Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 01:22 PM Jan 2012

Obama doesn’t back down on clean energy

Obama doesn’t back down on clean energy

By David Roberts

After every State of the Union speech, pundits rush to lament that the speech contained lofty rhetoric unmatched by substantial policy proposals. All the concrete ideas are “small bore,” a “laundry list.” And indeed, that’s a fair way to characterize last night’s speech...But that criticism misses the point...its main function was to set Obama up for a strong defense of clean energy.

That’s what I was watching for: whether the president would back down on clean energy in the face of coordinated GOP assault...He did not. Instead, he doubled down: “Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.” The portion of the speech on clean energy policy was both longer and stronger than I expected. This is the killer bit:

I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.

Now, of course I like this. But check out the results from a focus group consisting of 50 swing voters from both parties:

Not surprisingly, the moment in the speech that brought the most positive reaction was Obama’s mention of the death of Osama bin Laden. It drew an average reading of 80 on the 0-100 scale used by the meters. Obama’s call for more investment in renewable energy drew nearly as strong a reaction, however, said Andrew Baumann, another of the pollsters who conducted the study. The passages of the speech that talked about phasing out subsidies for oil companies and competing with China and Germany for new developments in wind power and solar energy did particularly well.

This is what the administration has figured out that many CW-immersed political journos have not: No matter how much the right squawks, no matter how much money the Chamber of Commerce spends on attack ads, Americans love clean energy. They know that fossil fuels are the past and clean energy is the future and it makes sense to them to shift public resources from the former to the latter. This is a killer political issue.

- more -
http://grist.org/politics/obama-doesnt-back-down-on-clean-energy/


An aside from the commentary:

(It’s worth noting that a couple of the small-bore proposals were quite significant. Obama thinks “every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax” — that would be a pretty big deal. It would also be a big deal if he required all companies drilling for natural gas to disclose what chemicals they use, something I believe the EPA is mulling. More detail on his proposals in this document.)


9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obama doesn’t back down on clean energy (Original Post) ProSense Jan 2012 OP
Kick! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #1
he'd do the most good bigtree Jan 2012 #2
I'm ProSense Jan 2012 #3
Hydraulic fracturing is an ecologically unsafe process... Earth_First Jan 2012 #5
you don't think I want you to go away bigtree Jan 2012 #9
k&r - "Americans love clean energy." bananas Jan 2012 #4
The quicker we get there, the better. n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #8
K & R Scurrilous Jan 2012 #6
K&R jpak Jan 2012 #7

bigtree

(85,992 posts)
2. he'd do the most good
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 01:49 PM
Jan 2012

. . . proving that he can regulate the drilling for natural gas in a safe and ecologically sound way. I understand he's taking steps and mouthing the right words, but it's not going to satisfy those who are just dead set against fracking, under any circumstances. That's not a constituency that's going away.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. I'm
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 01:56 PM
Jan 2012
he'd do the most good. . . proving that he can regulate the drilling for natural gas in a safe and ecologically sound way. I understand he's taking steps and mouthing the right words, but it's not going to satisfy those who are just dead set against fracking, under any circumstances. That's not a constituency that's going away.

...not sure that's possible. "Safe drilling" is an oxymoron, but the oil industry is entrenched in our economy, both in terms of jobs and energy. The U.S. needs to do everything it can to speed not only the end of the reliance on foreign oil, but also the reliance on fossil fuels.

Earth_First

(14,910 posts)
5. Hydraulic fracturing is an ecologically unsafe process...
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 05:34 PM
Jan 2012

If it is such a safe process and can be regulated, the exemptions from the Bush/Cheney Energy Act should be specifically addressed, which have not been to date.

Additionally, when The President is referring to hydraulic fracturing by utiliizing gas industry verbiage ('shale gas extraction') I am not holding out on any major policy changes to the process from the federal government.

FFS, the EPA; rather than deliver clean, safe drinking water to Dimock, PA residents after Cabot refused delivery, would rather cancel the deliveries than have the federal government set a precedence on hydraulic fracturing *may* affect groundwater or watersheds within well casings.

Three glaring positions that I am not very hopeful on coming from the federal government.

I am currently involved in several moratorium pushes in small central New York communities because the state-wide moratorium expires on June 1...

If you have ever been to the Finger Lakes region, you'll understand why.

So yeah, I guess I'm one of those constituents who aren't going away; *OR* another way of putting it:

A life-long New York State resident concerned for the public health safety and environment of my community that I work, live and play in.

bigtree

(85,992 posts)
9. you don't think I want you to go away
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 08:07 PM
Jan 2012

. . . do you?

More power to you . . . I stand with the residents in New York State, and elsewhere (Pennsylvania), who are fighting this in their communities.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
4. k&r - "Americans love clean energy."
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 05:00 PM
Jan 2012

"They know that fossil fuels
are the past and clean energy is the future and it
makes sense to them to shift public resources
from the former to the latter. This is a killer
political issue ."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama doesn’t back down o...