President Obama wants to open coastal waters to oil exploration, from Delaware to Florida, with new territory also in the Gulf of Mexico and 130 million acres in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. From his speech today at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland:
"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."
The New York Times says the announcement is part of Obama's strategy to win support from pro-drilling Senators for climate legislation. Newsweek's Gaggle blog calls him "desperate for another win."
Of course, you could also look at this and say Obama's a moderate and a pragmatist who just reformed health care and student loans, extended help to more homeowners at risk of foreclosure, jammed through 15 recess appointments, scored a giant new treaty with Russia and lectured President Hamid Karzai on a surprise trip to Afghanistan -- all in the past week. In that scenario, Obama's not desperate -- he feels great. You?
Leave a Comment:
Recommended reading for the Obama administration:
Since they seem to be unclear on how politics work when you are dealing with crazy Republicans.
I don't believe President Obama is that naive enough to do this just for republican support. I think the population as a whole, democrats, republican, and independents, tends to underestimate his intellect. Although I don't always agree with his decisions, in my opinion he is trustworthy and deliberate in his decision making.
I agree with Danderson above. I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and his goal of his strategy may not be obvious immediately. Also, creating history and creating new legislation is a longterm, complicated process, and having a good background in history can help with comprehending why Obama makes certain decisions, and that those decisions are plotting a course into the far future.
How is President Obama "trustworthy" in his decision making? Was he "trustworthy" when he cut a backroom deal with Big Pharma and Big Hospital Lobby? Was he "trustworthy" when he appointed Larry Summers and Tim Geitner to executive positions within his White House? Was President Obama "trustworthy" when he prevented the War Crimes Trials of former President Bush and Vice President Cheney? I will agree that he is deliberate in his decision-making, but to say that President Obama is "trustworthy"; I vehemently object to your opinion.
Rachel, I don't like it for two reasons. First, once you drill in those locations, they are ecologically destroyed and there is no reclamation. Why destroy pristine natural areas for a negligable amount of oil ?
Secondly, why prolong the agony of weaning ourselves off oil ? Whether it belongs to us or "our enemies", there is a finite supply of oil.
Love you and your show. Thanks for letting me express my opinion.
I don't like this either. Rachel, this is something we have compromised enough on. This will NOT do anything to prevent the neocons adventures in the Mid East. Oil is not the only reason we are there. It's more about global domination than oil. The neocons want an empire and a few oil rigs off the coast of Virginia won't stop their quest for global dominance. This will just make Exxon a few extra billion dollars. We demand clean energy sources from our government. Please, we need to use our resources to develop a solar energy grid. Wind energy is working, expand it, improve it. We have had electric cars for over 75 years.
Also, death to the New World Order! ;)
Ditto. I'd love to see an executive order stating no expansion, in either property or funding, for fossil-fuel energy sources.
But oh well. That'll never happen. Neither will my dream energy infrastructure of Gen IV IFR reactor baseline with renewables as overhead for flex demand. 'Cause, you know, infrastructure and energy independence and using nuclear waste to generate energy. These are all bad things.
Early cut off for people that will be OMGZ NO NUCLEAR: Integral Fast Reactors are a type of breeder reactor, being essentially a "dial-a-radioactivity". You can almost choose your end product to be any radioactivity level between hellish but brief to below-background for millenia. They all have pros and cons. Further, you can use existing waste as fuel, and the end-waste, whatever it is, can also be 'chosen' to be non-proliferateable. Furthermore, IFRs are literally impossible to go critical/supercritical (and I mean literally. Like, so long as Noether's Theorem / universality of physics holds). The process of doing so quenches the reaction! In any case, a nuclear baseline means a certain minimum amount of energy production is not subject to environmental whims, then the flexible overhead is all generated with solar/wind/tidal/etc.
Iraq is a major supplier of oil to the United States. The Iraqi government is unstable and their next door neighbor is Iran, with Mahmood Ahmadinejad the US-Irael hater. If Iran develops even short range nuclear weapons and gains control of the Iraqi oil supply and we have no back up plan, we are stuck. Many commentators have stated that we can only get about 63 billion barrels of oil from opening up offshore drilling. I would say that some reserves are better than no reserves. Yes, we always have the option of engaging in another war, but are we capable at this point? I believe there is more to this than meets the eye. I am willing to wait and see.
I live in Virginia and don't really like drilling off our coast, but, with what Obama said this morning, it will be slow and temporary until we are up and running with alternative energy sources. There are already drilling platforms off our coast now.
I don't see that we a choice right now. I hate the thought of drilling but the possibility of being less dependent on the Middle East sounds great. Another good probability is job creation. I have one son-in-law that works for a company that moves ocean oil rigs. He's 24 and makes $65,000/yr. My other son-in-law just applied for a job off-shore. We're praying he gets it because he's in such a low-paying, go-nowhere job now.
I agree with Johanne. I hate the idea of drilling off of any of our own coasts, but if it can lessen our dependence on foreign oil..... and it would mean lots of jobs...
Obama has done a lot this week. Next week he should focus on alternative energy sources.
How serious are we about moving away from fossil fuels? If "not very" or "not at all," then drill away. Anything to make us oil independent. If we are serious about alternative fuels, forget the drilling and invest in an alternative. I'm betting the former will be truest.
I'm not sure what to think about this......I understand our need to become less dependent on foreign oil, but I didn't expect President Obama to open these coastal waters to oil drilling. I'm kind of shocked, actually. I think, before we all go into a big panic, we need to learn more about the long term effects vs. how much this will benefit us. Very risky territory here, Mr. President.
Let's please focus on wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy!
I think the President said that this is temporary until we get renewable energy up and running. New technologies take time as well as research and development. This is a bandaid, I think funding for other options will be coming. With offshore drilling opened, more people will be employed, more tax revenue will be created, providing funds for research and development as well as tax incentives for companies that create the technologies and jobs.
I am all for drilling off of Virginia. I live in Virginia. Drilling means jobs. Drilling means energy. Now, those things may not be created this year or in the next few years, but what's wrong with planning for the future now? I am for alternative fuels. I am for getting off of foreign oil dependence and dependence on oil in general. The development of alternate fuels takes time and we should have things in place like this to tide America over until then. Alternate fuels is the way of the future. Oil drilling is the past. We have to build a bridge between the two in the present. Drilling helps do that for now. Build more refineries on the East Coast. Build more nuclear power plants. Make America reliant on its own sources of energy and not that of other countries. America needs to harness its domestic energy resources now to help develop more environmentally friendly alternatives for the future. Transition now. Reap benefits later. Obama is on a roll.
Amen!
Excellent observation!
The future is now. You can call a competent Solar Energy contractor and have your house powered by solar in a few weeks. The same is true for wind turbines in rural communities. Conversely, it will be 7 years before a single drop of oil comes from a well in any of the new areas. How many wind turbines and solar panels could be installed in those 7 years? Which 7 year plan would reduce dependence on foreign oil faster? Manufacture and installation of solar panels and turbines would also provide jobs just as new wells would, so that's a push.
Obama has said before that the transition from the status quo to wind/solar, etc. will require rebooting conventional systems of providing energy. This is what he says here. The transition cannot happen overnight.
Obama has said before that the transition from the status quo to wind/solar, etc. will require rebooting conventional systems of providing energy. This is what he says here. The transition cannot happen overnight.
I don't think he is simply looking for another win at all. Over and over again he has shown himself to be a thoughtful and deliberate policy maker. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one -- that there is enough merit to doing this to out weigh the obvious concerns.
Visionary!
First a gift to insurance companies, now a gift to oil companies. The one good thing about this is that it will put Republicans in a very awkward position. Either they will have to go along with it, since they've always been in favor of it, thus giving Obama another win, or they will have to dig themselves even further into the suffocating cocoon of NO that they've built for themselves and alienate their own base. Either way, they lose. Whatever else you can say about this man, you have to admit he's got an interesting strategy.
Obama is a true dog lover. The Repubs haven't earned a bone, by he threw them one anyway. Let's hope they can learn a little obedience, and that he can teach them to do more than play dead.
I believe it's a wise move on the President's part; it will take YEARS before any drilling is actually done and we should be off oil as an energy source by then. Further, T. Boone Pickens has told Congress that they are wildly over-estimating off shore deposits.
In the meantime, President Obama co-opts the "drilling" Republicans and shows he is nor averse to energy independence and Republican ideas (even though they will never come to fruition).
Robert - what makes you think it will be "years" before any drilling occurs? I'd bet they could begin within a year or two. Even if it does drag out for years, that means money that could be invested in renewable energy sources is being frittered away on this.
Bad strategy, I'd say.
As an energy researcher for 32 years, I see the shrewd logic of Obama’s move. Robert Shaub is absolutely right, it will be years before any drilling occurs, if ever. And I want to make a few key points.
#1: Despite the sloppy media reports of opening these areas to drilling, they are actually only being opened to oil and gas EXPLORATION. If and when oil and gas are found, which is not a sure thing, companies will have to negotiate leases. Then it takes years to build the rigs – it could be 5 years or more before any oil or gas is pumped. And, of course, gas would be a lot less of an environmental threat than oil.
#2: The amount of oil, as Pickens notes, will probably not be all that much, and even then would probably be depleted in a few years. Technology has improved tremendously over the years, so that serious environmental damage is far less likely than it was 20 years ago. Remember that most of the bad incidents involved oil tankers, not drilling rigs. There would be no tankers hauling this oil. So the probability of serious environmental damage is pretty remote.
#3: With the hugely increased support for renewables and efficiency R&D under Obama (I am currently working on a multimillion-dollar Recovery Act biofuels project), together with the facts that wind energy is now a money-making business and plug-in hybrid vehicles are just around the corner, green energy is going to really explode in the next 5 years. This may reduce the appetite of the public for drilling as time goes by and the economy also improves.
#4: Despite the blunt and angry objections of some environmentalists to any concessions to the energy industries, we need to recognize certain priorities, to wit: getting a CLIMATE bill enacted trumps everything. Sure, an oil spill in the Atlantic would be harmful to wildlife in a localized area for several years, and there is a chance of that happening. But the failure to slow down greenhouse gas buildup NOW could lead to worldwide consequences that in the worst case would threaten human civilization. If John Holdren and some other eminent scientists are to be believed, there is a small but significant possibility that little-understood feedback mechanisms (such as the sudden release of methane from permafrost and deep-water methane hydrates) could take us over a tipping point that would make concern over an oil spill look like a really bad joke. If making this concession will allow the President to pass a decent climate bill, it would open up the whole world to follow suit; if not, worldwide action will be delayed until serious consequences become obvious to everyone, which could be 5 to 10 years. By then it will be too late.
#5: With all the talk about the futility of winning Republican votes by means of such a gesture, some progressives seem to be forgetting that there are some Democrats that are not yet on board with climate legislation. Despite what some have said, there is no way to get a climate bill through the Senate with reconciliation. It needs 60 votes. With this action, Obama may be able to get Lindsey Graham, who has already been tarred by the extremists and so has little to lose by helping get a climate bill passed. Maybe some of those scientists in the Raleigh-Durham Research Triangle have gotten to him!
So, all in all, Obama is really giving up very little, except standing with the most knee-jerk factions within the environmental movement. The potential payoff in climate protection is huge, the potential cost to the environment very minor. The actual drilling may not even happen, but with the overblown symbolism the GOP has attached to offshore drilling, it’s pretty difficult for them to play it down now without looking ridiculous. Folks in the political center will certainly see it as a bipartisan move by the President, who can then shine that light on the rest of his party, just like he did with health care. And, most importantly, it could be the political move that saves the world. Sounds like a good move to me.
Well said!
I live by the central florida coast- do I want oil drilling off the coast off Florida??-- absolutely not. It is not worth the risk of environmental damage for negligible amounts of oil. We need to wean ourselves off of oil. I would rather we spend the time, research, and funding on solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources.
Ava, What will we do for energy while we wait for research and development on renewable energy? In my opinion, all successful changes require transition.
you liberals are soooo...hypocritical.......Drill, bambi, drill!
In the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "If he walked on water you would say it is because he cannot swim". I wish you guy would actually think instead of just bashing for the sake of bashing.
You know, it's just such a radical change from George Bush and the Republicans; I'm still in awe hearing well thought out plans from the White house. There's a lot I didn't like in there, but there was a lot I did like. I'm usually very leftist, but pragmatically speaking, it's allright! and a lot less frightening then what the Repub's would be doing right now - which is NOTHING Good. Let's hope the coastline protections he highlighted are protected really well by a good lawyer.
i am in the construction trade, on the gulf coast. aside form oil in the gulf, there is natural gas. i am also unemployed and have been since hurrican ike hit this area. the work around here is only trickling in; make no mistake about it black cafat women are last on the hireing list unless it is a big project. open the drilling i need to go to work
vote?
As much as I want to call a flip-flop, energy is an area where Obama has frustratingly yet pragmatically cast wide the net of options. Nobody in there right mind can claim that drilling is Obama's preferred long-term option but it doubtless represents one of the characteristic compromises that he had long since decided to make. Capitalizing on his current momentum will help push the issue through the inevitable cries of "hypocrite" and "sell-out" from right and left respectively.
I think you're right. In the long term this will probably do more good than harm; and in the meantime it's politically shrewd for Obama to look like he's agreeing with Republicans, which puts them in an awkward position.
It also boosts Obama's centrist credentials if he can make certain environmentalist factions angry with him, if you want to be cynical.
At the risk of being slammed.....
All technologies are transitional.
We are in a difficult situation regarding our energy needs.
We should have listened to Pres Carter 4/18/77: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA
Drilling is one of the necessary mistakes we're going to make to reactivate our economy. The bigger mistake we're going to make is nuclear power.
Clean and green is not coming on line fast enough.
We should be modernizing our electrical grid faster and putting up more wind turbines every day.
We're going to need every drop of oil in the meantime to avoid unpleasant social disruptions that will make post Katrina N.O. look like spring break.
The cost of the Bush legacy is incalculably worse than even the pessimists among us feared.
I think you're right on with this assessment Gordon, I'm glad Obama's willing to make folks mad for the sake of the future.
I know I am MAD about the drilling...we have had all this time to get our renewable energy in place and very few of our policy makers have taken it seriously. Now look where we are nuclear power and more oil drilling. Come on politicians put the GREEN vision where OUR money is.
I don't think he's trying to win GoP votes, he proved he's willing to go without their support (which is good because he will never get it).
My entire family and I are environmentalists, so this increased drilling immediately sounds bad. Because it's coming from Obama, I'm willing to hear out the argument, he's earned my trust as an all around smart-president, and if he's doing this to increase our self-reliance while continuing to promote greener energy solutions, I understand it and can cautiously support it.
I'm not seeing the person I voted for at all anymore. I think this is a poor decision and I'm losing my faith in his ability to stick to his promises. Offshore drilling is so poor for the oceans and I don't care if it is just a temporary solution, doing it all is wrong. He's giving so much to the Republicans that he's lost nearly any resemblance to the democrat he claimed to be. I guess the Republicans and the democrats are just all taking one huge step to the right. Yet we still have all these conservatives calling Obama a socialist and the destroyer of America while he does everything they've campaigned on.
I think it takes a courageous leader to make as unpopular decision as this one. With the instability in the Middle East, I'm surprised it has taken this long. Green technology will take time, we need to do this to help with the transition. I don't believe the President is shallow enough to make such a controversial decision to appease Republicans.
I don't have a problem with exploring for energy in fruitful areas. They just need to put containment systems in place for the inevitable accidents, spills, and leaks following the lead of the nuclear industry not that mess, the Alaskan Pipeline, which filled to discern routes to failure.
Rachel this is the first step in getting ourselves weened from the oil ministers from overseas. His next step is getting our solar and wind projects up and running. I think he is doing what he said he would and I support him.