You don’t have to be a detective to find Dirty Energy’s oily fingerprints all over our current national political debate on expanding oil drilling. But it helps that there are still investigative journalists who look into these things every now and again.

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act” by a 266 to 149 margin. Today, the Huffington Post reveals that the sponsors of the bill, which would expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and open the coastal waters of Virginia for exploration, received $8.8 million in contributions from Big Oil.

I’m sure you join me in believing fervently that the industry’s millions have absolutely zero influence on the motivations of the bill’s sponsors. Not.

According to the Huffington Post:

“The oil and gas industry is one of the most politically active interests groups in Washington. In the 2010 mid-term election cycle alone it spent $30 million in contributions to federal candidates… And those figures pale in comparison to the amount the industry spends on lobbying. In 2010, oil and gas companies spent just under $146 million employing the service of nearly 800 lobbyists.”

The “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act” passed by Big Oil’s friends in the House is just the first of a series of largely GOP-supported, fast-tracked bills intended to loosen restrictions on offshore drilling. The three bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April.

Closer to home for Californians, one of the next steps is to put to a House vote HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” which would require that each five-year offshore leasing plan include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. Every five years, the federal government would be required to lease at least 50% of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast.

It’s been called the “Law of Eventually Drilling Everything” by Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. A vote on the House floor is expected next week.

According to California Watch:

“Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling. And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter. ‘Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,’ said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast. This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.'”

Considerations like the clear environmental hazards of drilling, and risks to the public’s health and safety. It was only a year ago that the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating one of the largest environmental catastrophes ever.

It’s mind-boggling that in light of that very recent disaster, federal lawmakers including those that represent California are considering encouraging more drilling off the West Coast.

California Congressman Jeff Dunham claims that he supports the series of bills allowing more drilling in part because domestic energy production will “bring relief at the pump.” Rep. Denham is joined by fellow Californians Rep. Tom McClintock and Rep. Jim Costa in supporting the bills.

But a study conducted by the federal government’s Energy Information Administration showed that new drilling off the country’s coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents. (Oops! So much for that argument.)

Compare those pennies to the millions of dollars in contributions being doled out by the oil industry, and suddenly certain lawmakers’ urgent calls to allow more risky offshore drilling makes more than enough “cents.”

Speaking of something that makes no sense (or cents) for us taxpayers… Americans are still paying for billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks, despite record oil industry profits and despite the fact that a recent poll found that 74 percent of voters support eliminating tax breaks to oil companies.

According to the national League of Conservation Voters, ExxonMobil recently announced nearly $11 billion in profits; BP announced $5.5 billion profits; and ConocoPhillips announced $3 billion in profits-all in the first three months of 2011. Obscene is the word that comes to mind.

Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring to the floor a bill, authored by Senator Max Baucus, that would end the billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil producers–estimated to cost taxpayers $5 billion each year–and increase breaks for clean-energy producers.

As national League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski says of the handouts to Big Oil:

“And as ire over gas prices grows, so will frustration with Members of Congress who remain close to Big Oil. So while Speaker Boehner and others may be confused about where they stand on the issue, the choice is clear: end the Big Oil handouts now or see what the voters think in eighteen months.”

California voters made it clear what they thought of Dirty Energy’s election meddling last fall by overwhelmingly defeating an oil industry-funded attempt to repeal our landmark clean energy law. I expect we’ll once again make it clear in the 2012 elections what we think of elected officials covered in Big Oil’s fingerprints–in other words, those who put oil industry profits above the needs of the Californians they claim to represent.

Exactly six months ago, I entered Congress promising to protect this great nation from threats foreign and domestic. Today I’m fulfilling that promise. A bill I introduced today would create a permanent ban on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling from platforms on the West Coast. We can’t change the past, but at least we can stop future exploration in federal waters near California, Oregon, and Washington.

Why now? For years, supporters of new offshore oil drilling have told us that platform drilling is clean and safe. The tragedy unfolding on the Gulf Coast proves them wrong. The potential devastation is immense to treasured wetlands, hundreds of miles of coastline, wildlife, and ocean-based industries like tourism and fishing. Many are already calling the Gulf Coast oil spill the worst natural resources disaster in U.S. history. While we can be saddened, we shouldn’t be surprised. The inevitable consequence of ‘drill, baby, drill’ is ‘spill, baby, spill’. Unless we block new offshore oil drilling, we will only expose our coastlines to even more disasters.

There’s more…

In the Gulf Coast, at least ten wildlife refuges and 40 percent of U.S. wetlands are likely to be impacted, potentially costing millions of dollars in coastal restoration. Tourism and fishing industries are severely threatened, and hundreds of species of wildlife could be impaired. Permanent closure of this oil spill is projected to take at least 90 days, and if the history of past oil spills is any indication, these projections have a habit of growing with time.

Our nation’s security demands that we move away from oil and spend our money on renewable green energy instead. Think how many solar panels and wind turbines could be installed with the millions spent on a sunken drilling rig and years of clean up.  

We’re witnessing what offshore oil drilling reaps. Yes we get oil, but we also risk the destruction of natural preserves, the ruination of coastlines, and the disruption of ocean-based economies. Why would anyone want to open their coastline to the calamity we’re witnessing on the Gulf Coast?

My home state is familiar with this fight. In January 2009, as California’s Lieutenant Governor, I led the fight at the California State Lands Commission to block new drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. It would have been the first new offshore drilling lease in California in more than four decades and would have sent a dangerous signal to Washington that California’s coast was for sale.    

Governor Schwarzenegger attempted to bypass the State Lands Commission’s independent authority, and I’m glad to say that after a protracted battle, we succeeded in blocking his efforts. This week, he finally backed off on his push for new drilling, citing the disaster in the Gulf Coast. Like the Governor, it’s time we learned from our past mistakes and stopped new platform drilling.

The battle for California’s coast also provides us a lesson from history. For you see, a major oil spill in Santa Barbara more than four decades ago reawakened our country’s appreciation for environmental protection. Lisa Margonelli, the director of the New America Foundation’s energy initiative, explains in a New York Times op-ed:

“The history of American oil spills is the history of the environmental movement. The 1969 blowout of an oil platform off Santa Barbara, Calif., gave rise to Earth Day as well as President Richard Nixon’s National Environmental Policy Act, and led to a moratorium on new drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. Twenty years later, the spill from the Exxon Valdez tanker near Alaska quashed the first Bush administration’s ambitions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and ushered in the laws that made oil shippers liable for damage caused by their cargo.”

When the consequences of offshore oil drilling are faint memories, many Americans tune out the warnings of the environmental community. Yet as the horror stories pile up, as the videos and photos circulate on television and online, public opinion can turn quickly. We now have an opportunity to bestow our precious coasts with renewed protections. Let’s not let the devastation on the Gulf Coast happen in vain. In the name of this tragedy, let’s commit our nation to a brighter, greener path. Let’s stop new platform oil drilling on the West Coast.

With superior name recognition, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi is the front-runner in the September election to replace Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.  But a Garamendi victory could spell disaster for a cause he has made a centerpiece of his campaign platform, and has supported throughout his whole career – the environment.  As Lieutenant Governor, Garamendi sits on the California State Lands Commission – a three-person body that wields enormous power on environmental issues.  Recently, Garamendi led the charge on the Commission to successfully kill Governor Schwarzenegger’s move to allow offshore oil drilling on the Pacific Coast – by a 2-1 vote.  If Garamendi gets elected to Congress, he will have to resign from the State Lands Commission – and Arnold will get to pick his successor.  Garamendi has the Sierra Club endorsement in this race, due to his campaign platform.  But will the environmental community be happy after he wins the seat, and his replacement potentially votes to allow offshore oil drilling?

In an election to become 435th in seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives, some of the leading candidates have been accused of “giving up” their current elected position – and jeopardizing progressive politics.  State Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assembly member Joan Buchanan would both have to give up their seats in the legislature, which will necessitate another special election.  Some have argued that because Republicans continuously hold the state budget hostage, progressives cannot afford to lose a single Democratic seat in Sacramento.  But Democrats don’t have a two-thirds majority right now with DeSaulnier and Buchanan – so the impact of a vacancy would be at worst minimal.  Moreover, at least DeSaulnier is guaranteed to be replaced by a Democrat.

But who would replace John Garamendi?  The question has not received much attention – in part because no one really knows what a Lieutenant Governor does.  We all know that, like the Vice President, the Lieutenant Governor is next in line after the Governor.  But the Lieutenant Governor, by virtue of their elected position, also gets to sit on various bodies – such as the UC Board of Regents, the CSU Board of Trustees, the Ocean Protection Council, the California Emergeny Council and (most importantly) the State Lands Commission.

The State Lands Commission votes on crucial environmental issues, such as authorizing whether to allow offshore oil drilling.  And it only has three members: (1) the Lieutenant Governor, (2) the Controller (currently a Democrat, John Chiang) and (3) the Governor’s Finance Director.  If the Lieutenant Governor resigns – which Garamendi would do if he wins the election – the Governor would appoint his replacement, subject to confirmation by both houses of the state legislature.  On other commissions, allowing Schwarzenegger to fill a vacancy is not a big deal.  But here, Arnold would effectively get a 2-1 majority.

In the past few months, Schwarzenegger has attempted to resume offshore oil drilling, as a shameful and dishonest means of “raising revenue” for the state.  Forget, for a moment, the environmental consequences of such a move.  The revenue raised from “oil drilling leases” to companies would be minimal – because the Governor adamantly refuses to charge companies an oil severance tax, although Texas and Alaska have one.

California has not allowed offshore oil drilling for 41 years, since the Santa Barabara oil spill.  But it has become a hot topic in the Congressional race, in part because Garamendi has made it a central part of his campaign.  He takes credit for leading the charge at the State Lands Commission, and – by a two-to-one vote – stopped Arnold from selling the Ocean to oil companies.  Garamendi even started a Facebook group last June to put grassroots pressure on the issue – and generate free publicity for himself.

But the obvious question beckons – what would happen if Arnold controlled two of the three votes on the State Lands Commission?  Garamendi deserves credit for blocking offshore oil drilling, but he only has that power because he is Lieutenant Governor.  If he wins a seat in Congress, Arnold could appoint his replacement – who would then get a vote on the State Lands Commission.  The prospect of that happening is quite scary.

Garamendi had to answer that question at a recent meeting of the East Bay Young Democrats.  He replied the state legislature would “never allow it” to happen, because offshore oil drilling is such a crucial concern.  The Governor appoints the Lieutenant Governor if there is a vacancy, but both houses of the state legislature must confirm by a majority vote.  And because the legislature stood up to Arnold on this issue during the state budget, it is reasonable to expect them to raise such questions during the confirmation process.

However, there are three reasons why the state legislative “check” may not be enough.

First, the State Lands Commission deals with a lot more than just offshore oil drilling.  According to its website, its mission is “providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration.”  And like the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the State Lands Commission must deal with powerful corporate interests with a lot of money at stake.  Offshore oil drilling is one of them – but on low-profile environmental issues, Arnold’s two-to-one majority could get a free pass.

Second, political appointees frequently make promises to the state legislature during the confirmation process – only to break them later.  For example, CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, promised in 2005 before her confirmation that she would be a consumer advocate against deceptive AT&T practices.  Now, she is trying to de-regulate Lifeline telephone service.

Third, state legislators may have their own agenda in approving Arnold’s appointee for Lieutenant Governor.  Everyone expects Schwarzenegger to appoint a Republican, and some have speculated it will be State Senator Abel Maldonado.  Democrats would be all too thrilled to get rid of Maldonado, because it would launch a special election for his Central Coast district – giving Democrats the chance to have a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  Legislators may calculate that the benefit of passing a budget without the GOP extremists holding the state hostage exceeds the possible dangers of offshore oil drilling.

Garamendi picked the wrong district to run for Congress, because he could have run in the 3rd District against Republican Dan Lungren.  But he took the easy way out by picking a blue district, which by sheer name recognition he could win a special election.  Now, as the Governor threatens to pursue offshore oil drilling and other threats, a Garamendi victory could undermine all the environmental work he has championed throughout his political career.

And that’s not a legacy that he would be proud of.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

At a hearing last week of the California State Lands Commission, which I chair, we passed a resolution critical of an effort to bypass our independent jurisdiction in approving new oil drilling proposals.

An editorial in last weekend’s Los Angeles Times buttresses my position and explains what’s at stake:

“[In late January,] the Lands Commission rightly rejected the plan on a 2-1 vote, and that should have been the end of it. […]

Admittedly, the state could use the money. But that’s not a good enough reason to subvert the authority of the Lands Commission, sell California’s coastline in exchange for empty promises, ignore the wishes of Santa Barbara residents and dismiss the outcome of a long process of analysis and public hearings. The Lands Commission, in fact, was created in 1938 to bring more transparency to the awarding of oil leases after a scandal involving the Department of Finance.”

National and state implications over the flip…

The precedent set by allowing this “dubious deal” to move forward also has dangerous national implications. In comments to a post I wrote last week on the Daily Kos, Linnaeus said something that I think is worth repeating:

“I’m not a Californian, but these resources are treasures for us all. In case I wasn’t clear, yes, protect the coastline.” (minor edits for formatting)

What happens in California has a habit of spreading to other states, and if the proposal moves forward, the Golden State will be on record in support of offshore oil drilling and in favor of bypassing decades-established environmental regulations when Big Oil comes knocking with a quick buck. That’s not a precedent that’s healthy for California’s fragile natural wonders, and it can only serve to undermine environmental protection efforts in other states too.

In a wall post in the Facebook group created in opposition to the Department of Finance proposal, Assemblymember Pedro Nava, a member of the Assembly Coastal Caucus, explains what he expects will happen if the oil lease moves forward:

“We can’t forget this important fact. The Secretary of the Interior is right now evaluating off shore oil lease plans for California. If the PXP deal is approved through the budget, it will mean that the coast of California is for sale and decades of hard work to protect our coast will be compromised. The impacts will be first felt in Santa Barbara and then spread like an oil spill north to Mendocino and south to San Diego. We have worked too hard for too long to allow this to happen.”

And Brian Leubitz on Calitics wrote today of the potential environmental impact of the Department of Finance’s proposal. His words are worth repeating:

“California was, once upon a time, the leader in offshore drilling. In fact, the first submerged oil wells was in the Santa Barbara Channel. Public acceptance can change rapidly when you spill 200,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean. And change it did.

In many ways, that day in 1969 was the time when the environmental movement came of age.  It had a real, tangible event to show the world of how quickly we can turn a once beautiful strip of coast into a toxic mess. […]

Drill, Baby, Drill is a recipe for disaster in both good and bad economic times. We should not be compromising our goals of a clean and sustainable energy future for a few hundred million dollars.  I’ll be working to provide more depth on this issue, but in the mean time, consider emailing your legislator or joining John Garamendi’s facebook group to support the State Lands Commission’s position against drilling. We simply cannot afford another to turn our backs on 1969, the devastating consequences of a spill are just not worth the price.”

I’m not prepared to see decades of environmental safeguards undermined, and I don’t think you are either. The impact goes far beyond a single oil lease off the coast of Santa Barbara; at stake is a precedent-setting showdown on the legitimacy of environmental protection in the country’s most trendsetting state. We must not catch a wave toward environmental ruin.  

Please, if you live in California, call and e-mail your state legislators and voice your opposition to this deal. They are expected to vote on the issue in a few weeks. And no matter where you live, join our Facebook group and invite your friends. We’ve made good progress in the past week, and with your help, yes we can stop “a dubious deal on offshore oil drilling.”

John Garamendi is the Lieutenant Governor of California, chair of the California State Lands Commission, and a former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department. He also sits on the Ocean Protection Council and is the founder of the Clean Seas Coalition.

The California Department of Finance wants to “drill baby drill” off the Golden State’s coastline, and they’re willing to undermine 70+ years of checks and balances to do it. Will we let them get away with it?

In late January, I joined California Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote of the California State Lands Commission (SLC) to reject what would have been the first new oil lease in California waters in more than 40 years. As chair of the SLC, I take my responsibility as a steward of the environment very seriously, and I did not think the proposal was in the best interests of the state. Beyond the inherent environmental risks posed by all new drilling projects, I did not think assurances included in the proposal to decommission oil platforms decades down the road were enforceable.

Unfortunately, the Department of Finance is unable to take “No” for an answer.  California needs your help over the flip…

They have drafted legislation that would, for the first time in our Commission’s 70 year history, bypass the SLC and permit the Department of Finance to authorize the oil lease off the Santa Barbara coast. As I explained in a blog post last month:

“Big Oil has essentially offered to California $100 million dollars to seduce the state into granting the first new oil drilling lease in California since the Santa Barbara oil spill 41 years ago, a spill that covered hundreds of miles of ocean and over 30 miles of sandy beaches with more than three million gallons of crude oil. Learning from history means not blindly repeating the mistakes of the past.”

At an open hearing of the SLC yesterday in Santa Monica, Controller Chiang and I again joined together to voice our opposition to this power grab, backing a resolution calling on the legislature to reject the Department of Finance’s proposal. I have put all discussion and testimony from yesterday’s hearing pertaining to the oil lease on YouTube, and I would encourage you to take a look. During public comment, 12 environmentalists agreed with our position — including representatives from the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Center — while not a single individual rose in support of the Department of Finance’s end-run around the SLC.

“We cannot get away from the fact that this is the first new offshore oil lease in 40 years, and if I sound upset, it’s because I am,” said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. “I have never seen such a blatant power grab.”

“We don’t always agree with the decisions made by this body, but we recognize and support the hard work of your staff and the public process designed to enforce the protection of our precious state lands,” added Joe Geeber, California Policy Coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation.

The science is clear; drilling for new oil now exposes our coast to the potential devastation caused by an oil spill and contributes to the greenhouse gases that chill our ability to combat global warming. As I’ve said in the past, California must focus on becoming a renewable energy leader and leave the extraction of new sources of fossil fuels to the 20th century.

But you don’t have to agree with me to appreciate the larger issues at stake. To bypass the SLC and give the Department of Finance authority to approve this oil lease threatens the independence of the SLC, a commission designed to be an independent environmental watchdog. More than 35 environmental organizations are opposed to the Department of Finance’s plan, including some that were initially supportive of the oil lease proposal. To allow the Department of Finance to usurp the independent commission responsible for protecting our state lands and waters means we will lose one of the most important safeguards available to California’s natural habitats.

As Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) said in a statement submitted to the SLC:

“This proposal to override the Commission for the first time in its 70 year history is wrongheaded. It would throw our state into environmental reverse gear and would be a terrible precedent. I will urge my Assembly colleagues in the strongest possible terms to oppose this proposal.”

I am proud to have the support of Assemblymember Brownley in this struggle, but we need your help. The California legislature will be voting on this proposal soon, and it is imperative that your voices are heard. If you live in California and agree with me that new offshore oil drilling in California is unwise, or if you agree with me that maintaining an effective system of checks and balances is important in state government, please contact your state Assemblymember and Senator today and ask them to oppose the proposal. I’ve created a Facebook group highlighting the issues at stake, and I encourage you to join it. Together, we can preserve California’s fragile coast.

UPDATE: The Assembly Coastal Caucus joins the State Lands Commission in opposing the Department of Finance’s proposal.

John Garamendi is the Lieutenant Governor of California, chair of the California State Lands Commission, and a former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Interior Department. He also sits on the Ocean Protection Council and is the founder of the Clean Seas Coalition.

(Truly an amazing reversal by Governor Hoover on this. – promoted by David Dayen)

What can $100 million buy you? Apparently California’s coastline if Big Oil has its way.

In late January, as chair of the California State Lands Commission, I joined State Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote to deny the first offshore oil lease off the coast of California in more than four decades. To permit more oil production off the coast of California, a state seen the world over as a leader in environmental stewardship, would have sent a terrible signal that California isn’t yet prepared to embrace a green economy. The risk of a major oil spill killing marine life, soiling the coast, and decimating marine-based industries and tourism is simply too high for a quick buck.

Sadly, as part of yesterday’s drastic state budget May Revision, California once again faces a renewed push to allow oil drilling off the coast of California. Big Oil has essentially offered to California $100 million dollars to seduce the state into granting the first new oil drilling lease in California since the Santa Barbara oil spill 41 years ago, a spill that covered hundreds of miles of ocean and over 30 miles of sandy beaches with more than three million gallons of crude oil. Learning from history means not blindly repeating the mistakes of the past.

More over the flip…

Furthermore, the $100 million loan must be repaid by forgiving future royalty payments to California. This is an incredibly reckless fiscal policy. To drill ourselves out of a recession with this plan is like drinking sea water to quench our thirst. There may be a little temporary relief, but we’ll regret it later. California should be a leader in renewable energy production, not a producer of a polluting product best left in the 20th century. We are selling the coast for short term gain, long term loss, and possibly long term devastation.

The Santa Barbara Oil Spill did have one positive outcome. Many environmental historians suggest that it gave birth to the modern environmentalist movement. We need that enthusiasm again.

John Garamendi is the Lieutenant Governor of California, chair of the California State Lands Commission, and a former Deputy Interior Secretary under President Bill Clinton.