Substance From Obama On Energy
Michael Landauer, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, challenged the myth that Barack Obama gives good speeches but lacks substance. The same day Obama himself was giving more evidence that the myth is a lie by revealing a plan for emergency energy rebates and a $50 billion stimulus package to drive job creation. Commenters on the blog weren't interested in talking about these substantive proposals, only in redefining "substance" to exclude them as substantive. One said Obama's proposals were not substantive but the "same old tired failed socialist ideas." Another warned not to confuse being detailed with having substance. I think this was a grudging admission that Obama does, in fact, have detailed proposals while trying to make it sound like having details is a bad thing. Sigh. OK, if others don't want to talk about Obama's substantive energy proposals, I'll talk to myself.
A "Gang of 10" in Congress has proposed a comprehensive plan that includes allowing more drilling on the continental shelf as well as increased requirements to support alternative fuels in automobiles. The key word in this plan is "comprehensive." When I heard about it, I thought... finally. Almost all solutions require comprehensive plans and comprehensive plans require both sides to give a little. I thought to myself, why doesn't Obama sign on to thinking like this? Lo and behold, I then read that Obama, in an interview in Florida, signaled his willingness to consider such a plan. Hallelujah! My faith in Obama is sustained. The man is open to comprehensive solutions instead of seeing every issue as a wedge issue to keep open in hopes of dividing the electorate and appealing to the base.
What I like best about Obama's substantive energy policy is that he's open to a comprehensive solution, a package deal that brings in the drillers without taking our eye off the real need, which is breaking our addiction to oil.
I like his plan for emergency energy rebates paid for by a tax on oil profits. This recognizes that consumers need some immediate relief. It's paid for instead of just running up the federal deficit. And it doesn't interfere with the market forces that are encouraging conservation instead of consumption.
Long-term, it's his plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy that holds the greatest promise that America will finally solve its energy problem. This summer's debate about drilling for more oil off Florida is a distraction from real solutions.
P.S. Today, Obama recommended tapping the strategic petroleum reserve. I'm less inclined to support that. The reserve should be for strategic emergencies, not normal market fluctuations, however severe.
4 comments:
There was an ill-informed letter to the editor on Tuesday in the DMN in which the writer cast doubt on the 10-year lead time required to bring offshore production on-line. Let me assure you that it requires at least 10 years. The government sold some leases in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006, with no oil or gas expected to flow until 2016 at the earliest. It is expensive and time-consuming to build the necessary infrastructure, including subsea pipelines and production facilities, in the offshore environment. There is no way that any oil and gas will come from the offshore areas currently under discussion until 2020. I'll bet a million dollars on that.
Whether it's five years or ten years or twenty years is largely a distraction. If we need more oil more than we need to protect our coastlines, we ought to begin the long process of leasing those offshore areas, so they'll be producing whenever they are ready. The question is over environmental protection, not how long it takes to bring new wells online.
On the other hand, we need some immediate relief, too. Obama's plan for rebates provides that. And it's not like oil is going to be the answer forever. We've got to get more serious about developing alternative energy sources. Obama's plan to put $150 billion into R&D over the next ten years does that.
Obama is discussing serious matters. McCain is using gimmicks, like air pressure gauges, to win votes.
So any point with which you do not agreeis "a distraction"? I think not. I believe it is an essential part of the entire debate. By the time that of the alleged oil and gas comes on line, we'll have had 3 or 4 more "energy crisis" with the price of oil going up or down. I believe we should drill, as the threat of any blowout is dwarfed by the likelihood that an oil tanker from Venezuela will crash onto our shores. But those who say it will mean relief from oil prices are wrong. That's all I'm saying.
It's not because I'm against it that drilling off Florida's beaches is a distraction. It's a distraction because it doesn't help break our addiction to oil. Let's talk about solar, wind, nuclear, hybrid cars, electric cars, greater fuel efficiency in gasoline-powered cars. All of these have pros and cons, things for me to like and dislike. But they all share one thing in common: they all help break our addiction to oil. Anything else is a distraction from a key strategic problem facing America -- our addiction to oil.
Post a Comment