Steve Everly, American Solutions:
More than a year into his presidency and after imposing numerous delays on American energy production, President Obama announced today that he would open up portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling.
But the plan is defined more by what it restricts than what it opens up. The Obama administration chose to take off the table large portions of the OCS in an announcement that was supposed to be about expanding American energy.
The announcement signifies:
* No drilling in the Pacific Ocean.
* No drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean.
* No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
* No drilling in much of Alaska.While opening up any portion of the OCS for responsible energy development appears to be a great step forward, the truth is that none of this has been finalized, and most new drilling will not occur until after 2012 at the earliest.
The offering also comes with a hefty price: President Obama wants to force Americans to swallow a massive new energy tax before any state will reap the benefits from this new offshore drilling. The bill Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass last summer, the Waxman-Markey energy tax, would eviscerate the economy, killing more than one million jobs per year while raising the cost of energy for all Americans.
If an energy tax passes Congress this year, the negative impact on the economy will happen long before the first oil comes from these new offshore leases.
In addition, the multitude of steps to be taken before any of these lease sales are made after 2012 are still a work in progress. Each offshore tract that the administration proposes will no doubt fall victim to an array of court challenges and bureaucratic hangups, each of which will push back new offshore drilling even further.
Instead of following the will of the people and moving forward immediately with offshore drilling, the President is asking us to trust him to proceed in the future, kicking the can of energy independence years down the road. Recall that during the 2008 campaign then-Senator Obama affirmed his support for offshore drilling, only to take office and implement a series of delays and roadblocks to responsible oil and gas development.
According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, offshore drilling has the potential to create millions of new American jobs and could provide more than $2 trillion in new government revenue at the local, state, and federal level.
By delaying offshore drilling for at least another two years, the President’s decision does nothing to allow us to begin reaping those benefits. Mr. Obama’s insistence on imposing a new tax on American energy also hamstrings any future job creation or new drilling revenues.
When Obama was elected, I noted that we were getting nothing more than Jimmy Carter with a tan.
But when Carter came along, the American electorate was not as yet quite so thoroughly indoctrinated by the institutionalization of leftist orthodoxy — which over the years has hidden beneath labels such as “political correctness,” “social justice,” “egalitarianism,” “affirmative action,” and “leveling the playing field” — as they are today. Which has given Obama and his band of liberal fascists (and before you object, really: what else to you call the kind of government-mandated corporatism we’re now experiencing, be it in banking, car manufacturing, and health care insurance?) just the kind of slack he needs to push through programs that are anathema to free enterprise and individual freedom, provided he is careful to label these programs in ways that sound as if they appeal to the principles upon which this country was founded.
Unfortunately, most people these days can’t be bothered to unpack euphemisms. Also unfortunately, leftist orthodoxy, by way of infiltrating our very epistemologies, has over time created an electorate that is both intellectually disengaged and, counter-intuitively, “politically active” — if only in the sense that many of them have been taught who to hate, and they go about doing so almost by rote, without ever having to engage on the playing field of ideas.
Here, Obama is breaking another promise while basking in the glow of having pretended he’s deigned to keep it. And my guess is, the mainstream press will yet again provide him cover.
Want to take back the country? Take back the press. Or at least, render this current incarnation of an “objective” media impotent.
Reckon Ampersand is worked up into a lather over the anti-drilling Obama prancing about as an Energymeister? Somehow, I doubt it.
I said, over at Ace’s site, that the MSM is the single largest contributer to our debased political culture. Until they’ve been marginalized (and that process is ongoing), we won’t see improvement.
Of course this decision is just craven political posturing. I really do not get it. If Obama and the Dems really want to “save” ANWR, well okay. I disagree that ANWR needs saving. Oil can be extracted safely and without negative impacts on the wildlife in that location, but the oil is also not going anywhere and if we absolutely need it later we can drill it then.
But why restrict drilling so many other places? Why do they want oil prices to go up? Fuck, it it is a states right issue, then give the states a say if there is drilling off their coast (Florida and California do not want to fuck up their tourist economies).
You would think they have some other agenda. What could that be?
Of course if you give states the right to restrict it, does that give the states the right to allow it?
“Want to take back the country? Take back the press. Or at least, render this current incarnation of an “objective” media impotent”
I remember as a young lad in the late sixties my dad swearing at “the liberal media”.
They don’t even try to hide it these days.
I don’t see anyone taking back the press. I would argue FOX already has, but they have been labeled “right wing”, and all that will happen going forward is further polarization and information chaos as any “objective journalism” continues to be characterized as just more ideological lies.
Everyone has an agenda, don’t you know…
“Jennifer,” the letter began, and this one was not from a bill collector.
Yeah? Think again honey.
Oil can be extracted safely and without negative impacts on the wildlife in that location
You should read Jonah Goldberg’s account of his trip to ANWR. He describes the proposed drilling site as a vast mud plain that, during the summer, is infested with more bugs and mosquitos and infernal creatures than the devil himself could imagine.
The caribou are literally tortured by the critters that crawl up their noses while they graze; these critters crawl into the nasal cavities, lay eggs, and then when the larvae hatch they drive the caribou crazy with the itching and squirming.
Then there are the critters that bore into the caribou’s hide and scritch around under their skin.
And don’t forget the rapacious mosquitos and teeming gnats.
The caribou seek out human structures such as roads and pavement because then they get some relief from their tormentors.
The parts of ANWR that were preserved for their beauty? A couple hundred miles south, on yonder horizon.
Oh, great. Now I suppose I can expect to be transported to ANWR to be re-educated about the importance of environmental stewardship.
Like Siberia, minus the productive work extracting mineral wealth for the State.
Obambi’s “plan” will take years to put into effect – if ever! If, on the other hand, the Federal Lands were opened, US, Alaska offshore, all three coasts we would generate many jobs and increse production 2-5 million barrels per day plus additional natural gas, drive the price of energy down, cause the economy to boom. Then we build electrical generating capacity, coal, nuclear and gas – if someone wants to do wind or solar let then, but no government subsidy. Reduce taxes on business, allow business to bring overseas earning back without double taxation. The result will be a job-creating monster economy. To fill the jobs we would have to have press gangs going to Mexico and Canada to bring workers back. Will any of this happen – hell no, our president is too much of an ideologue!
It’s either a Stupakian Bargain or a cookbook, assuming there is a difference.
The safest thing to assume is that if Obama proposes any domestic policy that a classical liberal might like, one should probably start looking for the trap in it.
Joe,
The Canadians do so just over the border from ANWR.
Can Darleen do a cartoon with President Obama “drilling” Mother Gaia?
Tastefully of course. We do not want to make certain bloggers cry or get musky.
Spiny Norman:
You are preaching to the choir. I do not agree with Obama and the Dems on ANWR. I just understand it is a political issue they campaigned on. That is all.
Joe
“No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico.”
‘Cuz we wouldn’t want to get in the way of the Russians and Chinese doing so off of the coast of Cuba.
Because of the fairness!
It’s like with the water in California. The
KingPresident can take away and theKingPresident can give back. It all depends on his needs, at that time, on that day.How is this reneging his promise on offshore drilling? I don’t recall Candidate Obama ever citing a specific timeline or region where offshore drilling might occur.
me neither. but this is just to make the hcr medicine go down better for the clinger crowd.
Listening to Jake Tapper’s report, I hear him say about Obama on this policy “He will allow drilling off the coast” without the slightest trip over “he will allow”. What a world.
The priest-king has spoken. All hail him.
If President Obama could just go down and part the Atlantic, it might be easier to drill. Oh wait, he is the other guy.
Happy Pesach.
Promise:
Reality.
Who said reneging, Sam? The article suggests that he’s pretending to move toward exploration and drilling, but that the suggestion is itself qualified in such a way that it isn’t what it appears to be.
Typical of Obama, it’s lose-lose.
did you see where I linked earlier about how if there’s a winner in this it’s Shell, which isn’t even American? It’s like Dutch or something. Which, as far as Europeoples go you can do worse. But still.
Doesn’t surprise me.
Too bad all the land everywhere is taken. Or I’d try starting America again.
Wait. Isn’t this the last season for “Lost”? Maybe I can buy that island.
@Pablo: yes, he intended not to, in that June 2008 quote. But he also indicated he was willing to compromise this as part of a larger plan to break our dependence on foreign energy sources. In Auagust 2008, he said:
====
Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
But on Saturday morning, Obama said this “wasn’t really a new position.”
“I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue,” he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.
“What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems,” Obama added.
====
He got hell for this from enviro groups then, just like he’s getting the same hell for it now. But it’s not inconsistent with his position. He wants to prevent offshore drilling, but would compromise this in exchange for a decent overall energy strategy.
@JeffG: offshore drilling isn’t something that could happen tomorrow. It takes a good five years for oil companies to find the best spots to drill. And there’s also the fact that there’s a major shortage of drilling rigs to contend with. Even if we had President Palin now chanting “drill, baby, drill” from the presidential podium, it still wouldn’t be possible for her to move any more quickly than Obama is.
I don’t see any evidence that Obama is slow-walking this, and I don’t see where he’s “breaking a promise.” What “promise” was that? This sounds like political hyperbole.
I think she would have done this over a year ago (about as quickly as Obama suspended military commissions and ordered Gitmo closed) which would put us over a year into the process today. Which would be more quickly.
I think what Sam’s saying is that we’re not taking a nuanced approach to this issue, and that Obama’s stance that he’ll absolutely not do something, ever, unless it becomes expedient to do so is not at all equivocal.
Me, I think Obama’s habit of beginning statements with “let me be clear” is more a prayer than a promise. And in answer to that prayer, God is just saying no a lot.
@Pablo: But the Waxman-Markey bill didn’t exist back then, much less go to the Senate to die. So there would be no reason to give up that leverage in negotiations for a comprehensive energy policy, which is Obama’s ultimate goal here. (I’d argue he was foolish for giving up that leverage *now*, unless he has some firm guarantees we don’t know about.)
[…] “Obama's False Promise on Offshore Drilling” […]
Kerry Jacobson
?Obama?s False Promise on Offshore Drilling? | protein wisdom