For weeks now, we have been watching the unfolding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill is nowhere near being contained or stopped, much less cleaned up and it is clear to everyone that the effects it will have on our country are very long-term in nature. What the end outcome will be is anyone’s guess. One thing we do know for sure is that the residents of the Gulf Coast and their livelihoods will never be the same.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for President, he made it no secret
how he felt about America’s use of oil and other fossil fuels, such as coal. He made it no secret that he felt the proper way to go about weaning us off those fuels. He openly stated that he would use his cap and trade initiative to bankrupt the coal industry and I have no doubt that he would do the same to the oil industry, if given the chance. Almost one year ago, I wrote an article, detailing how I felt Americans could not afford cap and trade. I have not changed my assessment of the legislation, since that time.
Last night, President Obama made his first, prime-time address to the nation from the Oval Office and the topic was the oil spill and about how he expects BP to live up to their promise to clean up the spill and pay for all damages. In it, he also made it clear that he expects to use the disaster as a way of catapulting his energy agenda to the front of the discussion. From NPR:
“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said, characterizing the challenges related to developing clean energy as akin to those faced by Americans who put a man on the moon, or produced enough planes and tanks to fight World War II.
“We can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy — because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater,” he said, than the costs associated with a break from the grip of oil.
Before I go any further, I want to make something abundantly clear. I believe America has wasted many years of opportunity to wean ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil. I say again, it is something that should have been done a long time ago. I also believe we should move towards cleaner sources of energy. Having said that, I do not see how our country can do that at the present time.
President Obama is good at touting alternative sources of energy, but the fact is that most of the sources he speaks about are not viable. No doubt they will be in the future, but not presently. He wants to move us away from oil and seems to think that making fuel more expensive is part of the answer. He fails to explain how freight will be moved if the trucks that are used to transport it across the country are sidelined because of the cost of oil, thus increasing the cost of diesel fuel.
Recent polls are showing that Americans favor moving forward on climate legislation, even if doing so means raising the price of gasoline. I don’t have a problem with that, if the legislation is properly crafted, so as not to be prohibitive in it’s cost. Some may think that I am trying to have my cake and eat it to, so let me offer this scenario, as an explanation.
Our economy is still in a very precarious place, ie. it is very fragile. Some may think a recovery has started, but times are still very tough for many, many Americans. If legislation that is crafted that is prohibitive in it’s actions, raising the cost of fuel, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels that are derived from fossil fuels, how will it affect our economy? Is it okay to raise the price of these fuels to a certain level and then stop? If so, what is that level? If this causes people to stop traveling and spending money, our economy is sure to suffer. If goods can not be transported from place to place, prices will go up and again, our economy will suffer.
I think there is a fine line to draw here, one that needs to be carefully looked at. Maybe it is time to move forward with legislation dealing with this issue, but I am not convinced we can afford such legislation, at least in it’s current form. President Obama is giving every indication that he intends to use the oil spill in the Gulf to move our country in that direction. I think doing so as a knee-jerk reaction is a mistake, one that may cost America dearly.
Good post Larry. There has been much criticism of Obama for using the oil spill as a political opportunity to promote his energy plan. Some have pointed at Rahm Emanuel for asserting that a good crisis should never be wasted. My view is that Rahm is right but the approach is wrong. A crisis IS an opportunity, not for politically expedient policy imposition, but for rallying the country around a sound long-term plan that is so difficult to introduce in normal times. We NEED an energy plan but almost every alternative comes with costs — to consumers, to specific industry sectors, to jobs in those sectors. It takes a crisis to mobilize political forces and put issues in front of the country that otherwise languish well down the list of political priorities. Obama SHOULD be using this oil spill to promote a comprehensive energy policy because NOW is the time to do it. He favors cap and trade. Many oppose it. Fine — let’s see the alternative proposal laid out and made clear. Is this health care reform redux? — more of “we’re opposed to whatever Obama wants”? We need answers now and Americans understand that there may be some need for national sacrifice. We understood it on 9/11 and Bush squandered that opportunity. Why chastise Obama for trying to do what should have been done 9 years ago? Or 20 years ago in Gulf 1? Or 30 years ago when politics killed Carter’s energy plan?
40 years ago we put a man on the moon. Today that’s still the default example of American ingenuity and resolve. That’s disgraceful! Are we incapable of doing anything as a nation any more? The best I can come up with is “If Al Gore could invent the Internet then certainly we can…” Isn’t that shameful? Well, maybe this is that opportunity so in ten years we can say “If we looked the energy crisis in the eye and radically changed our nations course then surely we can…” Obama wants to do just that. Instead of ripping him as a politcal hack maybe we need to figure out to make his vision work.
“40 years ago we put a man on the moon. Today that’s still the default example of American ingenuity and resolve.”
It is disgraceful, but their is one more example: The development of a nuclear weapon when we really, really thought we had to have it.
Anybody up for a Manhattan Project-like effort to solve the energy crisis?
I most certainly agree, Mike. Something needs to be done about our energy problem and should have been done years ago. A lot of excuses have been made for this failure and I have seen very few of them that I feel are valid. The real failure in all of this is the lack of the energy plan you pointed out that we need.
Concerning cap and trade, my main problem with it is that I am afraid it will bankrupt a lot of people in this nation. Senator Joe Lieberman says it can work, without raising the cost of energy in a prohibitive fashion, but I am not convinced that is the case. I worry that passing such legislation, because of a knee jerk reaction to the oil spill in the Gulf, may do just that.
Last night the biggest MORON to ever infest the Oval Office removed all doubt that he really is a clueless MORON and positioned himself head and shoulders above all past MORONS in the White House… And the MSM actually noticed…
The truth is that we have to tackle our energy problem on several fronts and we need to do it NOW, as Mike has already eloquently stated. I honestly want President Obama to tackle the big stuff (cap and trade is a possibility) along with grasping the low hanging fruit that has been around for years. Some of the most conservative scientific voices out there have been saying that retrofitting buildings with energy-efficient equipment (low tech stuff like windows) could save anywhere from 30-80% real energy output. Time to grab this stuff and run with what we have, while we develop what we don’t.
Unfortunately, we have become a country polarized to our own detriment. Stupidly, we use politics to shroud the hard work. Choosing sides and battering each other with it has become more acceptable than everybody getting behind the common need we have-get free of oil and thus our dependence on countries that are not our friends and never will be.
Some recent examples: Then-candidate Barack Obama was mocked and derided for suggesting that Americans might need to sacrifice some to help solve this crisis. The so-called conservative media led their masses into a hysteria, calling it un-American and how dare he be so arrogant. Hybrid cars- a step in the right direction- were also mocked by the far right to the point where the same people told the masses to buy MORE and BIGGER gaz-guzzling SUV’s. And stunningly, the political body followed suit.
Some not so recent examples: Years ago environmentalists in this country-good scientists- warned against the dangers of drilling in the Gulf. They were pretty accurate in predicting what sort of disaster has just befallen us and extremely accurate in laying out the consequences. But their voices were systematically marginalized to the point where to omany in this country precede “environmentalist” with “crazy” or “nutty”. They don’t look so nutty now, do they? And hundreds of thousands of generations-old jobs are lost, perhaps for decades.
And go back to the oil crisis of the 70s. We moaned about the gaslines until they went away, without doing anything about the problem. Contrast that with Brazil, a country that said “Never again”, pulled together political and business resources and threw their collective weith behind flex-fuel cars. Today, more than 70% of the vehicles and many big power stations use flex fuels, and Brazil successfully slashed their oil usage. BTW: Most of their cars are made by AMERCIAN auto manufacturers.
My point? Time for us all to stop pointing fingers at anybody but ourselves for why America is held hostage by the Middle East. And time for us all to realize that there is only one side that matters-ours.
“Then-candidate Barack Obama was mocked and derided for suggesting that Americans might need to sacrifice some to help solve this crisis.”
The moron suggested we inflate our tires so we get off foreign oil.
“Years ago environmentalists in this country-good scientists- warned against the dangers of drilling in the Gulf.”
Well if the wackos let us drill on land and in more shallow water, the oil companies wouldnt have moved farther out.
“Contrast that with Brazil, a country that said “Never again”, pulled together political and business resources and threw their collective with behind flex-fuel cars.”
Obama also gave them our tax payer money to drill their oil.
“I honestly want President Obama to tackle the big stuff (cap and trade is a possibility) along with grasping the low hanging fruit that has been around for years.”
Ohh dont worry, he will try to ram it down our throats like “health care”, damn what the people want.
Blind following of surface insults ignores reality: You live here, too.
You certainly seem to have all the answers. Any solutions, or are you only about amateur, bad talk radio schtick?
I want to step in right here and issue a warning. I appreciate all of the comments on this article thus far, but I am afraid the conversation is about to descend into a place I do not wish to see it go. If the insults do not stop on their own, I will stop them myself. I have ran Political Realities for three years, keeping the conversation civil. I intend to keep it that way. Once again, please refrain from the insults or I will take action.
Although I don’t totally agree with Mike, the comments here basically demonstrate his point..
“Are we incapable of doing anything as a nation any more?”
We can’t even come together on a blog to discuss major topics without insults and vitriol.
I don’t think cap and trade is the answer. Obviously ethanol isn’t the answer. Ethanol came about because of the oil crisis in the 70′s, but now producing ethanol is causing many other unforeseen issues. Hydrogen is looking promising but they probably said that when they were building the Hindenburg. So let’s keep researching and testing alternatives, but the bottom line is we have plenty of oil in easily reached locations, lets get it and use it.
“Blind following of surface insults ignores reality: You live here, too.”
Only one I insulted was the “president” and environmental extremists. But if you think ideas like inflating all our tires equals all our foreign oil are great, knock yourself out.
“You certainly seem to have all the answers. Any solutions, or are you only about amateur, bad talk radio schtick?”
So if I dont agree with this green utopia Im an amateur talk radio host wannabe? How about reducing regulation, encouraging the free market, and using our own resources? But if you think the answer is the government which destroys just about everything it touches, again knock yourself out.
The energy question is a complex one. Ethanol isn’t the cure, it takes more energy to make than it releases. And it takes from crops that can be used to feed people. Nuclear is safe, but the reactors take a freakton of time to build. Solar and wind are dependent on weather, which makes them both unreliable sources. That, and there are many abandoned wind farms in Europe. They apparently couldn’t break even.
Until we can find a source that can be produced as economically as oil, we have to stick with it. We could drill on land or in shallow seas, where spills, when they happen, can be contained and cleaned easily.
We can’t afford $5-7 a gallon gas. We can’t afford electricity and fuel oil prices to skyrocket. Too many are suffering all ready.
Very true, Matt. Much ado was made about ethanol and it has been nothing more than a flash in the pan. It is very inefficient in it’s operation.
You make a very good point about finding a source of energy that can be produced as economically as oil. Right now there are none that I know if, so we need to actively go looking for them. Until then, our nation can not afford to go cold turkey off of oil. Doing so will do nothing but harm to the people of America.
I agree with you Larry that we should have found alternative energy sources long ago. I am against cap and trade but that does not mean that I an against the environment. I agree that we cannot afford a new tax while the economy is struggling.
I think that Barack Obama’s priorities are misplaced here, he shouldn’t even be discussing cap and trade while the oil is still leaking into the Gulf. Now is the time to come up with a solution for the immediate problem, we can worry about cap and trade after the crisis at hand is dealt with.
To which I would say Steve that once the oil spill is capped Americans will stop caring about energy and oil and the opportunity to mobilize public opinion will be lost. I’m good with a simple, basic approach though I think a long-term approach would be better. In fact it has to be long-term because everything related to energy takes such a long time to put into place. But I’d be happy to start with “we’re going to establish a 10 cents a gallon tax on gasoline at the pump (not diesel) and that money will be allocated to further research and development in alternative energy in the following ways…” Why is it that a gas tax is so unpalatable that no politicain will go near it? I think the price of gas has fluctuated by close to 20 cents in just the last month. Most people would hardly notice a 10 cts a gallon rise and, in fact, most forecasters expect lower prices over the summer anyway. But that would raise a fair chunk of change to finance energy research and produce a few jobs at the same time. What say you?
Something definitely has to be done, steps have to be taken to ensure we have an energy policy in place. I am not fond of new taxes in any form, but I realize there are times when they are necessary. I would not be against a new gas tax, if we could seem something good come from it.
I noticed in your comment that you didn’t want to implement the tax on diesel. Can you explain what your reasoning is there? Just curious, more than anything.
Because diesel is a commercial fuel and we need to keep away from imposing additional business expenses. And I specifically said “gasoline at the pump” — not natural gas, not heating oil, not propane, etc which are largely commercial fuels.
I suspected that was your reasoning and I fully concur. Very good points about not putting additional burdens on businesses.
I understand your point, but I have a problem with the president using his speech to push this. His focus should be on stopping the spill first.
I agree that we need to invest in alternative energy and maybe a gas tax might be a good way to fund research, but how are we to be sure that this money will not be diverted elsewhere?
I agree with Steve. I am stunned that Obama is using this devastating crisis in the gulf as a platform for cap and trade. People are losing their lively hoods, getting sick, and watching their coast being destroyed.
And that doesn’t include the 120,00 people that stand to lose their jobs as a result of the ‘no drilling’ policy. (Heritage)
I find it even more gob smacking that Obama would do this when this crisis may be one that we can not humanly fix. In light of that one fact, finding some kind of resolution to this catastrophic event is more important that pushing an agenda through. The total casualties and devastation of the oil spill haven’t even been realized yet.
I actually find it nauseating that he would push his agenda through on the back of all the people now suffering along the coast. And again, I don’t think we have even seen half of the devastation this oil spill is going to bring.
BTW – I personally think BP got off light with 20 Billion for compensation. Unbelievable. The damage is going to far exceed 20 Billion!
I understand the pushback on this, I really do; but we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The president cannot give the oil spill 100% of his attention. And please note that I have NOT said I am happy with the way he has handled this situations. I’m not happy at all! But that has nothing to do with next steps. He can’t ignore the economy, foreign policy, etc though clearly the oil spill should be top if his agenda each and every day. But there’s also Congress — what are they up to? Plenty but they can add a major issue to their political calendar and in the midst of this oil spill Obama has asked them to focus on energy. I don’t see a conflict here.
“I am stunned that Obama is using this devastating crisis in the gulf as a platform for cap and trade.”
Really? His own Chief of Staff said not to let a crisis go to waste. If you truly understood who these people are, you would not be stunned. Sooner or later everyone will have to come to one of two conclusions. Either this “president” is the most incompetent “president” to ever hold office or its all done on purpose.
As for a gasoline tax, how much more do you want to tax it? Why not take 10 cents of the taxes already applied for research?
Elric66 (I hope I spelled that right
I do truly understand who these people are. What I meant, and did not convey apparently, is that I am stunned that they would be so bold to do this in light of this incredibly devastating event.
Even when I know someone has the propensity to be a certain way, I always hope that they will choose to act differently under certain circumstances.
I would have hoped that the oil spill would have shifted this administration’s focus to the devastation of the people, land, water, air and whatnot. Again, I am stunned that they just don’t seem to grasp the gravity of this situation. If they, their behavior says otherwise.
“The president cannot give the oil spill 100% of his attention.”
Of course not. He has things like improving his golf game, going to concerts and vacationing to do. I fully agree.
You are a keen observer of the political scene. You must be getting extremely frustrated by the dimwits on this website. Perhaps you would find another site with more brilliant minds than ours a better fit for your distinguished views.
Happy to hear that the “president’s aloofness during such dire times doesnt offend you as much as me pointing it out.
Still didnt answer why we cant some of the taxes already collected from gasoline for research into a viable alternative energy source.
My apologies,Larry, for getting snippy on your blog yesterday. I’ve been properly spanked and hear you loud and clear!
I also hear what everybody is saying about ethanol and its inefficiencies. My point wasn’t that the US should adopt that now but that our country has a history of tuning out after an acute crisis is over. And, given our propensity to handle crises here in a very surface manner,we’re at risk for doing it again. How much further along would we be had we not breathed a collective sigh of relief in the 70s and turned our attentions away from alternative energy sources that are both safe and clean?
Brazilians found a solution that served the country well for decades and have eased their dependence on oil even as they have gotten rich off the countries who buy from them. It’s time that the US do the same.
Obama gave Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company 2 billion dollars. So what is Brazil’s solution? What is the fascination with Brazil? If there was oil in downtown Rio De Janeiro they would drill for it. We can’t drill anywhere without someone crying. So Brazil’s solution is Drill Baby Drill and I’m fine with that. I own 5 acres they drill right in my backyard.
What’s the fascination with Brazil? That our government (not just the Obama administration, although that’s the current political shot) continues to give Brazil money is my whole point: During a crisis, the country looked at all their resources and found a way to capitalize on them in a big way.
Again- the point is to contrast a country that took action against a country that did not. We’re in danger of doing the same thing now. It isn’t terribly good politics, and it completely weakens us as a nation.
Doesnt that disgust you? The “president” will give away our money to Brazil to drill for oil as he bans us from drilling for our own.
I think it might be important to discuss the facts of the Brazilian transaction before going much further. Not sure where you get your information, but much of what is floating around is false, and many cite a WSJ article, which in fact was an Opinion Journal article- opinion being the operative word. Glenn Beck is also spreading around a “factual” email which is full of holes.
Some facts:
1. The 200 billion dollars is a loan from the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This was not some “executive order” by President Obama.
2. The vast majority of these loans are not guaranteed by taxpayer money, rather by commercial banks.
3. The approval of the loan was on April 14, 2009 and came under the direction of the Bank’s bipartisan board (two Republicans and one Democrat)
4. The Board on April 14, 2009 consisted of President George Bush appointees. President Obama’s appointees had not yet been seated.
And on and on. Glenn Beck is also busy screaming that Soros owns the majority of shares in Petrobas, intimating that President Obama did this for him. Fact: Soros sold 27 milllion of his 37 million shares in Petrobas before the loan was approved. Gentle Reminder: The approval came not from President Obama but from the Bush-appointee controled Ex-Im Bank Board.
Should you choose to, you can research further what the real goals of the Ex-Im Bank are and how they encourage/facilitate actual purchase of US exports-equipment etc.
Nothing about this transaction is out of the ordinary.