Grading PolitiFact: McCain and offshore drilling

The PolitiFact fact checkers continue their clowning ways, this time via an uncharitable analysis of Senator John McCain's position on drilling for oil and gas on the outer continental shelf.

SUMMARY: McCain uses today's high gas prices as the foundation for his pitch to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling. But while there may be many strong arguments for offshore drilling, oil experts and economists say relieving today's fuel prices isn't one of them.

Did McCain argue that offshore drilling would lower today's prices at the pump in the short term? Here's how PolitiFact's Robert Farley marshals the evidence:

When Sen. John McCain dropped his energy bombshell, calling for the federal government to lift restrictions on offshore drilling for oil, he began by noting the high price of gas these days.

“With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians,” McCain said in a speech on Tuesday in the oil hub of Houston, Texas.

“As a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now,” McCain said, “and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.”

Did McCain really begin dealing with the drilling issue by noting the high price of gas? One wonders how Farley calculated the beginning. The text of McCain's speech differs in some minor respects from the speech he delivered (which is normal), but McCain touches on offshore drilling in the 20th paragraph, and only after bemoaning shrinking domestic oil production (paragraph 17) along with the self-imposed hampering of that production (paragraph 19). McCain mentions the present price of oil in paragraph 25, and Farley takes that as an implicit argument that drilling on the outer continental shelf will bring down gasoline prices with some degree of immediacy.

The context of McCain's speech, however, shows that Farley is incorrect.

Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a "refuge" for a reason.

But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.

We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our resources where they are -- even as we press on with new and cleaner sources of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I'll be offering a vision that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life.

Contrary to Farley's interpretation, McCain has made a broad case for increasing domestic production. Read reasonably, McCain is not saying that the price of gas will fall because of domestic drilling. He is saying that the current price of gas rightly justifies setting aside the moratorium now simply because the U.S. is going to need the resources later on in order to help keep oil prices reasonable. Farley obscures the intent of McCain's use of "short term" by omitting McCain's mention of an eventual transition away from oil-based energy (see the last paragraph quoted from McCain, above). Farley misleadingly omits that part and juxtaposes the mention of the present price of gas with the "short term" benefits of drilling, as if McCain is suggesting that such drilling will drop gas prices in the near term.

Back to Farley and PolitiFact:

The political momentum for offshore drilling has always risen and fallen along with gas prices. But while there are strong arguments that can be made in favor of offshore drilling, reducing the cost of gas “here and now” isn’t one of them, according to oil experts and economists - many of whom support the plan.

Contrary to what Farley implies above, McCain never suggested that drilling would reduce gas prices in the near term. McCain's statement regarding the "here and now" addressed the fact that the U.S. has considerable oil reserves along with policies in place that prevent their exploitation--again addressed in the fourth paragraph I quoted from the prepared text of McCain's speech.

Much of the remainder of Farley's piece consists of interview material apparently based on questions regarding a proposition that McCain did not make, namely that drilling would soon bring down the price of gasoline at the pump in the near term.

In fairness, McCain made many arguments when making his case for lifting offshore drilling bans - including enhanced national security. But he left little doubt that the fundamental impetus was to provide some relief to the high prices Americans are paying for gas “here and now.” And that argument holds little weight. We rule it False.

Farley wouldn't know "fair" if he was stuck for 12 hours in a dunking booth along Midway. If Farley had seriously acknowledged the entirety of McCain's argument than he could not have ruled on it as he did.

McCain gets the last word:

We cannot allow the world's greatest democracy to be complicit in such corruption and injustice. America's most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power -- so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy.

***

Farley also enlists government reports to imply that even over the long term domestic drilling in currently forbidden areas would make little difference in the price at the pump. I'll delay evaluation of that part of the entry until later.