Amazing as it sounds, I found myself agreeing with Speaker John Boehner earlier this week when he referred to cutting the $4 Billion in subsidies that currently go to the oil and gas industry in this country. Obama immediately commented on the statement and took it a step further to say that the funds should be used instead for sustainable energy projects to wean us from our dependence on fossil fuels.
Of course, with 24 hours Boehner was backtracking, but it was good idea while it lasted. And Obama’s desire to spend the money instead on green jobs and sustainable energy projects is the only idea that offers us any kind of future.
Why so many in this country are still denying the reality of climate change in spite of the evidence is the wonder of the day. Perhaps many people avoid or deny this reality because they fear the policies that will follow. Or perhaps they fear change, in general. They are maybe buying the lie that any solutions to climate change will destroy the economy and diminish their lives.
There is plenty of evidence out there to the contrary. We need projects everywhere, and products that save energy — so we can see them — get used to them — and get unafraid. We understand that it’s not as painful to fill a tank with gas when a car is getting 40-50 miles to the gallon as it is to fill a gas guzzler. American-made appliances can’t even be sold in Europe because they use too much energy. It’s time to wake up to conservation.
Simply put, we need to tackle the climate crisis. We need regulations, national and international, requiring deep, scientifically grounded emission reductions. We need systems of enforcement. We need to protect the environment, while there’s still a shred of it left.
We need that $4 Billion to get projects going, sustainable energy jobs going, and emission reductions going. And we need it now.
Eileen Kreutz
Industry
… perhaps they fear change, in general.
Our president got elected by a bunch of fools dazzled by empty promises of hope and change. The reality is more than enough to put anyone off the idea of change for the sake of change. And that’s all there is behind the idea. Ask Spain about their recent experience of destroying more than 2 “brown” jobs for every “green” job created, moving them to the brink of bankruptcy.
Change is playing out before our eyes. The US is subsidizing Brazil’s oil industry and promising to become their best customer, thus continuing our dependency on foreign sources and doing absolutely nothing to wean us off petroleum. But we’ll get rid of lots of nasty US oil jobs.
It’s time to wake up to conservation.
Last Saturday morning, as is my habit, I went to the dump – excuse me – the transfer station and recycling center. While I was doing my thing, a car with an Obama/Biden sticker backed up to the trash bin. Its driver got out, opened his trunk, grabbed a 2′ stack of newspaper and was about to toss it in when I opened my big mouth. “There’s a newspaper bin right over there.” I pointed helpfully.
What I received for my efforts in behalf of conservation was a profanity-laced tirade about the marital status of my parents. What we need before anything can happen is to dispense with the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude.
God gave us oil for an obvious reason. Corn and sugar also should have obvious uses. Do you think Obama and friends might be a bit confused? Corn in our fuel tanks is costing us 10% in fuel mileage and food bills, due to lack of supply, are skyrocketing. Obama’s next book will be titled ‘The rise and fall of the AMERICAN empire’.
Captain Planet,
I would agree you are right about the foolishness of using ethanol. Besides causing food inflation and lowering mileage it turns out that corn based enthanol doesn’t reduce net greenhouse gas because of the fuel used in its production. However you are confused about where this came from. Here is a little factual history on Ethanol production.
United States President Bush, in his State of the Union address delivered January 31, 2006, proposed to expand the use of cellulosic ethanol. In his State of the Union Address on January 23, 2007, President Bush announced a proposed mandate for 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017. It is widely recognized that the maximum production of ethanol from corn starch is 15 billion gallons per year, implying a proposed mandate for production of some 20 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol by 2017. Bush’s proposed plan includes $2 billion funding (from 2007-2017?) for cellulosic ethanol plants, with an additional $1.6 billion (from 2007-2017?) announced by the USDA on January 27, 2007.
In March 2007, the US government awarded $385 million in grants aimed at jump-starting ethanol production from nontraditional sources like wood chips, switchgrass and citrus peels. Half of the six projects chosen will use thermo-chemical methods and half will use cellulosic ethanol methods.[8]
Perhaps President Obama has failed to act vigorously to overturn this boondoggle subsidy program for big agribuissness but clearly he is not its source. Time to stop being hoodwinked into partisan positions instead of staying focused on the issues.
Conservation works….it keeps money in your wallet, where it belongs.
The ethanol push got a really big a$cceleration in 2008 when oil last hit over $ 120 per barrel, with gas getting to over $4 and home heating oil over 4.
Unless I am mistaken Senator Obama had not left the senate yet, and a Texas guy and his Haliburton friends were in control in the White House. The back room meetings chaired by VP Cheney with the oil folks did squat for the US, unless you were an oil industry employee, or a stock holder.
The car and truck fleet could easily be 30 % more efficient.
As we push for efficiency, reduce and then eliminate the support dollars for ethanol.
Housing could easily use 30% less energy through efficiency measures. What could 300,000,000 Americans do with the extra $ 1000 or so in savings from the energy used in their cars and homes per household for the non energy economy?
Energy policy has always emphasized discovery of new reserves and consume, not conserve and save, and certainly not push for life cycle analysis of green ideas.
Take the $4,000,000,000 in tax breaks back from the energy giants, add another $1 per barrel consumption tax for every barrell of oil that is refined overseas or domestically and invest it all in conservation and alternative energy
Easy to say….and to do one step at a time……
Pellet stove anyone?
Hi Frost,
As Hume said Facts are Stubborn Things. See the problem with facts is that no matter how much you disagree with them and no matter how much you want to maintain and ideology in the face of them they don’t change.
For instance contrary to your statements “thus continuing our dependency on foreign sources and doing absolutely nothing to wean us off petroleum. But we’ll get rid of lots of nasty US oil jobs.” implying that the president’s policies are somehow limiting our domestic oil production and increasing foriegn oil dependency the facts show a different picture.
US oil production revives despite offshore disruption
By Ed Crooks in New York and Sheila McNulty in Houston
Published: March 2 2011 23:00 | Last updated: March 2 2011 23:00
U.S. production rose last year to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques. As a result analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade. The rise would still not be enough to end America’s dependence on imported oil which accounted for roughly half of US demand in 2010. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1KsWsDCpf
On the other hand here is another fact from domestic Oil production fell from 2003 to 2007.
And another fact that is exactly the time period there was a republican president and a republican majority in both houses of congress.
So it turns out that under a republican president and congress we became progressively more dependent on foriegn oil and first under a democratic congress 2008 and then under a democratic president we have increased domestic oil production and eased our dependence on foriegn oil.
Its such a shame when those stubborn facts keep refusing to match up with ideological bias.
Our president got elected by a bunch of fools dazzled by empty promises of hope and change.
Promises of hope and change in politics are usually empty, but fools? When one considers the other major candidate and those who supported him, the only appropriate response to this notion is laughter.
The reality is more than enough to put anyone off the idea of change for the sake of change.
Change? As in the “Take Amurka back (from the darker-skinned)!” fervor of 11/2010? Frostpoof’s got a point there, even though he certainly found this sentiment dazzling. Does that mean he’s a fool too?
The US is not subsidizing Brazilian oil. You can look it up. See factcheck.org for the lowdown on that subsidy rumor. How is it a bad idea to buy Brazilian oil? Our Saudi ‘friends’ crash planes into our buildings; no Brazilians have.
The brilliant idea to use food for gasoline was part of the Bush/Cheney energy plan. Ethanol from corn is heavily subsidized, uses more energy to make than it produces, makes corn farmers into instant millionaires, and ruins motors and fuel systems.
As in the “Take Amurka back (from the darker-skinned)!” fervor of 11/2010?
At the time I was too disgusted by the “If you don’t support the One, you’re a racist!” fervor to be dazzled. Those chanting that were the real racists.
… {Frostproof} certainly found this sentiment dazzling …
And evidently that fervor still splutters now and then – in public, unfortunately – with a false premise: If you didn’t vote for Obama, you must have voted for McCain. Actually, I wrote in Ron Paul, who is not a pandering progressive and who certainly doesn’t believe his country needs some unspecified transformation.
Oops. My first comment was for 11/2008, not 11/2010. Now that I think back to last November, there was no fervor, just some common sense reasserting itself.
Frostproof, you are on the right track. Ignor Goo, he/she is just a troll.
Bill,
Unfortunately while Frosts politics may be attractive and Goo’s may be repulsive to you the facts on energy dependence are stubbornly unresponsive to ideology and politics. The fact is that as noted we are currently at our highest oil production in nearly a decade. We are the third highest oil producer in the world and still import half our total consumption. We do have significant energy reserves but of course the more of them we draw the less there will be for the future. Sort of like using up your life savings to keep going to McDonald’s. Also while new techniques make it possible to extract more reserves this is only economically feasible at higher crude prices. This is a natural result of use. The low hanging fruit is always plucked first leaving the harder (and more expensive) fruit for later harvesting.
Fortunately there is a very viable means of reducing dependence on foriegn oil available to us. Conservation. The GAO study at this link http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/115492.pdf shows among other things that not only would agressive conservation reduce dependence on foriegn oil, conservation saves a barrel of oil at a much lower cost than producing one, further more conserving an equal number of brrels of oil produces more jobs than increasing domestic production of that same number of barrels.
Until we move beyond name calling and patisan identity politics we will be unable to focus on the facts that will provide the real solutions to our challenges.
How long are you guys going to keep dragging Bush into this? We know he screwed up already. Obama promised change, remember?
Those chanting that were the real racists.
I never heard anyone claim that a vote against Obama was a vote for racism. And indeed, this is a moot point, since, as Frostproof pointed out, his comment is completely irrelevant. Anyway, I still consider the real racists to be the birthers, the ones who used coded words and phrases like “uppity” and “doesn’t know his place,” and especially the ones who allowed themselves to be tricked into exposing their hispanophobia on this very website.
a false premise: If you didn’t vote for Obama, you must have voted for McCain.
Actually, I did not presume to guess the candidate chosen by Frostproof, or even that he voted. But notice I said “major candidate.” I didn’t deign to mention the perennial cartoon candidates like “Mr. Ed,” “Snuffy Smith,” or “Ron Paul,” who were quixotically penciled in by crazies.
Now that I think back to last November, there was no fervor, just some common sense reasserting itself.
Nice double standard.
Frostproof, you are on the right track. Ignor Goo, he/she is just a troll.
Even nicer double standard, Mister Reid: if an unprovoked Frostproof appears, ridiculing those whose opinions differ from his, he’s “on the right track,” but if someone gives it back to Frostproof, that someone is a “troll.”
Cyclops: Amen to pellet stoves or new wood gasification. For every dollar gas goes up 1 billion dollars leaves Maine. If we use our own products we add value and keep more money here. Right now a major portion of the pellets we make are going to Europe to be burned in there Electric plants.
Hey Frost…It was probably his son’s car.
So, those who disagree with Bill are just Trolls? Hmmmm. Wanna cross my bridge? Trip trap…
Instead of focusing on all the politics and facts in this piece I chose to say to myself ” How can I reduce MY use of these products in MY everyday life?” Everyone should ask themselves that same question.