Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'American-Made Energy': The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
(Photo: MSNBC)In his address Obama focused on the need for “American-made energy.” He first mentioned that he will be directing his administration “to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.” Realizing that this resource only contains 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, he quickly added that, “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper and full of new jobs.”
Obama then directs his attention to natural gas development and its claimed potential to provide nearly 100 years of supply. He follows this up with a promise that he will be, “requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use,” and that, “America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”
He praises the government for the public research dollars that were allocated over the course of 30 years that helped develop the technologies to extract natural gas out of shale rock and stresses how “government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.”
He mentions how the last three years of federal investments has positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries and the renewable energy industry to nearly double, creating thousands of American jobs.
As we’ve heard from Obama before, he said the century-long subsidizes to the oil companies need to stop. Instead, we need to “double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs.”
And then yes, Obama did mention the words climate change. He said he realizes the two political parties may not be ready “to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change,” but that Congress needs at the very least to “set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.”
The need for energy efficiency was not overlooked, with Obama saying that we need to “help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.”
So with all that was said in Obama’s State of the Union address, where does the “American-made energy” really get us?
Although there were no specifics in the address as to where the additional 75 percent of offshore oil and gas drilling will take place, the Obama Administration proposed in January an offshore oil drilling plan for the next five years that would allow drilling in the pristine Arctic Ocean and more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before adequate safety standards are in effect.
He also never mentioned the Gulf residents that are still dealing with significant health problems attributed to the Gulf oil spill and the spraying of the dispersant Corexit.
After reading the U.S. Energy Information Adminstration’s 2012 energy outlook report released on Monday, it’s clear that the promise of long-term energy supply from natural gas is not quite the dream people want it to be. In the report, the U.S. Energy Department cut its estimate for natural gas reserves in the Marcellus shale formation by 66 percent, citing improved data on drilling and production, and stated that about 141 trillion cubic feet of gas can be recovered from the Marcellus shale using current technology, down from the previous estimate of 410 trillion. The report also said the estimated Marcellus reserves would meet U.S. gas demand for about six years, using 2010 consumption data, down from 17 years in the previous outlook.
The groundwater contamination happening across the U.S. from drilling for natural gas, combined with the challenges of what to do with the toxic fracking wastewater, a byproduct of drilling, makes me wonder how Obama is going to allow the natural gas industry to significantly grow without “putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.” Youngstown, Ohio has now experienced 11 earthquakes since March of 2011, including a 4.0 magnitude on New Year’s Eve, with experts showing a link between the earthquakes and high-pressure liquid injection of fracking wastewater into wells related to oil and gas exploration and production.
Now the part of his speech that I can completely get behind is the need to “set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation,” and the energy efficiency plans to eliminate energy waste in factories and provide incentives to upgrade buildings.
Three years ago Congress was debating an energy bill that would have put into place a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard mandating that a certain percentage of electricity come from renewable energy by a particular year, something like 25 percent by 2025. A carbon tax would have been included in the legislation and our country would have taken the first necessary steps to move beyond extreme fossil fuel extraction and invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that would have put Americans back to work, creating green jobs and working toward a sustainable energy policy.
The energy bill was far from perfect, but it would have been a step in the right direction. Since then, we have taken at least 10 steps backward. We have continued to blow up the top of mountains in our nation’s Appalachian region, which has displaced communities, poisoned our water and air, and made people sick.
Even with the tragedy of the BP oil spill and impacts it’s still having on Gulf coast communities, Obama plans to expand offshore oil drilling and allow leases in some of the most pristine and remote waters on the planet.
And, we are still providing subsidizes to this industry that continues to show record profits each quarter. For example, the five biggest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell—announced a combined $36 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2011. Exxon alone pulled in $10.7 billion. In the third quarter, it was much of the same. The five companies made another $32.6 billion in profits, with Exxon at $10.3 billion.
So yes, I’m glad Obama mentioned climate change, albeit only once, and the need for a clean energy standard that will help create a market for innovation and investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, but right now talk is cheap. We are in desperate need of leadership that can move us toward a sustainable energy policy that will support clean, renewable sources of energy that won’t create another boom-bust cycle from which many coal communities are still trying to recover from.
For a century the oil, gas and coal industries have been getting Americans’ hard earned income tax money to provide energy to this country. The natural gas industry has benefited from 30 years of taxpayer money to now be able to drill holes across the U.S. and pollute our waterways. It’s time we stop supporting these extreme fossil fuel extraction industries and invest in ways to use less energy and generate energy from cleaner, renewable sources of power.
19 Comments so far
Show AllThere is no such thing as a "Sustainable Energy Policy." Dr. Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Center said that keep our Copenhagen promise of no more than 2°C rise in annual earth temperature, we would have to reduce emissions to absolutely zero by 2030 (the most optimistic scenario). This is impossible to do. We gotta come down to earth. There is no pie in the sky "Green Energy Future." Writers like, Stefanie Penn Spear should pull their heads out of their asses and research the truth, but that won't pay the bills, will it? Notice there are no links to other green websites lest they siphon off any potential donations. It's difficult enough to read nonsense, it's more difficult to explain the absurdity of it. Please help spread the news. -- http://www.ecoshock.org/
While I completely agree that "There is no such thing as a "Sustainable Energy Policy." (we don't have any sort of energyu policy), what would be wrong with having a "Sustainable Energy Policy."?
You are quite correct that we cannot transition to sustainable energy that does not exist. But would you suggest that we do not develop energy that is sustainable? Yes Natural gas is a better alternative, but do you pretend we cannot develop or discover something better?
Forget the Copenhagen, Kyoto, etc meetings, they mean nothing. But I fail to see what criteria you use to say There is no pie in the sky "Green Energy Future." ? I remember when a computer needed a warehouse to put it in. Now my wife's car radio plays songs from her I phone when we use her car.
Thank you. While news on the breakthrough front of science is hopeful (perhaps even pie in the sky) my main message is that it is physically too late for any breakthrough to make a difference. We are in for an extremely rough ride even if we discovered the perfect energy source. We refuse to accept how perilously close we are to runaway, irreversible climate change. Societal energy transitions take at least twenty years to effect. We don't have that time. Our fates are sealed, we can at best mitigate a very, very nasty future. Energy Crisis + Economic Crisis + Environmental Crisis + Social Crisis = Confluence of Crises. The complexity of this confluence will overwhelm society. CO2 = $$$ = :( = me = u
I cannot agree. There is no finite proof what so ever of a determined time line. None.
But what if we replace a lot of oil and gasoline use with natural gas. What if we replace a lot of coal use with oil and natural gas use. What if we drop the absurd pretense of electric cars and produce cars that get "real" high mileage. Which is better? A hybrid or electric car or a gasoline engine that produces less pollution than either? Which produces less pollution? A gallon of oil from the Canadian shale delivered thru a pipeline or a gallon from Saudi Arabia?
And at the same time, what if we were looking for real alternatives, not the fantasy of wind and solar?
We may be saying something alike. Bat for average rather than hit a home run off the greatest pitcher that ever lived.
Though we disagree about time. I believe we have time to fix this.
Has the sun stopped shining? Has the wind stopped blowing? Has the surface of the ocean gone flat? Is there no longer heat within the earth?
Or do you just want to push energy policies that are causing global warming?
Thanks Z- I agree. If nothing else its necessary to have a VERY strong presence at these conferences to make dissent known and documentation of alternatives as present as possible. This is not the time to put fingers in ears and go lalalala I can't hear you.
I concur ctrl and OG. There are many things that can be done including a smart grid as well as some of the other things mentioned. To just give up and call is quits is not going to solve anything. Plant a tree. Peace.
Only the totally credulous and naive, or those desperate to find something positive will even talk of the "good" in Obama's speech that contains this weasel phrase lifted straight out of the John McCain - Sarah Palin campaign: "all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy".
There was NOTHING good in this speech, no vision, no leadership, and no sincerity regarding the future direction on clean energy and taking urgent action on climate change. Consider this part:
>>"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.
The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."<<
Maybe Obama was forced to say this, being the president of a country that also includes a LARGE NUMBER of crazies and climate criminals even among ordinary citizens? Check out the right-wing blogs and sites -- a lot of them are pissed off at Obama for "stealing" their line on "all-of-the-above" energy options. And a lot of them do not trust that he would "deliver" on his "promises" on drilling and fracking! These crazies read between the lines and say things like "oh, he only said offshore oil exploration, he didn't say drilling" or "he has no right to demand to know what's in the fracking chemical mixture just as he has no right to know the recipe of diet coke even if he drinks it" and stuff like that.
Realistically, there is no way to take meaningful and urgent action on climate change without an upper limit on emissions (a "cap" on emissions), **disincentives** to the polluting technologies and **incentives** to the cleaner technologies and for retrofitting for efficiency, and maybe even some form of rationing. But can he really talk about disincentives or about putting a stop on fracking and offshore drilling, shutting down coal power plants, and so on, AND expect to get reelected? Can anyone dare utter the word "rationing"?
Obama is already compared to Jimmy Carter by the right-wing crazies on his "energy policy", unfairly to Carter! Why do so many people think Carter was a failure on this front? What does it show about the mood of this section of the society that is convinced that conservation is for the losers? I'm sure Obama knows this, and that is why he doesn't want to take this easiest, although symbolic, action of putting the solar PV panels back on the White House roof, taken down by that scum, Reagan!
This ugly reality shows that the problem is NOT JUST with Obama, with all his lying and all. The real problem is with his compulsion to say these things and do these things. It's not a "pass" for Obama, it's more a "fail" for the society that insists on a crazy, criminal behavior, no matter the consequences. People on the right and on the left both disbelieve Obama! What is the poor chap to do, other than do the best he can with the lines handed to him? Yes, people are misled by the media and fed false information. But to completely absolve the crazies in the society of any responsibility and culpability would be a BIG mistake! Go check out the right-wing blogs and sites, if you don't believe me!
The only hope for the future is for those on the left to get better informed about sustainability, energy conservation and climate change, and reach out to their right-wing "friends", neighbors, coworkers, relatives and so on, and try to convince them on the urgent need for change and that another way is possible! If those who are convinced on the need for urgent change have to be in the majority, some such "reaching out" to convince others will be inevitable.
You are completey correct about Mr. Obama's speech.
As to your last paragraph. would you agree that to achieve what you are asking for requires a change in strategy? A change in presentation? A change in rhetoric?
While his energy proposal was far from ideal, Carter may be remembered one of the last unsung heroes of American politics -- just not in this day and age. If we had followed his advice, America would currently be energy independent as well as better poised for a transition to a cleaner energy future. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, we have done nothing. Cars are 15% more energy efficient, but 25% heavier.
Cars are 15% more energy efficient, but 25% heavier."
And thanks to the insurance industry for a lot of that weight. How come no one ever consider's how much gasoline and total pollution if the 5 mph bumpers (which do no good at all) were removed.
We could always switch to solar, wind, hemp, castor oil, and algal oil for better sources of energy but the market was rigged to keep us dependent on fossil fuels with Obama continuing to defend it. We need both good sources of energy and to keep practicing ways on reducing usage. I can't see any other way for us all to sustain.
Those are all good suggestions for transitional help, but none are capable of replacing fossil fuels, at least not with the present technology.
Great picture with the article.
Hopefully, the good about American-made energy will be that the armed forces will no longer be deployed to plunder the energy of other nominally sovereign nations. But the bad is that American fossil fuels, such as oil and gas, are limited and not as cheap to extract as in client states such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and soon to be, Iran. Regarding Iran, didn’t the CIA overthrow a democratically elected government in 1953 over a matter of oil? Seems we may need a revolution every generation to keep the vassals in line. That was a good line, though, about our having a potential natural gas supply of a hundred years. A hundred years of fracking extraction would endanger our natural security just as the plundering of other lands will endanger our national security. As Ron Paul says, they came here because we were there.
I'm surprised at the nearly unanswered delusional or simply lying posts here. Of course solar and wind can provide our energy. Aided by other smaller local sources--tidal, micro hydro, wave power, muscle power, etc. wind and solar can provide whatever energy we need in the future. Underfunded and roadblocked as they have been by ideologues and privateers they are already providing some of the world's energy. With advances in efficiency that we already know work and a switch to intelligent lives we can provide all of our energy from natural, renewable sources. No breakthroughs are needed, although advances already in the works and future likelihoods will be welcome. Please either stop lying about this or inform yourselves on the subject.
Let me see if I understand what you post clearly. We need both alternnative renewable sources of energy and a change in how we use it all, yes? If so, I agree. If not, please explain but please don't call us liars or delusional. Thanks.
monsieur payne,
I wasn’t referring to you; I agree with you completely. Thanks for your posts here. I was referring to Robert Callaghan, for one (and even s/he was right about some things, such as it being too late to avoid monumental suffering and that we may be close to runaway climate chaos…). Ianista might have been on to something but failed (repeatedly) by failing to say anything real about the reality of alternative energy today and by touting natural gas, a ridiculous folly akin to saying Damocles would be making an improvement by replacing that legendary sword with some land mines and cyanide-filled needles. Ianista then ridiculed electric cars, which are far from perfect as far as democracy and ecological lives but are probably one of the things that will save us if we are indeed ultimately saved in this crisis, giving the rich a way into the positive positive feedback loop of cognitive-emotional consonance. S/he then goes from ridiculous to inane insane with reality-defying remarks about wind and solar. I suppose his/her solution is hamster-wheel power backed up by magical hydrogen fuel cells drawing their power through temporal anomalies and cold fusion. Or simple extinction followed by the death of Gaia followed by…
Alcyon had it right about Obama and lots more and is one of the few people alive I know of who agrees with me about Carter (at least Carter’s attempt at rational energy and Iran policy, which are intimately linked. Callaghan, OTOH, is kinda daffy in the contradiction of his support of Carter and recognition of where we’d be now if the man from Plains had prevailed, contrasted with his determination to keep hopelessness alive through the continued use of fool’s fuels, er fossil fuelishness, er um....)
I agree with Alcyon sort of, that at least until people in the US are confronted by an honest appraisal and truly understand the imminence and catastrophic nature of what we face, no one will be listened to talking about sufficient caps on energy use, rationing, nationalizing and shutting down the coal, oil and gas industries, etc. And Obama certainly could take the only rational and principled stand—supporting the kinds of changes in government, business and lives that will allow civilization, such as it is, to survive: solar, wind, smaller local amounts of other renewables, ecological lives, reforestation, local organic permaculture, radical economic and political democracy, bioregionalism and _______(fill in your own).
I think of Governor John Peter Altgeld of Illinois, who sacrificed his political career to do the right thing in the case of the Haymarket activists and labor. I’m sure there are many others (Kucinich, eg. the brilliant and brave “boy mayor” Dennis Kucinich, as opposed to Congressman “I’ll make the principled vote every time, except when it might actually make a difference” Kucinich…). And we need to do all this faster than almost anyone alive can imagine to have a hope of saving even a little bit of what we love.
Clarified?
PS. New phrase to spread around: “best of the above.”
Ah, thanks. Likewise, I enjoy reading your posts both here and on Alternet. Nice greeting by the way.
Es nada. By the way, I guess I could have just said 'yes', but if you read my posts you know that's just not the way I work.
Let me amend one thing you said, and I think you'll agree: we don't need alternative renewable sources of energy; it's more accurate to say that because we need to solve this crisis in 20 years or less, our only alternatives are the renewable sources we already have, and need to deploy RFN (Right F'ing Now) on a massive scale. (And the other stuff I mentioned.) Those sources are 1. solar (not just PV but Concentrated Thermal, passive solar heating and cooling, solar cooking and water heating and so on) and 2. wind, especially offshore wind. These 2 need to be deployed massively and nearly worldwide, and supplemented by smaller and more local choices of micro-hydro, (at the same time tearing down tens of thousands of useless and destructive dams in the US and elsewhere), tidal power, wave power, OTEC, very very small amounts of burning things like biofuels, etc. We need to move to rail, sail, small scale, closed industrial cycles of non-toxic materials, Electric Vehicles (emphasizing trains, buses, jitneys, community-owned cars and carpools) in a fiberoptic smart grid with the vehicles as mobile storage devices (energy storage, not your old 8-track collection)...