to satisfy hunger, and we have on hand food for many other days. We have one automobile; that is “enough” for our transportation needs. Recently, friends suggested that we buy a bigger house that would add $600 a month to our bills, which we could pay but decided against because it would actually be more than “enough.” Someone else might actually need that home. (In 1992-93, we were homeless and understand what a nightmare that is.) We had options of eating more food last night, but that would have been more than we required. A second car would definitely be more than we need. Possessing “more” or “newer” does not make us “better.” Possessing “more” might actually deprive another person of “enough.” In fact, on the national and international levels, this is exactly what is happening among groups and countries.
Enterprises do not need to constantly grow either. The whole “too big to fail” argument is frankly bullshit. Sure, such failures would affect millions of people but the frauds that were perpetrated to become so enormous also affected millions of people — in adverse ways. And what resulted from those bailouts? The CEOs of those banks and companies received even bigger bonuses and did not spend a dime to repair the harms they had done. Unemployment would decrease if “small” enterprises were allowed to thrive in local areas instead of being smashed through competition with “national” or “multinational” monopolies.
On the other hand, unlimited spiritual and intellectual growth would harm no one and probably help everyone to achieve love and happiness. What feels better than being genuinely appreciated by another person? Have you ever been thrilled when a bejeweled hummingbird perched on your shoe? Or when a magnificent mountain range loomed on the horizon? Or a vermillion sunset tinged the ripples of a lake? Or a child smiled at you? Have you had that eureka moment during a conversation with colleagues? Or when reading a textbook? Or when noticing a cuttlefish lifting its tentacles to mimic stripes on a wall? How good did you feel if you walked hand-in-hand with a lover under autumn leaves? Or helped an injured person towards recovery? Or hugged an aging relative? Or opened a student’s mind to the wonders of this universe? All these things could be enjoyed and shared unto infinity without harm.