HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama Continues to “Drill...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:39 PM

Obama Continues to “Drill Baby Drill”

Andy Rowell, OilChange International

On Monday at the UN climate talks in Doha, the US claimed credit for “enormous” efforts on climate change.

...

Whether the US has taken enormous steps on climate change is open to debate. What we do know is that we have a newly re-elected President who in his acceptance speech said “We want our children to live in a world without the destructive power of a warming planet”.

In order to tackle climate change, the US cannot continue on a path of relentless oil and gas drilling, as currently espoused in the President’s Energy plan, known as “All of the Above”, which advocates a mix of oil, gas, nuclear, renewables and the contradiction which is clean coal.

As Steve Kretzmann and I pointed out in the aftermath of Obama’s re-election: “The President cannot simultaneously fight climate change and support an All of the Above/Drill Baby Drill energy strategy. It would be like launching a war on cancer while promoting cheap cigarettes for kids. Leadership on climate requires understanding this.”

More here

The irony of Obama's 'drill baby drill' energy policy is the oil that is extracted is AUCTIONED OFF on the WORLD MARKET. It ISN'T EVEN SOLD HERE! How can the US claim ENORMOUS efforts to halt global warming when Obama has BARELY MENTIONED CLIMATE CHANGE since 2009?
He could at least start talking about it.

45 replies, 2798 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Continues to “Drill Baby Drill” (Original post)
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 OP
Iggy Dec 2012 #1
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #2
Iggy Dec 2012 #4
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #3
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #6
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #14
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #21
polichick Dec 2012 #5
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #8
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #30
polichick Dec 2012 #39
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #41
polichick Dec 2012 #42
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #7
CthulhusEvilCousin Dec 2012 #9
MFM008 Dec 2012 #17
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #22
pscot Dec 2012 #10
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #11
progressoid Dec 2012 #16
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #24
progressoid Dec 2012 #27
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #31
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #23
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #32
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #38
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #44
woo me with science Dec 2012 #12
pediatricmedic Dec 2012 #13
rDigital Dec 2012 #15
progressoid Dec 2012 #18
NCarolinawoman Dec 2012 #19
rDigital Dec 2012 #20
AgingAmerican Dec 2012 #26
Kaleva Dec 2012 #25
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #33
Kaleva Dec 2012 #36
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #28
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #34
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #35
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #37
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #43
farmbo Dec 2012 #29
Junkdrawer Dec 2012 #40
woo me with science Dec 2012 #45

Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:21 PM

1. UNfortunately Drill Baby Drill is Now a Major Driver

 

of our feeble economy.

Menard's is flying workers to their North Dakota stores from Wisconsin due to not having enough workers there.

I doubt anything is going to change this trend-- it would be immediately labeled "job killer".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:30 PM

2. If we went all out for clean energy

It would lead to many, many more jobs than toxic oil. Clean energy could be to the near future what computer science was/is for the 1990s and 2000s.

What really disturbs me is the fact that Obama does not mention global warming. He is silent on the issue. He has made vague reference to it a couple times since 2009, but that is all. It's really sickening and if he does not start to address it soon, climate change silence/indifference, and his failure to begin preparing the nation for it, will be his major legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:42 PM

4. Totally Agree...

 

it's not just Obama.

more or less everyone in our useless congress is silent regarding/in total denial regarding numerous crucial issues. It's STATUS QUO on just about everything.

Global warming is merely one example, the increase in poverty/child poverty in our nation is another.

FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:40 PM

3. The president of 200 million automobile drivers doesn't have much of a choice

...I bicycle myself, but if I were in the same position I'd probably agree that an "all of the above" energy policy is the best choice for any political party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:59 PM

6. He can start talking about it

Nobody is keeping Obama from talking about it.

As long as the president is silent on this issue, most people will have a false sense of security and there will be no clamour to do anything about it. Out of sight, out of mind. Obama has vast power to sway public opinion. For unknown reasons, he chooses not to talk about it. "The republicans will say mean stuff" is not a good reason to be silent. Our children's futures are at stake. We are teetering on the brink.

The oil that is drilled in the US is auctioned off on the world market. It does not help us here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:05 PM

14. Didn't he just mention it again at his acceptance speech? And at the DNC convention?

He's also given more money to clean energy & research than any President in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 08:56 PM

21. Yes, he said one paragraph at the convention, and one sentence in his acceptance speech

"And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it."

"We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

He completely ignored the issue during the debates. Hardly a concerted effort to educate and lead on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:48 PM

5. So far, the President has not led on this issue...

I hope things will change soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:40 PM

8. He hiked the royalty rate for drilling on public land, first time since the 20's

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/17/obama-hikes-royalties-on-oil-industry-by-50/

...and has done more to encourage alternative energies than any other president. Solar and wind projects have quadrupled.

Here's a run-down of the ARPA-E 2012 programs - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9664#more

and there's some good government-led progress on the battery front, or at least a big recent step forward: http://chicagoist.com/2012/12/02/department_of_energy_powers_up_batt.php

Presidential or government leadership doesn't get a lot of media play, so often its assumed to not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:49 PM

30. Vast amounts of electricity can be stores using huge flywheels

It is already being done. http://www.beaconpower.com/products/about-flywheels.asp

They are used on the east coast to smooth out spikes in the power grid. In times where there is an excess of power, the extra electricity is used to spin up massive flywheels, storing that power as kinetic energy. When there is heavy usage, the flywheels are used to generate power, which is fed back into the grid. This is just one example of older technology that can be used to more efficiently use power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:08 AM

39. It's not that he isn't moving incrementally in the right direction...

...but that he doesn't clearly and verbally lead re climate change - in fact he rarely speaks those words and the U.S. is seen around the globe as a big part of the problem.

This is probably the biggest, toughest issue ever faced by humans - it has to be faced head on with great determination and urgency. I hope for our children's sake we'll see that in the second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:51 PM

41. Bingo

He has the bully pulpit. He has the means to bring this front and center. I do not believe that he is ignorant on the issue. He gets the national security reports and has access to leading scientists and experts. I am at a loss trying to figure out why he is silent on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:19 PM

42. I have to think that he was worried about reelection...

...because the other side would go crazy - but now there's nothing to stop him, or shouldn't be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:30 PM

7. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:42 PM

9. I think

you guys panic too much on this issue. It's obvious that this is necessary right now in order to keep our economy moving. This can set the stage later for, perhaps, increased taxes on oil companies which in turn can be used to invest even greater amounts of money into research and development. At the same time, the President will continue working on improving fuel efficiency standards and things of that nature. We cannot expect a complete revolution of our energy economy overnight, or even in just one Presidency. And even if we stopped now, over in China they are still pumping as much smog into the air as they can whenever they aren't poisoning their water and leaving entire villages riddled with cancer. We have to work to keep the economy strong, to gradually transition and improve the technologies and laws we have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:48 PM

17. it is to late to wait.

we needed leadership on this years ago. There have been some advancement but not enough and we cant seem to make China and India and other see the light. We think we have another decade or 2 to play around with. We dont. The release of methane as the tundras thaw, can end life on this planet. Then she will start again, hopefully with smarter offspring that this time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CthulhusEvilCousin (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:01 PM

22. Panic? Do you have children? Have you read any of the scientific predictions on what will happen?

He needs to EDUCATE and LEAD. Politically he can't do anything right now, BUT he can bring the issue to the forefront using the bully pulpit. He is the president. When he speaks, people listen. Bringing the issue to the forefront and piquing public interest will put pressure on politicians to do something.

At the moment he is AVOIDING the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:45 PM

10. He's in a fair way of being remembered

as the guy who was in charge when we passed the point of no return. The last president who could have done something about it. I don't think he gets it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:46 PM

11. What doesn't the poster understand about "We're on the brink of a Second Great Depression"?

Those are times that are not normal. It is AMAZING that Obama kept global warming on the radar at all, during such times.

We were ALL a little preoccupied with teetering on the brink of teh Second Great Depression.

Second, I think it makes sense to TRANSITION. You CANNOT abruptly change from one type of fuel to another overnight. As Obama has said, as well as T. Boone Pickens and others....the U.S. will end up using a VARIETY of fuels.

Obama does not promote "clean coal," that I'm aware of. Hence, that awful ad by the coal industry for Romney.

Selling oil to countries that use oil doesn't mean we promote it. That country uses it already, and will get it from somewhere else, if not from us. We are not, that I'm aware of, talking other countries into changing from solar energy to oil.

Activists want overnight change. I would, too. But the world rarely works that way, unless there's a revolution and a dictator takes over, so that one person can make drastic changes overnight, and not care about the devastation it causes to people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:43 PM

16. Actually, Obama does promote "clean coal".

It was part of the 2008 campaign http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/not-coming-clean-on-coal/



And earlier this year:
W.H. says clean coal has future as energy source
The Obama administration still sees a future for coal, White House energy adviser Heather Zichal said Tuesday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76354.html#ixzz2DwP3lbTt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:13 PM

24. There is no such thing as clean coal

Coal is the dirtiest hydrocarbon fuel, hands down. There was once talk about carbon capture and sequestration (this is what is referred to as clean coal technology) of carbon emissions from coal fired power plants in old mines, but it was dropped as non viable. Since that time the coal industry has latched onto the term. Why Obama still uses the term is beyond me.

There is no future in pumping out CO2, period. Of course it will take a while to transition out of it, but it will have to happen eventually. Drill baby drill is the opposite of what needs to be done.

The first step is TALKING ABOUT IT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:41 PM

27. yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:19 PM

31. I don't think campaign speeches indicate "promotion."

Coal is on its way out. It's just the way the market is going. Stating to those people who earn their living htat way, and whose votes you want, that coal will have a role to play, is far from promoting coal.

As I said, changes will not be done overnight. It would send too many people into poverty, and not have much effect on the climate, anyway. But the administration, so far as I know, has not done anything to GROW the coal business. That is promotion.

Even environmentalist Kerry spoke on behalf of "clean coal" while campaigning for Prez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:07 PM

23. I have said nothing about abruptly doing anything BUT

using the bully pulpit to put the issue front and center. He is the president. All he has to do is step in front of a podium and the flashbulbs start popping. When he speaks, the people listen. He has the power to bring this issue front and center.

Also, he can simultaneously shore up the economy and talk about global warming. He can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. He is at the present SILENT about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:30 PM

32. This is my pet issue, altho I'm not an activist. Well, the environment in total is my issue.

Frankly, I don't think he needs to TALK about it much, especially right now. We are in the throes still of the remnants of a recession, with an obstructionist Republican House, and serious fiscal issues.

I care much more about what he DOES and what Congress DOES.

Check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change#energy-menu for the list of all he's done. He has done more than any President in history for global warming issues.

Activists never think people in power talk enough about their issue, or do enough. That's the job of activists. Fair enough. But I care more about action.

I have resigned myself to knowing that no matter what is done NOW, the global warming won't stop in my lifetime. It's too late. But with the changes that Obama has managed so far, and no doubt will continue to make, I am hopeful the situation will be resolved in the future.

It's also too late to get the mercury out of tuna and other fish, too late to get the lead out of other foods. It's in our bodies. Too late.

Still, there is hope for the next generation, if steps continue to be made.

As a final note, some things are very difficult to have control over because they're in control of other countries. One leading cause of environmental damage is the loss of rain forests. We're losing thousands of acres, I read, every day. The loss of animal habitat, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 03:25 AM

38. He needs to get the public on board, using the bully pulpit. It is his duty to lead on this.

A bully pulpit is a position sufficiently conspicuous to provide an opportunity to speak out and be listened to.

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

There is no stopping global warming, only holding off the worst of it. But we can at least prepare people for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 08:21 PM

44. Well, I can't argue w/you about that. He seems not to use the bully pulpit very well for anything.

That seems to be one shortcoming that he has.

Hopefully once the fiscall curb is passed us, and he gets into his new term, and Iran doesn't start war, he can focus on this. It IS a concern of his. I hope he keeps pushing on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:52 PM

12. Of course he does.

Are we clear yet, America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:01 PM

13. In all fairness, we don't have a power storage technology to leave oil behind, yet.

Until we do, wind and solar are going to stay on the fringe.

The problem with all existing types of batteries is that the byproducts of production are rather toxic and difficult to deal with. There is a reason China has a lead in this area, they don't care about the pollution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:08 PM

15. ....and wind still kills a LOT of birds. : (

 

There are wind turbines near my parents house and the whole neighborhood is littered with bird carcasses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wind-farms-under-fire-for-bird-kills/2011/08/25/gIQAP0bVlJ_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:57 PM

18. Overall, wind energy has the least impact on wildlife with the possible exception of solar.



Birds are killed as a result of human impacts in large numbers every year. The biggest human-related causes of deaths annually are:

Lighted window impacts - 97 to 976 million
Predatory house cats - 500 million or more
High-tension wire impacts - up to 174 million or more
Pesticides - 72 million and possibly many more
Car impacts - 60 million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:10 PM

19. Those are some sad statistics.

Every time I see another tall office building being erected in my area, I cringe. There can often be seen the refection's of trees in those windows. Sadly, I know what that will do to the unknowing birds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:15 PM

20. I love my cats too, good thing they are indoors and not snacking on birdies! Thanks for the

 

perspective.

500k from windmills vs 500 million from ordinary cats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:19 PM

26. I have one cat that catches them, brings them in and lets them go in the house

Then lays around watching the bird fly around the living room. I have to capture them and let them go. My other cat stinky hunts anything that moves then tortures whatever she catches to death. She is nice to humans but barbaric otherwise.

My third cat is indifferent to prey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:17 PM

25. There is no storage problems with geothermal power plants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:44 PM

33. What geothermal power plants?

So far, it looks good on paper but less good in practice. I actually live in one of the most productive geothermal areas in the country, but recent attempts to expand have been very expensive failures.

Geothermal has potential, but I wouldn't count on it, and we need energy in the meantime to keep an economy strong enough to fund a transition. An "all of the above" approach is the best and most secure way forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:20 AM

36. I agree with an all the above policy

Geothermal itself isn't a viable replacement yet as it needs funding for devolpment and research. Just a few decades ago, dilling for oil far out in the Gulf of Mexico wasn't feasible becasue the technology wasn't there. The potential for geothermal is huge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:48 PM

28. Convert all bomb factories to solar panel factories now.

Take a look at the President's plans to dig up oil, gas, and coal and sell it around the world.

http://www.barackobama.com/energy

An all of the above approach to energy independence

Saving Americans money at the pump
...

Increasing natural gas production at home
...

Increasing oil production
...

Increasing production of wind and solar energy
...

Paving the way for clean coal
...
This energy policy is very wrong and dangerous. Obama is hitting the gas when he should be hitting the brake.

Accelerating fossil fuel usage even though experts say we have to slow down, or human civilization itself could be at risk. This policy is a crime against humanity.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to get off fossil fuels. The government should be directly building solar panels, windmills, etc.

We could instantly create millions of jobs in solar, wind, geothermal, modernizing the electric grid, insulating buildings, converting to electric vehicles, public transit projects, etc. We could be at full employment.

But Obama doesn't believe in public works projects. That's the only explanation for why he has not suggested anything like this. He's more of a Wall Street Republican than anything, in my opinion, because this solution should be obvious to any democrat. He needs permission from Wall Street banks and oil companies to do anything. This system sucks. And it sucks double when the "leaders" don't have the courage to really lead.

Obama had an opportunity to lead on this, but wasted it. It's a big disappointment. There is still time for him to change, but I doubt he will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:50 PM

34. "Obama is hitting the gas when he should be hitting the brake"

...you have to understand that energy and resources are the primary components of economic activity, and that "putting the brakes on" is a sure-fire strategy to poverty and recession. Which is a guaranteed way to hand the White House and the senate back to the other side, who would pursue a fossil fuel strategy similar to the president's, but omit anything that might ever lead us to alternatives.

Maybe its a tricky idea to get, but it takes a great deal of energy to fund a transition to an alternative energy infrastructure, and the main energy we have available for that now is fossil fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:14 AM

35. We could instantly create millions of jobs in solar, wind, geothermal,

, modernizing the electric grid, insulating buildings, converting to electric vehicles, public transit projects, etc. We could be at full employment via clean energy public works programs

That would be a good jobs program.

Instead you are selling the idea that our jobs depend on destroying our own habitat, Pretending that if we move quickly toward clean energy it will crash the economy. But really just the opposite is true: a "New Deal" style clean energy transition could create millions of jobs instantly. This should have already been proposed by Obama by now.

That idea should be obvious to the party of FDR.

Also if we speed up fossil fuel burning instead of transitioning off, it could mean the end of human civilization.

Democrats should quit selling the lie that environmental concerns are at odds with economic concerns and jobs. That's oil industry propaganda.

Maybe it's a tricky idea to get, but a transition to clean energy can go hand in hand with economic growth. In can be the stimulus that gets us out of this recession, just the way that World War II got us out of the Great Depression.

And eventually maybe it will. But by then it may be too little too late.

I could understand if the Democrats proposed this and the GOP blocked it, then I would be mad at the GOP. But sadly it is Democrat Obama who is doing almost nothing. Why hasn't he proposed a New Deal-style public works program to transition to clean energy? ??????? ???? ???? It should be a pretty obvious solution for a Democrat. That's why I think Obama is more of a Wall Street Republican than a real democrat.

On edit:
Sorry you're right too, it will take oil to transition. I didn't mean "hitting the brakes" as slamming to an abrupt stop, but slowing down yes. Certainly not accelerating fossil fuels like Obama is doing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 12:53 AM

37. Say you build a giant wind farm, for instance

A great deal of steel is used, and producing steel is very energy intensive. Various types of foundries exist - using propane, natural gas or electricity. In the case of electric arc furnace, the original energy to run it likely comes from burning natural gas or coal.

Then, a great deal of concrete is also needed. Concrete begins with the fuel-intensive mining and transportation of rock products. Some of these go directly into the mix after rough processing, but cement itself is made by burning limestone in a furnace. Those furnaces usually run on coal, but sometimes natural gas.

And then there is the copper, which also has to be mined with machines that run on fossil fuels, and refined in factories run on fossil fuels.

Then everything is transported to sites by machines running on fossil fuels, that were built in factories burning fossil fuels, etc, etc.

I do get the point that all of this could be done with alternative energies at some point, but to transition on the scale that we need will require a massive amount of fossil fuel energy. If you look at how the market works, most other developed countries in the world are actually working toward the transition as well, and energy demand has been very high, which has a danger of putting too high of a price penalty on the whole thing. For better or worse (and I'm not arguing that its "better", only that its necessary) fossil fuel production should remain high to enable the transition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:58 PM

43. There has never been a more clear cut case of private profit trumping human need.

It does take some dirty energy during the transition to clean energy.

But likewise it also takes a big amount oil to expand the fossil fuel infrastructure.

We have some budget of dirty fuel that we can burn, and instead of using that to build clean energy for the switch, instead we are using it accelerate dirty energy exports to record levels.

That's a choice. The top guy making the choice is Obama. That's why his energy policy sucks.

Which requires more fossil fuel use: building solar panels, or drilling oil wells in the Arctic Ocean? Think about how much fuel it takes to access extreme fossil fuels like deep water offshore oil, tar sands, and fracked shale gas.

Look at all the billions that have been spent in the last 4 years on new infrastructure to allow us to access more and more dirty energy.

Think of all the money that has got into building infrastructure for the shale gas fracking boom. What if an equal amount had been spent on infrastructure for solar power instead? Where would we be now? How much have they spent on all the new pipes? I guess billions. How much have they spent on advertising campaigns to convince the public it is safe? I guess in the billions. What a waste.

For all that investment, we could have made a big leap forward to clean power generation by now.

I feel nobody can honestly deny that these decisions are being made based on what benefits the private profit of the fossil fuel companies, and not on what benefits people. There has never been a more clear cut case of private profit trumping human need.

We should seize all fossil fuel industry profits to end the money incentive for accelerating fossil fuels. The government is not able to make sound policy to protect the public as long as oil companies are allowed to give money to politicians and spread lies on the TV.

You are correct that we can not abruptly stop drilling. That would be nuts. But as long as we let people make billions of dollars from drilling, and those people give money to politicians to set policy, and they run ads to sell their lies, there are money incentives to drill despite whatever is really best for people.

We have a certain amount of dirty energy budget that we can burn and beyond that we risk altering the earth so badly that people will have to start doing some extreme and undignified things to survive. If we burn all the oil Exxon is planning on it will put us well past what we can afford to burn.

We can't afford not to make big changes. We are moving too slow in this transition. Part of the reason is because oil companies make big profits and give money to politicians to set energy policy, and also spread lies on TV.

We should seize all oil, coal and gas profits and invest all the money in clean energy. This solution is obvious. Obama should have proposed a version of this by now, even a watered-down version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:11 PM

29. Due to Obama's policies, natural gas has dropped from $8/ mcf to $/3 mcf

Natural gas is the principal home heating fuel in the midwest and eastern US. His policies have made a real difference in people's lives.

He has also doubled biofuel production and is shifting production to non-food crops.

Even when/ if wind and solar are deployed (and conservatives are fiercely opposing wind/solar tax credits) they will probably only account for 30% of our energy use in the next fifteen years.

Until then, it's: "All of the above, baby, All of the above"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 07:18 AM

40. As you can see from this thread, Global Warming is just a PR problem.....

The fine details of the talking points are being worked out.

In other words....this is why we're fucked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread