Friday, March 16, 2012

The essential dishonesty of Obama on energy policy

Charles Krauthammer exposes the flim-flammery of Obama's claims on energy. As any dispassionate observer recognizes, the increased oil production that Obama likes to boast of in his speeches came about "have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies." Give the credit to permits that were granted when Clinton and Bush were president. Obama's administration has adopted the exact opposite policy, thus limiting production in the future. And progress in fracking owes nothing to Obama or his administration.

And then there is this twisting of logic.
“The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said (Feb. 23), mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less — that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home . . . that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”

So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?

Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.

Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollars within the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.
But no. Obama has to give in to the environmentalist extremists in his party. So we will continue to be more dependent than we need to be to oil being drilled elsewhere and controlled by those who are not our friends. That situation will only worsen if Obama is reelected. His EPA is on track to decrease domestic production with proposed new regulations.
Domestic production of both fuels could plummet if proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations, designed to limit emissions from well sites, go into effect later this year, according to an extensive new study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute.

The natural gas extraction technique known as “fracking” would be hardest hit, and fuel extracted via the popular process would drop by about 52 percent, according to a new study commissioned by API. Total gas production would decrease by about 11 percent, while domestic oil production could fall by as much as 37 percent, the report says.
And while he's blocking oil production at home, he pours away tax dollars subsidizing his chosen "green energy" businesses because he thinks his wisdom outweighs that of the markets.

Let us hope that he is indeed correct that the American people aren't stupid.

9 comments:

mark said...

Opposition to keystone is "gratuitous" only if you dismiss every potential drawback (environmental or otherwise) that such a project might incur. I suppose that coming from someone who believes climate-change is a hoax, it's not surprising. Keystone is not an obvious call either way. Either Krauthammer isn't nearly as smart as I think he is, or he himself is being deceptive.

mdgiles said...

One of the definitions of "gratuitous" is: "free of charge", in reality there are costs involved in not completing Keystone. Focusing ONLY on potential environmental damage to the exclusion of real world costs brings us to the other definition of "gratuitous": "Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted".

mark said...

mdgiles,
Are you implying that there are no costs associated with the pipeline, or that all concerns are "unwarranted"?
A quick search of previous pipeline projects would show many environmental disasters in which people have been killed, injured or made ill, and in which towns and communities have been devastated economically and beyond.
All factors should be considered, obviously including jobs created, oil production, etc. (though I suspect both sides are exaggerating the numbers). But "costs" shouldn't be limited to the financial.

tfhr said...

mark,

"A quick search....", you said.

Have you even done such a search yourself? Where is your evidence to support your claim?

The "'costs'" of not increasing production is increased dependency on foreign sources of energy, especially oil. Do we really want to keep sending our money to the gulf states when we could be extracting more oil from our gulf, the Gulf of Mexico? Wouldn't you rather keep that money here? There are a lot of jobs on hold there and many more tied into Keystone.

I'm sorry you cannot get past your one overriding concern, keeping your Progressive Messiah in the White House, but we really have to start worrying about the lagging economy and our future. We need affordable energy and algae, windmills, and Solyndra are not the answer. Investing our tax dollars in Brazilian oil production for George Soros maybe fine with his friend in the White House, but I'd rather see American money spent here at home but here's the kicker, Keystone doesn't need our tax dollars. Keystone and the free market can help us if Obama will just get out of the way. Obama has driven his Volt into the ditch on this one and you know it.

mark said...

tfhr,
My post was specifically about the need to consider and weigh the risks and potential dangers of such a project.
I'm surprised you object. I assumed that would be SOP for those working in your field. Apparently not.

tfhr said...

mark,

Pipelines are one of the safest forms of crude oil transportation and provide a cost-effective and safe mode of
transportation for oil on land. Overland transportation of oil by truck or rail produces higher risk of injury to the
general public than the proposed pipeline (USDOT 2002). The Project will be designed, constructed, and
maintained in a manner that meets or exceeds industry standards.


http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/Appendix%20P_Risk%20Assessment_needs%20title%20sheet.pdf?Open FileResource

That's from Hillary Clinton's State Department. I noticed that you characteristically made no effort to cite any specific threats or risks posed by the construction of this pipeline or even given any indication of how this particular pipeline is different in any specific way that makes it a higher risk than the thousands of other pipelines in America.

You shouldn't make assumptions about me, mark, not when you cannot be bothered to do any of the research you would demand of others. You're lazy and apparently too stupid to do anything but parrot leftist (read Progressive) talking points as you desperately scramble to help your sorry White House candidate keep his head above water. While you're worried about that the rest of us are worried for our country.

tfhr said...

mark,

You should read the entire document as Hillary certainly put a lot of work into it but as a courtesy I will direct you to the section called Section 5.0 "Keystone's Pipeline Safety Program and 6.0 "Conclusions".

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/Appendix%20P_Risk%20Assessment_needs%20title%20sheet.pdf?OpenFileResource

mark said...

tfhr,
Careful; you're obsessive need to disagree with me has lead you to make bizarre statements about Jerry Sandusky and jokes about "corpsman" and "corpses".
What I clearly said was that we need to consider all aspects of a plan of the magnitude of keystone: positive and negative. You really think that's "too stupid"?
Most people would say we didn't plan adequately for the Iraq war. Certainly the evidence supports that. But as our "military-intelligence" expert, I'm sure you know better.

tfhr said...

mark,

The sooner you jump off topic the better because you're plain miserable at defending anything you start. The State Department assessment stands on its own and you cannot deny that. You also cannot deny that the real reason behind the delay is that Obama doesn't want to anger his leftist nutcase base.

Your bizarre interest in Sandusky and dead bodies is disturbing. You should seek help.