Energy dominates Senate debate
Schaffer, Udall differ on methods
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published July 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Javier Manzano / The Rocky
Colorado 2031 show host Ron Zappolo, center, breaks off the debate at the end of a taped show with the two U.S. Senate candidates, Republican Bob Schaffer, left, and Democrat Mark Udall, right.
Democrat Mark Udall defended his alternative-energy plan in a U.S. Senate debate Monday, despite recent polls showing that Republicans are scoring points with calls to increase domestic drilling.
While Republican Bob Schaffer pushed for oil exploration and increased use of renewable energy, Udall said the country needs a new energy policy focused on renewables, nuclear plants and alternative-fuel cars. The Eldorado Springs congressman blasted Schaffer for working for an oil company and labeled him a "Johnny-come-lately" to the renewable energy bandwagon.
The debate was taped for broadcast Sunday on Fox 31.
Schaffer, a former congressman from Fort Collins, defended his record on renewable energy. Although the Congressional Record noted him discussing the topic only once on the House floor in six years, he talked about it more often outside Congress, Schaffer said.
The Republican nominee also continued to advocate expanded drilling in coastal waters and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to free the nation from dependence on foreign oil.
Udall, who has seen a 10-point lead in polls slip to a tie in the past month, fought back by saying the tax breaks Schaffer and others gave to big oil have not stopped - and may even have hastened - recent gasoline price increases.
The Democratic nominee turned most questions, including one on the Iraq war, to a discussion on energy and said afterward that he won't change the subject no matter what polls say.
"People are feeling the pain, and I've got a plan to respond to that pain," Udall said of high gas prices. "This has been the focus of all 12 years I've been in office. It's been the focus of my career. Why wouldn't I talk about it?"
In discussing the war, Udall said he has gone twice to Iraq to visit troops while Schaffer has gone only once, to secure an oil deal for his company with the Kurds against State Department wishes.
Schaffer responded that Udall was "untruthful" about the trip to Kurdistan in 2006 to introduce Aspect Energy officials to the Kurds. Unlike Udall, Schaffer said, he supports troop withdrawal based on a checklist of achievements rather than an arbitrary timetable.
Schaffer, meanwhile, accused congressional Democrats of being more concerned with voting to recess at the end of the week than passing an energy plan. Agreeing to Schaffer's challenge, Udall said he would not vote for a recess until an energy bill comes up.
The debate was the second joint appearance by the men looking to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Wayne Allard.
Want to see the debate?
Watch Rep. Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer duke it out.
* When: 10 p.m. Sunday
* Where: Fox 31
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 29, 2008
7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
rckymnthoss writes:
Udall would rather have us buying $5 gas from Saudi Arabia and enriching wealth Middle Eastern oilmen than have America be independent. There's no new nuclear plant going up in Colo, so what are we supposed to do in the mean time, Mark?
Also, I would like to applaud Bob Schaffer for his hard work in getting more wind turbines constructed so we can actually move toward alternative energy sources.
Schaffer has actually done more on this matter in the last few years than Udall has done in his 12 years in Congress. How many wind turbines have you got built Mark? Zero.
July 29, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Media bias scorecard on this article:
7 paragraphs favorable to Udall
3 paragraphs favorable to Schaffer
Great job, Ed Sealover, nice to know you're capable of writing a fair, balanced debate review. Are you practicing for your next job in media communications for the Democratic Party, or did you come to the RMN from there?
These lefty media types just can't contain themselves to fawning over The Chosen One, Obama Messiah - they've got to help all the Dems up and down the ticket. It makes me sick.
July 29, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
Mikeyg,
If that makes you sick, wait until election day. You may never recover.
July 29, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
bill123 writes:
Seems there are 2 sides to this energy debate. On one side we have "Boulder" Udall and his fellow greenies saying No to offshore drilling, no to ANWR drilling, slowing down ALL drilling, no to researching oil shale and oil sands, no to Nukes, No to coal --- the only thing they even consider is solar and wind -(am I missing other sources for generating electricity ?) Do they realize you would need to cover about 1/3 of the State in Windmills and solar panels to even come close to supplying our needs - Boy what a policy...
On the other side we have the Republicans and Schaffer saying Yes to drilling, yes to ANWR - yes to offshore drilling, yes to Oil shale and oil sand research, yes to Nukes and YES TO RENEWABLES--- WIND AND SOLAR - -
More research on renewables.. What a concept - we need to use what we have while researching and bringing on renewables in a balanced way to not destroy our economy or standard of living - (oh wait a minute that is the greeenies goal- I forgot)
Coloradoans are smarter than that.
July 29, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
rckymnthoss writes:
Mikeyg,
To further prove your point, Schaffer was only quoted once -- by that I mean only 1 word spoken by Schaffer was printed by the reporter.
Udall, on the other hand, was given a four sentence quote that included, count'em, 41 words.
But I'm sure the reporter would say he wasn't biased.
July 29, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Udall and the rest of the Democrats on Capitol Hill don't care about the energy problems in this country!
July 29, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
the answer is simple, get government out of the way, find a way to keep the environmental lawsuits from stopping growth, and let us get what we need. You could start by stripping the EPA of its fascist power. The answer is less government, less taxes more drilling equals more independence. Its the lefty environmental elitists in government that have created this artificial shortage period. It's time to stop the nonsense people. The ONE thing the Fed government can do is to stop spending and work on a stronger dollar, the State should simply stand down and rescind the restrictive policies they've enacted that thwart development...and to this group so keen on pulling back the oil subsidy, fine, at the same time we'll pull back the 20.5 cents a gallon tax we pay at the pump.
July 29, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Oh Froward- did you notice how when Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling the price in gas dropped? Gas prices will go down if we start the process of drilling now, if we wait any longer we'll be paying $10 a gallon. I'm all for renewable energy, but the development of renewables is taking time and could take the same amount of time as drilling will. The cost of building a wind farm is far more expensive then building a oil rig in the GOM or in the OCS.
What I don't understand is, why isn't Do as I say, not as I do Nancy Pelosi denying the American people? New reports this morning state that 73% of the American people support drilling in this country. Why won't Pelosi allow a vote? What is she so affaird of?
July 29, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
bill123 writes:
OMG Froward69-
Classic liberal ignorance-- the big coverup - "oil companies cap oil wells to "save' the oil for bigger profits" - guess what oil prices are at ALL TIME HIGHS - no one is not bringing on oil if it is economic.. and now the Pelosi/Salazar bunch is saying - followed by minions like you_ oil companies don't drill their leases" Geezz - how dumb- these leases go to the highest bidder - generating millions of dollars to the Fed and State - then if they don't drill the leases they EXPIRE and go back into the open market. There are hundreds of small oil and gas companies who need the production and would not even think about not producing the oil/gas they find, and they can't afford to buy leases and NOT drill them... that is a stupid argument... There are leases that are not drilled - hey here is a concept - there is not oil and gas under every lease - and it costs millions to drill wells.
Oh and economics 101 - supply and demand - if there is more oil that increases supply - right now the demand is greater than the supply - SO INCREASE SUPPLY..
So applaud Udall all you want - and NO ONE is saying we should not be gearing towards renewables - But to think like Boulder Udall does that we are at a place in time where we say NO TO ALL NON_RENEWABLES is just plain idiotic..
Coloradoans (most anyway) are smarter than that...
Electric cars are comming - more Hybrids - more research and the transition to renewables is comming and will happen over the next 10 -30 years -- But algore says the world will be destroyed by then- elitist "do as i say not as i do" snobs are NOT good for the U.S.
July 29, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Udall is like a lot of other Democrats, more out of touch with America and her citizens' needs than the Republicans. Maybe we can cap all the hot air coming out of Udall's mouth and that alone might create a new source of renewable energy. Why the Democrats are against drilling off shore is not surprising, but it's a shame they don't have much foresight. In the meantime, Russia is going to the Arctic circle and claiming areas for drilling themselves. Guess they'll take all the oil and maybe we can start buying from them too?
Pelosi is an idiot, but she's from California so it makes sense. She's against anything that may be a Republican idea, and she's the most partisan politician in Washington. She doesn't represent American interests, just whatever will get her the vote from Californians....... probably the state wasting as much energy (or more) as any other state in the Union.
July 29, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Froward- They are operating on existing wells, however that takes time and not to mention the lawsuits that follow when an oil company is granted a lease. Many of the wells that oil companies have are dry wells and are there for useless.
If Governor Ritter were to open up his eyes and realize that oil companies are using technology that will not harm the environment, just imagne how much the Colorado economy would grow from the oil shale on the western slope.
Republicans are for renewable resources, I being one of them, but I also realize that we have the resources here and think that we should use them. Oil and natural gas will never go away, they will always be needed one way or the other.
As for oil speculators, Southwest Airlines speculated on oil prices and locked in their supply, hence why they're racking in the big bucks on cheap flights. I don't fly Southwest, I'm a hometown airline girl (Frontier) but economically speaking, Southwest did a smart thing.
July 29, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Tbone and Froward- Do realize how long it takes to actually start drilling? First, you have to be granted a drilling permit. Second, there could be legal issues ie. lawsuits by environmentalist that can prevent the start of exploration. Third, you have to find the oil through seismic data. Forth, you have to drill.
Again, a lot of those areas where companies have leases have proven not to contain anything...
July 29, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
engineer writes:
I would LOVE to hear a plausible counter-arguement to the following point:
Not allowing drilling in the US does not stop environmental degredation, it simply exports it to other countries with little or no environmental controls. We need to drill in the US to ensure the oil we use is drilled and extracted under the strictest of environmental controls, and not from areas such as Niger and Siberia (which I have seen photos of, horrible destruction) where the is NO control.
Bottom line - we need to be responsible for what we use, simply exporting environmental degredation to third world countries does nothing to protect the environment as a whole.
So anti-drilling crowd, my stance is that we should drill not to reduce costs at the pump, but simply to deal with the effects of what we do, instead of irresponsibly shifting it to third world countries.
I am yet to hear ONE single effective counter-arguement. Froward, you going to step up?
July 29, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
tibercio writes:
Wind and solar are the only sources of energy that will never go away. Bonus: Colorado has wind and sun in spades. Big reason Ritter won the governorship was his pledge to help Colorado be a leader in the "new energy economy." Rural plains voters like the $3k/windmill/year, Front Range citizens like having a brown cloud a little less brown. Udall is right to help in this effort (which does not even mention global warming).
The main reason all of our natural gas bills have more than doubled since 2000 is Cheney/Bush and Congressional Republicans -- including Coloradans like Big-Oil Bob Schaffer -- have pushed to have the Colorado and Wyoming natural gas pipelines hooked up to the national grid, so that instead of having a greater supply than demand, we now export much of our natural gas to Chicago, Texas and California, and we Coloradans are now paying the rates of those other states. Thank you, Republicans! www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8645901
Record gas prices, record oil industry profits, record war-faring in the oil fields of the Middle East, record American deaths in those oil fields. And all most of the myopic, misguided commenters here can come up with is: Drill more oil!!! News flash: We can not drill our way out of this. America has about 3% of global oil reserves and uses about 25% of global oil. Do the math. We could drill in every national park, ruin every beach, poison all the water in Colorado and not only would we still make nary a dent in that equation, but the high prices would remain high and the world would continue getting hotter. It's okay to start thinking of 21st century technologies -- we're already 8 years into it.
July 29, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Froward- Good for your cousin. However, I disagree with your statement on blowing smoke...oil companies only make 8 cents on the gallon, whereas the US government makes a tad bit more than that on the price of gas. This is probably the reason why Nancy Pelosi is so afraid to call a vote on the matter, she afraid of losing money.
Capped wells have been capped for a reason, either the well is dry and filled with concrete (cannot be drilled again) or the well has collasped on itself. Oil companies can leave a well that may potentially have some oil in it, but not enough for them to produce in to enough barrels of oil.
The people blowing smoke are the people sitting up on Capitol Hill ignoring the American public ie. the majority party, 9% approval rating!!! 73% of Americans want to drill here.
July 29, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
danirobi, you're right. Unfortunately the spin is on by those who only see what they want to see, not the truth.
tibercio's last post is why I see some people as being hopeless when it comes to the truth. Ritter and wind and solar energy...... nice idea but impractical for the number of people living in Colorado. At least as a sole source of our power needs. How many solar panels and windmills would have to be placed in the state, and what about those areas deemed environmentally sensitive? Why is it bad if a pipeline affects the wildlife habitat, but more pervasive solar panels and windmills are just fine? I also know tibercio is giving too much credit to Republicans for the natural gas (which, by the way, isn't controlled by "big oil" and tibercio, it isn't the fuel you put in your car..... you know that, right?) pipeline going out of Colorado.
tibercio, how do you feel about Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy having a meltdown when plans were introduced to place windmills on Cape Hyannis in Massachussetts? He freaked out and said it would ruin his view when he's out sailing on the water. He, like several other Democrats, aren't really interested in producing energy unless it fits their version of it.
July 29, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
tibercio writes:
I think all the Cape Codders who opposed the Cape Wind project are fools, if you must know.
This is how intelligent plans for our future are disregarded by the lemmingry, to wit: the sun doesn't shine 24/7 and neither does the wind blow all the time, ergo let's give it up! Wind and solar and a piece of the pie of things we must do -- there is no one single magic bullet. Wind and solar are placed responsibly -- not, not the original windmills in Altamont Pass in California, but yes to the latest generation of sitings and windmills. And, of note, all the ranchers and farmers out east have no problems with the windmills, the same of which cannot be said of everyone who lives out around Rifle, whose hunting and fishing and recreation lands are blown, whose water quality is blown, whose cancer incidences will bloom. And, how much money do you want to place on the 4,000 US military members who've been killed in the Iraq oil fields? Last week the figure was put at $6 million per human life. Do the math. Of course this does not even count the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also killed in our attempt to take over their oil fields for the western oil industry, thankyouverymuch.
To everyone who whines about the high price of gas, do you realize how much higher it is in the rest of the world, and how much higher it really is here in the US, if you factor in the billions in direct taxpayer subsidies we dole out to this, the richest industry on the planet at a time of record profits (I think the last figure I saw was $18 billion). Plus, the hundreds of billions we spend on the 72+ military bases in the Middle East, that's all about oil. You know that by now, right?
July 29, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
engineer writes:
Still waiting for a plausible counter-argument to my post above. Been waiting for weeks, no one will step up...
August 1, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
bwest writes:
Udall's new energy policy will take years to complete. But while this is happening, we still need oil. Why can't they endorse both policies? Search for oil within the United States while coming up with better energy and oil alternatives. On the side note, has anyone heard the latest news on Udall's stance on EFCA? Or the Employee Free Choice Act, which allows union organizers to openly collect signatures from employees without a private-ballot voting system?