Democrat Barack Obama on Friday said he would be willing to support some offshore drilling if it were necessary to enact a comprehensive energy plan, and indicated that he could support the bipartisan energy plan put forward by the Senate's "Gang of 10" that includes both drilling and a major investment in renewables.
The shift on drilling drew a lot of heat over the weekend, as pundits accused the candidate of flip-flopping on the issue, though Obama says he still doesn't actively support opening up more areas for leasing as a solution to energy concerns.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," said Obama, noting that he remains skeptical that drilling would provide much, if any, relief on gas prices.
"We can't drill our way out of the problem," he said. But, he continued, "I also recognize that in the House and the Senate, there are Republicans who have very clear ideas about what they want, and at some point people are going to have to make some decisions. Do we want to keep on arguing, or are we going to get some things done?"
In a speech in Lansing, Mich., this morning, Obama clarified his position on the issue. "While I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan," he told the crowd. "I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good -- particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
Obama said his energy plan would include a "use it or lose it" approach to oil leases, requiring oil companies to develop the 68 million acres already under lease, or be forced to turn the leases over to another company. But he emphasized that more drilling won't affect the price of gas significantly, while continued addiction to foreign oil puts the country in peril from an economic, environmental, and national security perspective.
"This addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced -- from the gas prices that are wiping out your paychecks and straining businesses to the jobs that are disappearing from this state; from the instability and terror bred in the Middle East to the rising oceans and record drought and spreading famine that could engulf our planet," he said.
One new item in Obama's energy plan is a call for the release of a portion of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to cut prices, a move that some Democrats in Congress have been calling for as well. Campaign energy policy director Heather Zichal said that this isn't a complete reversal of his previous position, though just a few weeks ago Obama said he did not support releasing oil from the reserve. She said his proposal would swap out light crude from the reserve for heavy crude, and is necessary in an energy crisis.
"Senator Obama has looked at this issue and he realizes Americans are suffering and he made the distinction that we do need to tap the strategic energy reserve," said Zichal, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In his speech today, Obama also touted his plan to issue an energy rebate to help deal with high gas prices. Families would receive a $1,000 rebate, and individuals would receive one for $500. His plan would use the proceeds of a windfall-profits tax on oil companies to fund his "Emergency Energy Rebate."
Obama also called for efficiency improvements to reduce the country's use of oil by the amount we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela. He proposed higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, calling for 1 million plug-in hybrid cars to be on the road by 2015, and for a $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy those vehicles. He said he plans to create 5 million new, green jobs through $150 billion in investments in clean energy and job training over the next decade.
He also pledged to adopt a "Renewable Portfolio Standard," mandating that 10 percent of the nation's electricity supply comes from renewables by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025, which he said would help spur jobs and bring new energy sources to the market.
"I will not pretend the goals I laid out today aren't ambitious. They are. I will not pretend we can achieve them without cost, or without sacrifice, or without the contribution of almost every American citizen," said Obama. "But I will say that these goals are possible. And I will say that achieving them is absolutely necessary if we want to keep America safe and prosperous in the 21st century."
U.S. pushes for compromise in Copenhagen climate talks
Merkel threatens no-show at Copenhagen climate talks
Obama will go to Copenhagen—if he can seal a deal
Comments
View as Threaded
Cameron Posted 3:51 am
04 Aug 2008
Cameron
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:24 am
04 Aug 2008
Thats over 60,000 jobs, and over 6,000MW of renewable energy development down the tubes if that happens. (Not to mention a brain-drain of the key professionals in this area overseas)
Republicans have blocked the 2009 renewal of the RETC 8 times so far this year.
Republicans have previously blocked it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. (It also lapsed 3 months into 2008) During those years, the market completely crashed.
There are ONLY 3 weeks left in September of this congress session before they close for the rest of the year.
Democrats got 51 votes in the Senate.
Democrats NEED 67+ votes to pass the renewal of the RETC.
_
So the only way that Democrats are going to get the RETC passed is if they give Republicans something they want.
And while that may not be "ideal", thats what we have to deal with.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Brittanicus Posted 5:15 am
04 Aug 2008
We cannot keep up the demand for it right now! Oil! Diversity Alliance for Sustainable America.(earthtimes) stated in it's article that if the U.S. grants amnesty and gives citizenship to 12 to 30 million illegal migrants already here, as McCain, Obama and the majority of Democrats propose. That all those naturalized citizens could possibly add 120 million U.S. and foreign-born relatives to the U.S., in the next 20 years whom all will CONSUME MAJOR ENERGY. Does the American people need to escalate the 315 million plus population, the census estimates we have now? To a new total of 435 million?
The executive director of (DASA) admitted "Proposal to reduce energy costs in the U.S. will not work unless we also simultaneously curb U.S. population growth by reducing immigration and curbing teen pregnancies." Severing the illegal immigration occupation and deporting those already here is a good start, but not the complete solution to this serious energy problem that cannot be reversed.
Unless another Nikola Tesla, an underrated genius of the 19th century invents a some new form of energy, we will be reliant on fossil fuels for years to come? Clean coal, geothermal, eco-fuel, nuclear and of course wind power and solar. The latter is energy that is a perpetual source of unimaginable power that knows no bounds.
The Save Act (H.R.5088) is an enforcement federal bill only, to start the EXODUS of foreign nationals illegally in AMERICA. NUMBERSUSA has all the unsuppressed facts
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:57 am
04 Aug 2008
http://mediamattersaction.org/reports/fearandloathing/
http://mediamattersaction.org/reports/fearandloathing/onl ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
eheath1000 Posted 6:55 am
04 Aug 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:21 am
04 Aug 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:13 am
04 Aug 2008
...in the second Presidential debate:
In a speech in Lansing, Mich., this morning, Obama clarified his position on the issue. "While I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan," he told the crowd. "
"Does anyone understand what he just said?"
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:56 am
04 Aug 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 11:09 am
04 Aug 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:11 pm
04 Aug 2008
McCain's plan calls for drillin' only in the states that would allow it...
...and the only states that would allow it would be Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas...
so, in essence... shrugs
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:12 pm
04 Aug 2008
Why Oil Really Fell Today--and Could Keep Falling
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/08/04/w ...
Bottom line: I think research into alternative energy technology is moving ahead way faster than the Washington politicians realize. (But we still need to exploit oil and coal and nuclear to bridge the gap from a hydrocarbon to post-hydrocarbon economy.) And it is all happening without spending trillions of dollars in taxpayer money for energy-themed Manhattan Projects or Apollo programs. This possible breakthrough came from MIT's Solar Revolution Project, which was funded to the tune of $10 million by telecommunications entrepreneur Arunas Chesonis. Heroic capitalism strikes again.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 4:23 pm
04 Aug 2008
They will never accept wind or solar farms if it means abundant, affordable energy and an increase in standards of living.
This is merely a vehicle for wealth redistribution and social change.
The day our roads are filled with tea-kettle "hydrogen" powered cars that "emit nothing but pure water" from their tailpipes is the day the left suddenly considers water vapor a greenhouse gas. And talk of disruptive micro-climates that will need to be studied...
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:28 pm
04 Aug 2008
Yeah, just like They didn't let us have personal computers that are more powerful than the Air Force computers of the 1980s...and how they didn't let us have access to the Internet...and how they banned all solar research so a company like First Solar couldn't be outperforming every stock on the market...and...
Permalink
perk Posted 10:25 pm
04 Aug 2008
Now, he is re-floating the terrible idea of using the petroleum reserve.
Frankly, the high oil prices is the only effective cure for our fossil-fuel disease. There is a viable profit motive for conservation and alternative energy now.
Permalink
perk Posted 11:08 pm
04 Aug 2008
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html
Obviously, it is political juggling, but could someone explain this to me? Who is for and who is against off-shore drilling here?
It sounds like that all energy policy action is being blocked until after the election. Surprisingly, blocked by the Democrats. I read it as saying that under the new president, they will get the policy they are looking for. Or, lets make things really bad until election day. Not sure.
Anyway, politics as usual by both parties.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 1:31 am
05 Aug 2008
The fact that the environmental "movement" has at it's core an anti-Western, collectivist sentiment?
Please point me in the direction of anyone in the mainstream environmental community who isn't a proponent of wealth redistribution and legislated "simple living".
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 1:38 am
05 Aug 2008
As long as the welfare checks keep coming, there will be no reason to innovate.
Now let's get after that criminal corn subsidy.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:38 am
05 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
dmarckini Posted 7:57 am
05 Aug 2008
Permalink
jas Posted 6:18 pm
05 Aug 2008
Britannicus: eew. When in doubt, point at the (most recent) strangers among us. Simple answers to hard questions...
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:34 am
07 Aug 2008
No doubt for medicinal purposes.
So..if I have to be Stewie...LOL.
I appreciate a good sense of humor. :-)
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
splashy Posted 7:21 pm
07 Aug 2008
If not, then it's just another thing to help those that already have money, while hurting the poor who will only be able to afford to buy gas guzzlers the way things are going.
I always hate hearing about "tax credits" because that usually does not include the poor, who could really use the help getting to be more energy efficient. That's like getting help to make their homes more insulated. Doesn't happen because the programs that should be able to do that are unfunded, so the poor pay more in heating and cooling bills because they can't come up with the up front cost of sealing up their homes.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 10:09 am
08 Aug 2008
That is all that matters.
Then there are all of the Professional Climate Pimps. We know who butters their bread and who they will vote for.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
aullman Posted 3:04 pm
09 Aug 2008
There are other options these days. Remote Office Centers lease individual offices, internet and phone systems to workers from multiple companies in shared centers located around the city and in the suburbs.
Every worker who is able to work remotely will save on all of the fuel that is normally used to get to work and back each day. There is a benefit to workers who need to be onsite, since roadways would be less congested and there would be a lower demand for oil, which would cause the price to drop off.
Working remotely may not sound glamorous or high-tech, but it is hard to argue with the savings. After all, a car that drives 2 miles a day is going to use less gas than even the most efficient hybrid that has to travel 50 miles a day.
Permalink