I’m not the biggest fan of the decision to allow drilling and/or exploration off much of the U.S. coast. But here’s what the Prez had to say in his own defense:
Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much. (Applause.) Please have a seat. I’ve got a few introductions that I want to make very quickly before I start my remarks. First of all, I think that by the end of his tenure we’re going to know that Ken Salazar is one of the finest Secretaries of Interior we’ve ever had. So please give him a big round of applause. (Applause.)
Other members of what we call our green team are here: Steven Chu, our Secretary of Energy; Martha Johnson, the Administrator of the GSA; Nancy Sutley, the CEQ Chair. We’ve got Carol Browner, who’s the White House Energy and Climate Change Director. Please give them a big round of applause. They put in a lot of work. (Applause.)
Governor Martin O’Malley is here, governor of Maryland. (Applause.) Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, is here. (Applause.) Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, is here, and we appreciate his outstanding service. Thank you, Gar. (Applause.)
I want to thank Steven Shepro, the base commander here at Andrews, and the leadership that’s present from the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
Ken and I were colleagues in the Senate, and I appointed him because I knew that he would be a faithful and pragmatic steward of our natural resources. And as Secretary, he is changing the way that the Interior Department does business so that we’re responsibly developing traditional sources of energy and renewable sources of energy, from the wind on the high plains to the suns in the desert to the waves off our coasts. And so I’m very grateful to the work that he’s done in culminating in one of the announcements that we’re making today.
It’s also good to see so many members of our Armed Forces here today. Andrews is the home of Air Force One, and I appreciate everything that you do for me and my family. I should point out that you’ve got a 100-percent on-time departure record. (Laughter.) You don’t charge for luggage — (laughter) — so it’s a pretty good deal. And I want to thank you not only for the support that you provide me, but also for the service that you perform to keep our country safe each and every day. So I’m very grateful to all of you.
We’re here to talk about America’s energy security, an issue that’s been a priority for my administration since the day I took office. Already, we’ve made the largest investment in clean energy in our nation’s history. It’s an investment that’s expected to create or save more than 700,000 jobs across America — jobs manufacturing advanced batteries for more efficient vehicles; upgrading the power grid so that it’s smarter and it’s stronger; doubling our nation’s capacity to generate renewable electricity from sources like the wind and the sun.
And just a few months after taking office, I also gathered the leaders of the world’s largest automakers, the heads of labor unions, environmental advocates, and public officials from California and across the country to reach a historic agreement to raise fuel economy standards in cars and trucks. And tomorrow, after decades in which we have done little to increase auto efficiency, those new standards will be finalized, which will reduce our dependence on oil while helping folks spend a little less at the pump.
So my administration is upholding its end of the deal, and we expect all parties to do the same. And I’d also point out this rule that we’re going to be announcing about increased mileage standards will save 1.8 billion — billion barrels of oil overall — 1.8 billion barrels of oil. And that’s like taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year.
Today, we’re also going to go one step further. In order to save energy and taxpayer dollars, my administration — led by Secretary Chu at Energy, as well as Administrator Johnson at GSA — is doubling the number of hybrid vehicles in the federal fleet, even as we seek to reduce the number of cars and trucks used by our government overall. So we’re going to lead by example and practice what we preach: cutting waste, saving energy, and reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
But we have to do more. We need to make continued investments in clean coal technologies and advanced biofuels. A few weeks ago, I announced loan guarantees to break ground on America’s first new nuclear facility in three decades, a project that will create thousands of jobs. And in the short term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’ve still got to make some tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development in ways that protect communities and protect coastlines.
This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly. It’s one that Ken and I — as well as Carol Browner, my energy advisor, and others in my administration — looked at closely for more than a year. But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.
So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.
That’s why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That’s why we’ll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling. But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.
On the other side, there are going to be some who argue that we don’t go nearly far enough; who suggest we should open all our waters to energy exploration without any restriction or regard for the broader environmental and economic impact. And to those folks I’ve got to say this: We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. And what that means is that drilling alone can’t come close to meeting our long-term energy needs. And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.
So the answer is not drilling everywhere all the time. But the answer is not, also, for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security. Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place. Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.
For decades we’ve talked about how our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy — yet our will to act rises and falls with the price of a barrel of oil. When gas gets expensive at the pump, suddenly everybody is an energy expert. And when it goes back down, everybody is back to their old habits.
For decades we’ve talked about the threat to future generations posed by our current system of energy — even as we can see the mounting evidence of climate change from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast. And this is particularly relevant to all of you who are serving in uniform: For decades, we’ve talked about the risks to our security created by dependence on foreign oil, but that dependence has actually grown year after year after year after year.
And while our politics has remained entrenched along these worn divides, the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Around the world, countries are seeking an edge in the global marketplace by investing in new ways of producing and saving energy. From China to Germany, these nations recognize that the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the country that leads the global economy. And meanwhile, here at home, as politicians in Washington debate endlessly about whether to act, our own military has determined that we can no longer afford not to.
Some of the press may be wondering why we are announcing offshore drilling in a hangar at Andrews Air Force Base. Well, if there’s any doubt about the leadership that our military is showing, you just need to look at this F-18 fighter and the light-armored vehicle behind me. The Army and Marine Corps have been testing this vehicle on a mixture of biofuels. And this Navy fighter jet — appropriately called the Green Hornet — will be flown for the first time in just a few days, on Earth Day. If tests go as planned, it will be the first plane ever to fly faster than the speed of sound on a fuel mix that is half biomass. The Air Force is also testing jet engines using biofuels and had the first successful biofuel-powered test flight just last week. I don’t want to drum up any kind of rivalry here, but — (laughter.)
Now, the Pentagon isn’t seeking these alternative fuels just to protect our environment; they’re pursuing these homegrown energy sources to protect our national security. Our military leaders recognize the security imperative of increasing the use of alternative fuels, decreasing energy use, reducing our reliance on imported oil, making ourselves more energy-efficient. That’s why the Navy, led by Secretary Mabus, who’s here today, has set a goal of using 50-percent alternative fuels in all planes, vehicles, and ships in the next 10 years. That’s why the Defense Department has invested $2.7 billion this year alone to improve energy efficiency.
So moving towards clean energy is about our security. It’s also about our economy. And it’s about the future of our planet. And what I hope is, is the policies that we’ve laid out — from hybrid fleets to offshore drilling, from nuclear energy to wind energy — underscores the seriousness with which my administration takes this challenge. It’s a challenge that requires us to break out of the old ways of thinking, to think and act anew. And it requires each of us, regardless of whether we’re in the private sector or the public sector, whether we’re in the military or in the civilian side of government, to think about how could we be doing things better, how could we be doing things smarter — so that we are no longer tethered to the whims of what happens somewhere in the Middle East or with other major oil-producing nations.
So I’m open to proposals from my Democratic friends and my Republican friends. I think that we can break out of the broken politics of the past when it comes to our energy policy. I know that we can come together to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that’s going to foster new energy — new industries, create millions of new jobs, protect our planet, and help us become more energy independent. That’s what we can do. That is what we must do. And I’m confident that is what we will do.
So thank you very much. And thanks, again, to all of you who are serving in our Armed Services. You are making an enormous contribution, and this is just one example of the leadership that you’re showing.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
From a politics perspective, Obama’s move to concede offshore oil drilling to try to gain Republican support for a climate bill might be good political strategy. The problem is nature doesn’t offer a grace period for political compromise. Our nation is still effectively in denial of the reality of climate change.
The time to act was yesterday, but today is better than tomorrow. And compromise is better than nothing.
Wait, what concession did Obama get from the Republicans in exchange for expanded offshore oil drilling?
Here’s an earlier statement that President Obama made while campaigning for President.
“Now believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money to fill up their gas tanks by this summer or next year or even the next few years, I would consider it. But it won’t. And John McCain knows that. The fact is that Senator McCain’s decision to team up with George Bush on offshore drilling violates the bipartisan concensus that we’ve had for decades that has protected Florida’s pristine coastline from drilling. this is a proposal that would only worsen our addiction to oil and put off needed investments in clean, renewable energy.
I believe I’ve commented elsewhere that I am not convinced that this is a political move to garner Republican support. Recall that the major concessions to the Health Care Reform bill were not about getting Republicans onboard but, in the end, about lining up enough Democrats to enable the measure to pass.
It will always be easier to fix a flawed bill than to pass a perfect one.
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
– Voltaire
“Obama Will Only Ruin the Coasts of Redstates”
http://wonkette.com/414557/obama-will-only-ruin-the-coasts-of-red-states
payback is a b*tch.
Can you imagine?
… imagine it with me …
Can you imagine
The President of the United States
(POTUS to the guys who want to be the guys who are ‘in’)
Calling another Press Conference
A Hundred Reporters Buzzing in the Room
A Dozen TV and Cable Cameras focused on the Podium
Hail to the Chief plays on the Speakers
The Black Shoes, the Crisp Cuff
Walk the Red Carpet,
The Curtain parts,
The President enters
He says Two Words …
“Peak Oil”
… and He walks out.
Maybe you heard a speech about buying Republican votes.
That’s not what I heard, but my ears are kind of full wax.
And I might still be imagining things.
Is New Jersey a “red state” now?
Substantively, it sounds like the small amount of oil that might ever get pumped up and burnt as a result of this decision, is probably worth it IF it helps pass a comprehensive climate bill this year. That still seems like a big “if,” though. Not sure why it couldn’t have waited and be use as more of a bargaining chip, than a pre-giveaway.
Also, this rhetoric:
“Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists….”
is just incredibly harmful and damaging. The oil companies that are getting pandered to with this decision — at least in optics, if not that much in substance — are the same oil companies that have spent hundreds of millions lying and brainwashing the public about the supposed “hoax” of Climategate, the fact that snowstorms mean global warming doesn’t exist, the “light switch tax” and all the rest of it.
Obama needs to be going to town on those people for the pure moral irresponsibility of their position… just like he did on insurers in the final stretch of the health insurance battle. He does NOT need to be seen giving them free reign to foul our coastlines, and suggesting that wanting to leave fossil fuels in the ground is just one half of a “tired debate” — rather than the morally superior position, the position which values life and lasting prosperity over greed, death and destruction.
I think this is a brilliant strategic move by Obama. First, since there will probably not be significant output from the eastern off-shore regions, this will not have much impact on GHG emissions. Second, and most important, it defangs the fossil fuel industry enablers. It deprives them of any bite in their “Drill baby drill” slogans, because now their – mostly fictitious – claims of potential giant fields locked away by the Feds cannot be made with any honesty. Hopefully this will drag in some Republican support for a Carbon Tax (yes!!) or Cap & Trade.
Third, the enviros know which side is overall more friendly to their cause. So there is not much downside.
what #3 said
Um, Fredo, Wonkette is satire. Logic Deferred #3 is on target. Obama is playing chess, not checkers.
I got a text from a young lady today about off-shore drilling:
hu, 4/1/10, @gmail.com wrote:
From: @gmail.com
Subject: Fw: Off shore drilling
To: witsendnj@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 12:27 PM
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
—–Original Message—–
How do you feel about obamas plan to drill off shore around america? I’m concerned about the wild life…
Laura
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
my reply:
Yes, it totally sucks. But what happened is the same as a bunch of other unrelated issues – Obama got into office and got the real skinny, information that is withheld from the public – like how bad it will be if we have energy shortages. (think, mass panic, breakdown of civic society, looting, vigilantes).
The same thing happened with releasing the information about what the US really did in terms of torturing prisoners. If people saw the real information, the backlash would be violent. And so after promising transparency, once in office Obama had to change his tune.
Had he released the photos any subsequent terrorist attack would have been blamed on him releasing the photos, and his presidency would be over.
It’s very complicated. I think he’s doing the best he can with the cards he was dealt.
I don’t like it, but it seems that in reality we’re going to be consuming petroleum for a bit longer. Along with personal, government and corporate efforts to boost fuel economy, something like this could help reduce oil imports. And the use of more carbon-intensive sources like Canadian tar sand and coal synfuels. I can accept some additional drilling if it can be done in an ecologically responsible way, and corporations are not let off the hook for cleaning up any messes.
Peak Oil
“… the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth …”
Mmmm … that Kool-Aid tastes good!!
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the first wants to drive over the cliff at 100 mph, while the second wants to go over the cliff at the posted speed limit.
I think your prior analysis was right, Joe- the offshore areas that Obama is opening up are not that big a deal, and may not be cost effective for volume extraction.
That means that his speech about going after domestic resources in order to ease our transition to clean power was bullshit. The truth appears to be that he wanted to defuse the Drill Baby Drill crowd, and provide political cover for doing what we really need, namely the new mileage standards and more support for clean power generation.
I have no problem with this approach. Effective presidents and leaders of all kinds will use words to deflect their true intentions from time to time. The results are what counts, and they are starting to look more promising. Every time I get upset at Obama for giving in on certain issues, he surprises me with a clever and long term move. He is turning out to be a more Machiavellian and effective leader than we have been giving him credit for.
“Tomorrow I’ll reform, the fool does say; Today itself too late–the wise did yesterday.” –Benjamin Franklin
Failure (warning: a post of frustration)
If you pay attention, it is not hard to see and sense a seismic shift in what is perceived as the new “center” of a disagreement and of the boundaries being considered for the pathway forward.
Pres. Obama’s choice to allow drilling, and now the media’s coverage of that fact and of his “reasons”, have brought about such a seismic shift.
I got home tonight and turned on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball”, on MSNBC, and the words and tone of the conversation I heard indicate that Matthews accepts and even likes the idea and feels that that much more oil will be good for America. Also, during the conversation, it was mentioned that natural gas is clean. Nobody on the program seemed interested in mentioning that natural gas generates less CO2 than coal but that it is NOT clean and that it IS still a hydrocarbon! Nobody mentioned it! (To tell you the truth, I doubt they even know it.) The whole notion of offshore drilling was quickly accepted as being fine and good — and the whole center of discussion has shifted. People concerned about the environment and climate change are pushed aside, to make room for appeasing people who deny science itself.
I must admit: I have not read Joe’s piece, with Pres. Obama’s comments. And I don’t feel like reading them. And I probably won’t. Because: Somebody had better start to realize that humans are not completely “rational” in the narrow sense. (Of course, assuming they are is one of the big mistakes in some schools of economics). I’m feeling — and it has been shown in experiments — that humans act in ways, sometimes, that you might not think are rational at first, but that do serve a rational purpose in the long term, or at least they have in the past.
The Dems cannot — and should not — count on the “base” or other people who are very concerned about these matters to vote if they do not achieve effective and solid legislation, needed to effectively solve the climate change problem. The politicians will lose my interest, my trust, and (perhaps most importantly) my energy and support if they perpetually compromise to the point where solutions will be ineffective, the public ends up confused, science is compromised, and the whole debate shifts ten miles to “the right”, so to speak. Forget it. Can I repeat that: Forget it!
At some point, withholding a vote, and withholding active support, and letting the mess settle is a way to send a necessary signal. If the present leadership doesn’t make VERY GOOD progress on climate change, then I’ll withdraw my energy, support, and vote.
The goal is not ineffective legislation, which can be worse than no legislation (at all) in some cases because it confuses and appeases and delays and etc. etc., and it leaves ineffectiveness in the driver’s seat. I hope that doesn’t become the case, but on climate change, after yesterday, it seems to be getting close, at least to me.
I’m going to stop paying attention, stop reading about this stuff, stop listening, stop putting in my time and effort, and just “give up” (at least give up trusting that the present path will get us anywhere good) unless the political leaders stick to what NEEDS to be done AND unless the blogs I participate on, and the media I watch, also stick with what’s necessary. To put it bluntly, I don’t really want to hear rationalizations upon rationalizations upon rationalizations about why we need to give away A, give away B, give away C, compromise on D, forget about goal E, and end up with watered-down ineffective complex hard-to-understand mush. Wet noodles do that. Not people who are trying to address climate change effectively.
I’m just one person. But I’m frustrated, and I’m willing to say it. I’m tired of coming home, turning on TV, and finding that the entire conversation and “solution space” has shifted dramatically in a direction that is not consistent with actually solving the climate change problem. That pattern is not sustainable, to me, as an individual. I’m going to “turn off” and go to the beach if we can’t achieve more progress than we seem to be achieving.
Period.
Jeff
Slightly off topic, but this could be the ultimate techno-fix for dealing with climate change. If we act soon, it could work to save the race!
So…we use genetic engineering to quickly develop humans who are smart enough to figure out what is going on with climate change, and to know exactly what to do about it, without listening to Fox News.
It’s sad that we’d be GMOs at that stage, but evolution (if there is such a thing) would simply be too slow to get the necessary increases!
“I’m going to “turn off” and go to the beach if we can’t achieve more progress than we seem to be achieving.”
Perhaps you missed the new fuel standards which mandate a 42% improvement in gas mileage in the next six years.
Perhaps you missed the price announcement for the all-electric Nissan Leaf, about $25,000 after the federal subsidy, about $20,000 if you happen to live in California.
And since you didn’t read Obama’s speech that Joe copied above you missed this part of what he said…
“But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”
And I guess you aren’t aware of all the recent announcements of new wind farms and solar installations. The clean energy that is going to fuel our EVs and replace oil.
I’m seeing progress. Sure, one could hold out for an “all or nothing” approach to getting off fossil fuels, but I’d pretty much guarantee the outcome would be “nothing”.
Jeff, you can’t give up yet. A bunch of us greater Boston climate activists, having survived a record-breaking, bridge-eating, basement-flooding series of monsoon rains visited our senators’ offices today–first Brown’s, then Kerry’s.
We were well-received. We stressed preserving the EPA’s authority to regulate CO2 pollution. We suggested that Obama (who was here in MA to view our wet state) and the senators, use the deluge as a teaching opportunity, noting that it was consistent with climate predictions. Finally, we mentioned the Citizens’ Climate Congress taking place in front of the White House at 1 PM on Earth Day, where we’ll be asking the President to educate and lead Americans toward climate progress.
To wrap up the day, some of us went to a town meeting organized by our Congressman. Health care occupied most of the agenda, but we brought up the urgent need to act on climate (energy, jobs, etc.) NOW! Expect to see much more come to light along these lines in the coming months.
All of our senators and representatives hear from fossil fuel-related folks all the time about how everything is going to be fine if we just let the market solve the problem. Unless this misguided thinking is countered by a flow of comments from constituents who know better, our elected officials begin to get a distorted view of public sentiments.
So, in addition to commenting on Joe’s CP, be sure to voice your concerns, everyone, to your elected representatives, including to President Obama. (Comments welcome at http://www.whitehouse.gov via the Contact button in the upper right corner of the home page.)
“From a politics perspective, Obama’s move to concede offshore oil drilling to try to gain Republican support for a climate bill might be good political strategy.”
To view this as optimistically as possible:
This was not a move designed to win any Republican concessions or support in the least. Instead, the purpose was to kneecap the “drill, baby, drill” slogan. It’s a major, well-packaged and catchy meme that is now useless to the Republicans, since Obama now owns it. This in a spring/summer that is likely be dominated by the debate about the climate bill, leading up to the midterm elections.
Note: I can’t take credit for this idea — this is from the radio talk host Thom Hartmann.
If it’s correct, then I think it may be an early signal that Obama’s getting ready for an all-out effort to get a good climate bill passed. This move insulates the red-state democrats in congress from a lot of the damage that would otherwise come to them from this, and may let them be more free with their “yes” votes. And it will directly help the campaigns of a number of the oil-state members such as Mary Landrieu.
So this is certainly nothing more than a political move. But it might just be a brilliant one. Here’s hoping.
Jeff, You have been a strong trooper these past months that I know of on CP and I can tell for years before that by the statements you make. We all get fed up from time to time. We have come a long way from the civil rights days of the 60s when I became involved, and it is often impossible to know who to trust. The battle has been fought before we became involved and the opposition is strong and intrenched. The stakes are high and many have fallen. I would love to see, as we all would, Capitalism and Corporations using their impressive powers for the well-being of humanity instead of the enrichment of the few. I know that it sounds corny but it is the best I can do. Take a break, play with your kids, turn off the news, walk in the woods. Have an attitude adjustment. Count your blessings. Hell you know the gig. “The only battle that is worth fighting is the one you lose and lose and lose and finally win!” Quote by some one who is probably dead now. We are not. We have Obama and not the Shrub. We can communicate openly on the internet like this with minimum concern for our personal safety in large sections of the world. We have access to the “www.” We know that their are millions out there that share our views. You are not alone. Well yes, time is running out but what else have you GOT to do?
I leave you with an almost quote from Bob Dylan: “If you are not busy living, you are busy dying.” And you ain’t dead yet.
Well it is 0022hr and time for bed here. Stormy day tomorrow to deal with. And so it goes.
Two Palms Up,
Leif
Jeff, indeed turn off: Throw away the f’n TV. That saves you energy, time and money. And it is a signal: Sink the corporate propagandist media, don’t give Murdoch a dime (i.e. attention). You could instead watch and read stuff on the internets, e.g. British BBC is quite good.
Obama has always appeared 4 moves ahead of everyone else – I can only hope it is yet another very smart chess move…
It is a head fake. A typical one that includes a flip flop and false promise. He cas approve sale of leases which the treasurey needs the cas from and run energy interference elsewhere. We will find deception in this move.
Given the history of how we sold off the naval oil reserves, this appeal to military necessity for drilling seems a little, well, false. The navy, in any case, has a means to produce fuel from sea water which is much more strategic than running out supply lines from the East Coast. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html
In fact, this move reduces national security because it promotes high oil prices which will be required to develop this poor and inaccessible resource. High oil prices give outsized profits to the low cost producers and supply our enemies with weapons.
For about 100 years there has been a continuing effort to create legislation which provides health care for all Americans. Each time in the past when an effort was made, it was crushed.
This time the effort succeeded. It succeeded because President Obama made a careful analysis of what was most important, what were the biggest obstacles, and what might be done to minimize the obstacles.
He recognized that if he took the pharmaceutical, health insurance, and medical industries on in a “winner take all” battle that he would loose.
So he agreed to not re-import drugs from Canada and to not pressure drug companies to reduce their prices. He found a way to leave private insurance companies in the mix, requiring them to insure everyone and kick no one off while offsetting that cost with a vast pool of new, healthy customers. He gave hospitals and doctors enough sweeteners to keep them on board.
Outcome? He won. We won. Sure, not a perfect plan, but one that can be improved over time.
Now on to climate change. Force everyone to quit driving/flying/using electricity produced with fossil fuels and the legislation fails.
So I think he’s using the same strategy to get the big issues passed. If making more area available for drilling kneecaps a major opponent, then that’s the price we pay.
That means that his speech about going after domestic resources in order to ease our transition to clean power was bullshit. The truth appears to be that he wanted to defuse the Drill Baby Drill crowd, and provide political cover for doing what we really need, namely the new mileage standards and more support for clean power generation.
Mark, if by going after domestic resources defuses the Drill Baby crowd, doesn’t that ease our transition to clean power?
What are the Baggers going to shout now – “Save our gas guzzlers!”?
In 1979 I moved to Corpus Christi, Texas and I went to the beach on Padre Island as a matter of habit for the recreation. An off-shore oil rig called IXTOC-I had a blow out and Texas governor Bill Clements, an oil man, said the oil spill was much ado about nothing. The next day the oil washed up on the beach. I stopped going to Padre Island after that. The IXTOC-I spill ranks as the second worst oil spill in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I
It would be nice if they tied new drilling to clean energy. How about this proposal – $10 of every barrel goes into a solar/wind etc, fund. The fund finances a 50% matching grant to private industry for alternative energy projects. 100 million barrels equals $1 billion for clean energy.
Now it is coming back to me. James Watt wanted to sell the whole country. Congress stopped him. Looks like Congress needs to step in again.
Wait, what concession did Obama get from the Republicans in exchange for expanded offshore oil drilling?
The point of doing this is to pull the mat out from under the feet of all those who like to claim that energy independence is just round the corner. Despite the risk of oil spills this is good news, insofar as it provides political capital to allow real progress on putting carbon neutral technologies in place.
And as pointed out by a number of commentators, those potential oil spills will be off the coasts of Red states. That in turn will require those same states to confront potential environmental consequences and mitigation face on. Not in some far away place that is not their problem where they could care less.
There might even be a discussion on the merits of off shore wind power opposed to oil platforms.
All in all, I think it was a smooth move.