6-18-08, 9:03 am

Drill. Drill. Drill. That's John McCain's solution to the U.S. (and global) energy crisis. While most of the world, including most Americans, want alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, John McCain wants to mire us in the sludge of the old oil economy.

Despite having recently insisted that he would not give special consideration to corporate interests, John McCain, in order to continue George W. Bush's policies, is proposing a massive tax cut for corporations and the very wealthy, including billions for Big Oil.

For the major oil corporations, this would be a solid return on their investment in John McCain. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has accepted over $1 million from the oil and gas industry. The Center for Progress Action Fund further indicates that he has taken about $4 million from the same energy corporations that funded Bush's campaigns, blocked alternative energies, and fueled sky-rocketing gas prices for eight straight years.

Additionally, at least 22 members of the McCain campaign, advisers, or top fundraisers for it are or have been lobbyists for Big Oil.

This marriage to Big Oil and to the energy donors who funded George W. Bush has not been an empty relationship. McCain has used his vote in the Senate to block or stall progressive legislation on energy and has proposed more corporate welfare and huge windfalls for Big Oil.

The Center for American Progress estimates that McCain's tax proposals would give the five richest U.S. oil companies tax breaks totaling $3.8 billion. He voted against a measure in 2005 that would have required the president to submit a plan to cut oil and gas imports by 40%. He has voted or opposed several bills that would have imposed a windfall profit tax on oil companies raking in huge profits over the past few years as gas prices have almost tripled since Bush took office in 2001. McCain also voted against imposing temporary taxes on oil companies to fund rebates for U.S. taxpayers.

Now McCain says the solution to the energy crisis is more drilling in the fragile environments offshore and in the arctic. But before he became the darling of oil company lobbyists and donors as a candidate for president, John McCain didn't support offshore drilling.

In was is becoming an unmistakable pattern of constant shifting, based either on confusion or political calculation (or what Republicans used to call flip-flopping), John McCain now supports policies on energy that he used to oppose. This week, in fact, McCain said, 'I certainly think there are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation. And I hope that we can take the first step, by lifting the moratoria in order to do so.'

But in 2003 and 2005, McCain, not so heavily influenced by oil company dollars, voted against offshore drilling, and against the agenda of the Bush administration which sought to lift the ban on offshore drilling. As the Houston Chronicle recently reported, McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling is directly related to his attempt to appease and win over the Texas oil companies that have backed George W. Bush. 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain,' the Chronicle stated this week, 'seeking to make amends with Texas energy producers who did not support him during the 2008 GOP primary season, said Monday he wants to end a federal moratorium on offshore drilling and create 'additional incentives' for states to approve new exploration ventures.'

In effect, in order to win donations and support, John McCain abandoned his former views on offshore drilling and has adopted George W. Bush's policy on the issue.

'It's disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past,' Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters, told the Washington Post.

Opponents of McCain's proposal have raised objections. Would lifting the ban on offshore drilling impact gas prices? The data suggests very little, if any. McCain insists that opening new drilling would increase supply and lower prices. Aside from the fact that such an idea would increasingly tie the U.S. economy to oil when it's time to move on and could threaten ocean and shore environments, the claim is misleading, if not an outright lie.

Some holes in McCain's argument:

• Many countries that have fewer limits on offshore drilling also have higher gas prices, including Japan, Canada, the UK, Germany, and Norway.

• On top of this, there are millions of offshore acres that have already been made available for drilling but have not been exploited yet. So why lift a ban on new drilling when old drilling hasn't been fully tapped? Clearly, the ban on new drilling is not the cause of low supply.

• Ending the ban on offshore drilling, will not impact world oil prices on a large enough scale to reduce prices. Indeed, every oil dependent economy, which McCain seems intent on perpetuating here, is also dependent on speculative markets elsewhere.

States that have already been impacted by offshore drilling, like Florida, are strongly opposed to the idea because of the negative affect on tourism and the environment. In fact, according to Florida political strategists, no politician has won a statewide election there when campaigning on support for lifting the ban on offshore drilling as McCain now does. In his campaign for governor, Florida Gov. Charles Crist (R), considered by many to be a frontrunner for McCain's VP, said of lifting the ban on offshore drilling, 'I don't think it's good for Florida,' a position he reiterated just last week, according to the St. Petersburg Times.

Update (12:10 pm)

AP reported just one hour ago that Gov. Crist, too, has flip-flopped on offshore drilling and now supports it.

--Reach Joel Wendland at