In Alaska, Obama Highlights Climate Change While His Decisions Draw Accusations of 'Hypocrisy'

[RiverLover]

In Alaska, Obama Highlights Climate Change While His Decisions Draw Accusations of 'Hypocrisy'
Environmental groups are outraged over his drilling policies.

by Kate Sheppard, Senior reporter/Environment and energy editor, The Huffington Post
8/31/2015



WASHINGTON -- As President Barack Obama visits Alaska this week, he is facing criticism and outright outrage from environmental advocates who say his focus on climate change while in the region contradicts his administration's decision to allow Shell to drill there.

The administration granted Shell permission to begin exploratory oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi Sea this summer. And Obama plans to put a major emphasis on climate change during his visit to Alaska, the frontline of climate change's effects in the United States. Environmental groups say the mixed messaging from Obama constitutes "climate hypocrisy." The liberal group Credo Action put up a website mocking Obama's visit as his "Mission Accomplished" moment, likening it to George W. Bush's 2003 speech declaring that the U.S. had "prevailed" in Iraq.

"He somehow has made himself believe that you can have this transition to a clean energy economy and take action on climate change, and continue to develop domestic oil and gas," said Marissa Knodel, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "If you continue to drill and develop these resources, you're going to continue to contribute to the production of greenhouse gases. They're contradictory."

Obama tried to head off this particular line of criticism ahead of his Arctic visit, the first by a sitting president. "Now even as we accelerate this transition, our economy still has to rely on oil and gas," said Obama in his recorded weekly address on Saturday. "As long as that's the case, I believe we should rely more on domestic production than on foreign imports, and we should demand the highest safety standards in the industry -- our own."

....For one, it's not clear exactly how much oil is even up there, let alone how much can be easily accessed. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated in 2008 that there are 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the entire Arctic Region, and 84 percent of that is offshore. That's enough to provide about three years of oil for the world, according to consumption estimates from the International Energy Agency. The oil in offshore Alaska is only estimated at around 26.6 billion barrels -- or less than a year's supply for the world....

full story~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-alaska-climate-change_55e4be9be4b0b7a96339f3d5

[Hydra]

1. I got to watch part of the speech, and he really managed to convey some of the gravity of it

He hit a lot of my favorite points, including the ones that usually don't get brought up- that we could be improving everyone's lives by going clean energy economically, and reducing other forms of pollution as well as CO2. On the other hand, he seemed to convey that we had time and working space to roll this back.

We don't. We're WAY too far into this for half measures. The Southwest is on fire. There have been years of drought and tornados in the Midwest. The East froze and got buried in snow this year. We don't have the money put aside to deal with all of it, and it's just going to get worse...did I mention food was going to be a problem?

[RiverLover]

4. All so true, Hydra. And yes, food will be a problem....& water.

We need to go crazy like Obama's home state Hawaii. We need to pledge to go 100% renewable by a certain date in the not-so-distant future. Invest in new clean technology, not green light more offshore drilling for future oil needs...

[HassleCat]

2. All of it does

All petroleum extraction and use contributes to climate change. Some sources are "cleaner" than others. All offshore drilling poses the risk of a leak and an oil spill. Some sites are less likely to leak than others. Many people would like to see a halt to all offshore exploration and extraction, since the consequences of a well blow out are more severe when the well is in the ocean. It's like any other exploitation of natural resources: logging, mining, etc. It can be done with minimum risk if the government is on the job. That's a big "if," of course, even when the administration is in Democratic hands.

[RiverLover]

6. A big if. There is no proof of govt oversight in the Gulf of Mexico right now.

Environmentalist groups are having to sue for that proof, and also to get an actual number of rigs. The info isn't public.

Its insane.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Here is something you might like - though perhaps less than photoshopping the Shell Oil logo on Obama, which

is just plain juvenile:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7128680

The President balanced just the right amount of recognition of the scientifically proven gravity of the climate situation with hope for change and facing the realities of the current world economic reliance on fossil fuels.

Meanwhile the RW outrage and attention is over the name of a mountain being restored to the original....the enemy is not in the White House.

[RiverLover]

5. No of course the "enemy" is not in the White House. Just a hypocrite.

And the mountain name is smoke & mirrors. Fake outrage. But lets be realistic. We need the team that is supposed to be putting planet before profits to actually DO that for it to be meaningful.

The rethugs aren't going to motivate Dem leaders to be more like Democrats. We have to lead them there. Or they'll just continue to pretend that they can be the pro-environment party while at the same time accepting the millions from the oil & gas sector which they are then beholden to. Talk is easy.

We need tough action NOW. And we need to protect the last frontier, with everything we've got.

Party purists & apologists are ruining our country, someone famous said that...it's true.