Skip to content
Categories:

Obama takes the offensive on energy

Post date:
Author:

Last week, it seemed Barack Obama spent just about every day on the defensive. If today’s speech in Lansing, Mich., is any indication, it’s a new week.

“You won’t hear me say this too often, but I couldn’t agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, ‘Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.’

“What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those 30 years, he was in Washington for 26 of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that — while far from perfect — represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it’s important to remember that he’s been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he’s really promoting is more offshore drilling — a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

“George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide “psychological” relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world’s oil reserves. Three percent for a country that uses 25% of the world’s oil. Even Texas oilman Boone Pickens, who’s calling for major new investments in alternative energy, has said, ‘this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.’

“Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy. But it is not the solution. It is a political answer of the sort Washington has given us for three decades.”

From a purely political perspective, all of this is pretty important. It reminds voters that McCain has been around for a generation, and he’s failed ever test of energy policy miserably. It reinforces the notion that while Obama may be open to compromise, he still knows that increased coastal drilling is an ineffective Republican gimmick. And it also characterizes McCain as being even further to the right than the Bush administration.

Obama also tried to strike a balance between short-term relief and long-term wisdom.

“There are genuine ways in which we can provide some short-term relief from high gas prices – relief to the mother who’s cutting down on groceries because of gas prices, or the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and can’t even afford to drive around and look for a new one. I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now.

“I also believe that in the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven’t touched. And if they don’t, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will. We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico. We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.

“But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away.”

For more details, the Obama campaign has added more details to its published policy.

From what I understand, all of the cable networks covered Obama’s speech live, but the media focus seems to be on Obama reversing course on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

If the focus is on a “flip-flop,” the political salience of the speech may be lost. If the focus is on the substance, it read like a winner to me.

Comments

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    About fugging time…

    Now will someone please ask McCain where he plans to bury the poison from his 45 new nuclear plants?

  • Racer X

    says:

    I wonder if the Republicans would like it if president Obama gathered a bunch of environmental groups to hammer out the new energy policy in secret, and excluded all the energy producers.

    I know, I’m dreaming.

  • thorin-1

    says:

    If the focus is on a “flip-flop,” the political salience of the speech may be lost. If the focus is on the substance, it read like a winner to me.

    The MSN forcus on substance? That’s a laugh. If the MSN were focused on substance McCain would have a hard time holding unto the 20% of the country that still thinks Bush is doing a good job.

    We can not rely on the MSN to cover this campaign beyond the superficial level.

    It’s a great speech, but very few people will ever see it and the MSN will distort all meaning from it.

    Obama has got to start going heavy with ads. He’s let McCain have the playing field to long.

  • Stevio

    says:

    Racer X,

    I love that concept. I’d invite Cheney and then wouldn’t let him in, except I’d ask him to go for organic coffee for the attendees. I love this idea, I wish I had thought of it…

  • Davis X. Machina

    says:

    Count the seconds — because it will be seconds — of coverage this gets on the big three’s nightly newscast.

    And most Americans don’t even get their news there — they get it from the five-minutes-counting-commercials rip-and-read on their car radio, between the sports talk and the classic rock.

    If a Republic falls in the forest, and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

  • lib4

    says:

    Ok here is the problem…Obamam just came out in support of offshore drilling…while it was a nuanced the simple mided MSM will pick this up and run with this story not as an attack on McCain but rather an Obama flip flop…..I guarantee this will happen tonight…..

    The Obama media strategy has been seriously lacking since the primaries ended.
    Reason and sensibility does not attract media attention, controversy and conflict does.

  • Capt Kirk

    says:

    If the focus is on a “flip-flop,” the political salience of the speech may be lost. If the focus is on the substance, it read like a winner to me.

    I for one wish that someone would put this “flip-flop” bs to rest once and for all. If a Republican accuses a Democrat of “flip-flopping” it would be appropriate to remind them that Bush “flip-flopped” completely after 9/11 on almost everything he every said during his campaign. Then ask if they consider that appropriate.

    Of course, there’s that thing about all those decisions resulting in consecutive disasters. Still this flip-flop taunt deserves to be called out and shot in the street. Anybody with common sense changes their mind when confronted by new or changing conditions, those who don’t are generally known as stubborn fools, the opposite of flip-flopper.

  • joey

    says:

    Face it…few in the MSM are informed or intelligent enough to understand the “substance” of Obama’s speech. By just focusing on “flip-flop”- they don’t have to think…much less be so bold as to compare the nominees’ energy policies.

    The media will go searching for comments from energy experts like Romney and Gingrich…Who are currently driving their SUVs around on nearly flat tires with spark plugs missing and drills on their backs so they don’t have to be dependent on foreign oil.

  • Megalomania

    says:

    Here is a map of the area in controversy which is color coded

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Outer_Continental_Shelf_map.png

    Look at it…Also remember we are in a war… some of area do not even fall into the United States International jurisdiction. What about those areas that are easy to defend and protect, huge areas open right now to drill in the mainland our mother land.

    My argument begins with the establishment that the Republican Party is filled with blundering idiots that play the song they know what the American people want. When in fact here they grabbing for what is the last opportunity for more corruption before they are driven out of office.

    Here, for public approval and investment for the future all these public companies that are listed on the stock exchange and want to participate should bring forward the best guess and identify all possibilities of what kind of oil is located in these areas and the risk involved. The Republicans just want to vote and drill. No discussion.

    Or do the Republicans want to rush into actions that might take Americas strategic planning to International areas exposing America’s resources to any pirate, or mercenaries of war that are not on our side. Those on the high sea’s that are not part of any stock market, to bailout from failure or by the profiteer pirates of the Federal Reserve, Bush and Company.

    My God isn’t it even stupid to consider any real action in the gulf area such as drilling during Hurricane season. Till November anyway.

    These Republicans are lingering around wishing for another contract for America and it does not benefit you or me.

  • ml johnston

    says:

    Hopefully the newsmediocre will objectively utilize this information rather than parsing words to ameliorate the corporations .No one will expect anything intelligent from Fox news and Murdoch Street journal,.

  • Doug

    says:

    Pundits are rich, and so to them, flip-flopping – real or imagined – is more interesting to them than solving our energy problems.

  • james k. sayre

    says:

    Why does Obama fail to even mention the very large role that speculation has played in the doubling of the price of oil and gasoline in the last year? I know why John McCain doesn’t mention speculation, because his old buddy, Phil Gramm, helped to create the unregulated electronic oil futures market. (If you have already read the following, I apologize, but we need to push Congress to completely shut this destructive speculation down).

    We’re being ENRONed again: this time by oil futures contracts speculators who are unnecessarily and very profitably driving up the price of crude oil and hence retail gasoline prices. Curious as to why you are suddenly paying over four dollars a gallon for gasoline? No, it’s not due to “supply-and-demand,” no, it’s not due to “OPEC,” nor is it due to “peak oil.” It’s due to totally unregulated electronic oil futures trading in world markets. Check out the very lucid article that explains the unseen financial machinations in oil futures markets written by F. W. Engdahl on May 2, 2008, entitled, “Perhaps 60% of Today’s Oil Price is Pure Speculation.” It may be viewed at .
    http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html

    In a nutshell, he suggests that the Bush Administration dropped the ball in January 2006, when they allowed totally unregulated electronic trading of oil futures contracts in New York. Previously these electronic trades had been made at the London Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Futures Market. With that decision by the Bush Administration, all of the world’s oil prices were then opened to upward pressure from speculative futures contracts. In essence, oil futures contracts made by speculators, banks, hedge funds and pension funds all competed with real demand on the spot markets and had the effect of driving up both wholesale oil prices and retail gasoline prices. Speculators have made billions of dollars on their trading of oil futures contracts. All of their profits come right out of our pockets.

    Even with a stable oil supply, there is a slow worldwide increase in demand for oil, which creates a long-term upward pressure on oil prices. However, with the relentless saber-rattling and war-mongering by Bush and Cheney in the last several years, and the more recent war talks by McCain and the Israelis, the oil futures markets are rife with speculation and paranoia. This war talk keeps ratcheting up the prices on the oil futures contracts and hence the wholesale spot market prices. It is an endless spiral of greed and paranoia.

    As long as there is no tough and effective oversight of the electronic oil futures markets by the Bush Administration, the oil prices will climb endlessly. These oil prices will be quickly followed by hikes in the retail gasoline prices at the pump. The 60% speculation share of the $4.25/gallon gasoline price, is about $2.55/gallon, which is what we consumers are paying to these oil speculators as a “service fee.” Not a bad “fee,” since the speculators produce no usable goods or services…Just a few large greedy oil futures traders helping themselves to your gas money.
    Without this added-on oil futures “service fee,” you would be paying about $1.75/gallon for gasoline. Write, call or smoke-signal your Representatives and Senators today and suggest that they read the June 2006 report by The U. S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations entitled, “The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices.” Then demand that they investigate and then force the Bush Administration to firmly regulate the computerized oil futures contracts trading in New York, London and Dubai.

    This electronic oil price futures scandal is costing US drivers about $969,000,000.00 per day! That number is based on 60% speculation fee of a gasoline price of $4.25/gallon and on US 2004 consumption of 380,000,000 gallons/day. Tell you Senators and Congresspersons to simply shut down this unregulated electronic oil futures contract trading market. Then the price of gasoline will slowly drop to about $1.75/gallon…The only way that oil price futures contracts make money is if the price of oil goes up in the future, say, 30, 60 or 90 days later. This futures market serves no social need. It is just for corporate greed. The corporate speculators are probably also gaming/ENRONing the wheat and corn futures markets the same way.

  • Lance

    says:

    lib4 said: “Ok here is the problem…Obamam just came out in support of offshore drilling…while it was a nuanced the simple mided MSM will pick this up and run with this story not as an attack on McCain but rather an Obama flip flop.”

    You mean that after weeks of JSMcC*nt complaining that Obama HASN’T flipped on off-shore drilling, he gets to complain when Obama considers it?

    Oh, yah. That is their gameplan.

  • SteveL

    says:

    Obama’s “plan” doesn’t produce one extra watt, not one extra BTU, of energy in the immediate future.

    It consists of handing a $1,000 bribe–a Christmas gift to each and every American to shut them up so they stop complaining about high energy prices (he hopes).

    In the meantime, all the extra cost of purchasing high-mileage hybrid cars (which are commanding huge prices at dealers now) falls on the American consumer. Consumer Reports has calculated that hybrids depreciate so much that the gas savings will not pay for themselves, even at today’s high gas prices. That lousy $1,000 isn’t going to compensate for that.

    There can’t even be much conservation of energy till most of the cars on the road are high-mileage cars. Since Americans keep their cars an average of eight years before buying new ones, that means that Obama’s plan consists of absolutely nothing but “Suck it up and bear it” for at least 5 more years, probably a lot longer. No relief for Americans in his entire first term as President.

    Americans don’t want to be told how to sacrifice their lifestyle. They’ve done enough sacrificing for one lifetime already. They want to be told how their standard of living can be increased, not decreased further.

  • beans

    says:

    The U.S. especially has a lot of low hanging fruit where energy consumption (or any consumption) is concerned. Why do we not speak to the other side of the equation and do everything possible to reduce our demand? This goes for water as well. Atlanta has no long-term plan for water supply and yet they have done little in the way of planning for that fateful day when they go to turn the tap on and there’s nothing there. I guess that’s what the implication is anyway. Conservation in any regard is a good idea; yet reusing and recycling are just buzzwords beside “green”. Nobody really knows how waste is generated or how much we could using and saving our natural resources. I guess it’s unpopular.

  • Racer X

    says:

    SteveL whines: Obama’s “plan” doesn’t produce one extra watt, not one extra BTU, of energy in the immediate future.

    Does McCain’s?

    Just askin’.

    And I guess we’re supposed to believe that McCain, after getting all that money from the oil companies, will somehow “shame” them into giving you cheaper gas, so you can increase your standard of living.

    WATB.

  • Davis X. Machina

    says:

    Obama’s “plan” doesn’t produce one extra watt, not one extra BTU, of energy in the immediate future.

    Defining immediate future as ‘in the next three years’ what is there to be done?

    They want to be told how their standard of living can be increased, not decreased further.

    …and it’s Obama’s job to tell them how, even if he doesn’t know how it can be done, and it can’t be done?

  • beans

    says:

    SteveL,

    I bought a Civic Hybrid 4 years ago and could sell it today for almost $21K. Plus, I’m saving the Earth, at least a little. What would Consumer Guide say about that? You sound awfully spoiled with this “we don’t want to be told we’re in trouble; we deserve even more” shit. We have sacrifice very little relative to what most people who share this ball of dirt have had to contend with. What makes us so special?

  • Dylan

    says:

    Wow, isn’t it amazing? When you actually read beyond cherry-picked quotes and McCain’s distortions, Obama sounds like a voice of reason among the madness of this campaign. He’s sharp, he’s informed, and he’s got real policy proposals that aren’t built around slogans or sound bites. I just hope most Americans pay attention enough to realize it before it’s too late.

  • Jake

    says:

    I just bought a Toyota Prius this year. Plus I own a 1966 Volkswagon Beetle and a Pontiac Sunfire. The Sunfire is the worst on gas at about 25 miles per gallon. I started my plan about a year ago or so to switch from big Cadillacs to these more efficient cars. That 1000 dollars that was described as a bribe will come in real handy for a lot of American families looking to heat their homes this winter. Everyone knows there is no real short term answers to our energy situation but at least Obama is trying to deal with it and not just offering gimmicks like the gas tax holiday. I get a tax break for buying my Prius and wish that tax break Obama is offering was retroactive so I could benefit. I like Obama’s plan to help our car industry out so they can compete with the rest of the world once again. Anyway this idea that Obama’s plan will not help turn around right away simply is not true. I am already seeing the savings at the pump. This effort is going to take everyone to participate as much as they are able even if it is eight years or more for some before they can get something that is more energy efficient. We got to start somewhere.

  • William

    says:

    Good speech. You all worry too much, McSame is a windbag; even simpletons get that. Now if only Barack was a white woman! (Just kidding.) The VP choice and the debate(s) are the true tests to come. McSame’s negative smear blather lacks that zing that negative campaigning had when old GW Douche was running. You hit America with enough negativity and eventually it loses it efficacy. They’re grasping for anything now and it shows!

  • Ohioan

    says:

    Good bitch-slap, no doubt. But I wish Obama would listen to his own advisor Jared Bernstein about the “frame” of the oil drilling debate, that Big Oil & the GOP has won its first victory already by framing the debate as drilling, instead of what it really wants – an offshore land grab.

    Because our only hope of turning this debate around, and it’s a thin reed, is to convince the public that lifting the moratorium today would not affect prices at the pump tomorrow (or probably ever, according the EIA). We can’t get them to change their rhetoric from “drill, drill, drill,” as Larry Kudlow regales me with regularly, to “lease, lease, lease.” But we want to do everything we can to educate the public such that when big oil says “drill,” we all hear “lease.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/the-not-so-great-energy-d_b_116618.html

  • Lance

    says:

    Re # 29.

    That’s a great point Ohioan. Though I try to make it, not only that the Oil companies want the leases but they want them CHEAP and they want them NOW when they have all this heavily taxed profit they’d like to hide by buying up future wealth.

  • Ohioan

    says:

    This line is of course a good sign:

    OBAMA: “But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven’t touched. And if they don’t, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will”

  • Mark D

    says:

    Oh, and more on topic–
    Yes, the speech was amazing. It managed to inform, inspire, and outline where Obama wants to take us as a nation vis a vis energy.

    HOWEVER … if anyone thinks the media will portray the speech as such, I have some oceanfront property around Branson, Mo., for sale.

    The media will focus on Obama’s not-really-a-“flipflop” on drilling, failing to point out Obama has never been against more drilling, but rather drilling offshore and in ANWR. They’ll make it into the biggest sin since … well, since John Edwards got a hair cut for the same price as Mitt Romney did.

    Americans will never learn what Obama’s plan actually entails (nor how much sense it makes) and will instead think Obama just changes his mind when convenient (even though he never changed his mind).

    It’s the same thing Bush and the media did to Gore and Kerry. Yet here we are, following the same exact pattern, yet thinking it’ll be different this time.

    It won’t.

    Obama’s team needs to craft ads that absolutely HAMMER McCain for all the big oil money he’s received. They have to show McCain’s nearly three decades of inaction on teh issue. And they need to explain their policy in 15 to 30 seconds, not 15 to 30 minutes. They’ve got the money, so not sure why the hesitation.

    In the end, the sooner Obama’s camp (and even CB and everyone else) realizes that intelligent discourse and policy discussions will NOT rule the day, the better chance we’ll have at actually winning an election.

  • bcinaz

    says:

    And another thing,

    this got missed in the hoopla about Obama being open to drilling – oil giant have been granted 60 million acres off shore, on shore, in Alaska and elsewhere, that they are not developing – he said and I quote

    Use them or Lose them!

  • Linkster

    says:

    I grew up in the oil patch, and worked there for the better part of a decade. Only very small areas have oil, the overwhelming majority have none. If you lease 100 million acres, 98 million won’t have oil in commercial quantities. That also means 98% of the leased area won’t ever have producing rigs or suffer environmental damage. That’s just the facts. Opening up the coasts to production means only a small part will produce oil, so only a few areas with rigs.

    For me, I prefer producing at home to fighting wars in the middle east for oil. don’t like either, but I prefer an oil rig to our young men dying. On this one, the Obama and the Dems need to reevaluate.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Opening up the coasts to production means only a small part will produce oil, so only a few areas with rigs.

    For me, I prefer producing at home to fighting wars in the middle east for oil -Linkster

    How is it worth it if, as you assert, only a small part will produce? How many millions of barrels are we talking about? When will it be available? You aren’t making an intellectually consistent argument.

  • Aaron

    says:

    Who will get the $1000? Every American under a certain income level? Do they have to have a job, or at least been employed within the past 6-9 months? Do they have to be a Party Member in Good Standing? And where will this $$ come from? The oil companies, who already give the government more money than they keep for themselves? The bill to increase taxes on oil companies that failed last year called a 10% increase in profits in a year a “windfall”. In most industries that kind of year is a failure. The fact of the matter is that Big Oil has a profit margin of only about 10% and an income tax rate that is already 40%. Interestingly, GE (who does a lot of investment in renewables) has about that same 10% margin. Why don’t they pay a 40% income tax? Or what about Misters Soros and Gore? What are the margins and tax rates of their investments? Could it be that the “Green Cartel” actually stands to profit MORE from an Obama presidency than the oil companies could hope to ever get away with? I have heard for years from the left (whether on abortion, gay rights, etc.) that we shouldn’t legislate moral issues. And now Obama get to decide which indutries’ profits are OK and which are harmful? Why can’t LG (annual profit up 505%, not a typo) just sell electronics cheaper? They could afford to. I wonder if it has anything to do with market forces…

  • CJ

    says:

    Following up on my #41, the article I linked to is an AP article printed on the NYTime’s home page. The first three paragraphs or so highlight Obama’s “changing positions”.

    The AP is becoming dangerous. I have complained to the public editor of the major daily where I live (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) about the pro-conservative bias in AP articles and also complained to the NYTimes (via their Contact Us page) about the bias and negligence in the referenced article–which also falsely reports: “Part of Obama’s energy plan calls for consumers to fully inflate their tires for improved gas mileage.” Unbelievable.

    Anyway, please consider letting your local papers know that the AP’s bias is obvious, ask them to edit properly or drop their stuff altogether. The AP has competition, and we consumers need to encourage our news sources to take advantage of them. I don’t know if it will help, but I think it’s worth a try. The public editor at my paper raised my concerns with her national editor and her local AP contact.

    Good luck.

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    FWIW, I’m not sure why Obama’s 1000 dollar energy rebate isn’t an eye-rolling pander.

    I like the guy, but this is lame.
    What’s the 1000 for? Gas only? Bus tokens? Broadband for telecommuting?

    Enough with the social engineering handouts, whether it’s Bush or Obama.

    Fix the problems, not the symptoms.

  • rod

    says:

    The reason America has to go to war for oil is because of the American people’s habits. Stop consuming so much and you won’t have to keep going to war or wrecking the environment. Don’t blame your politicians for making the hard decisions. Seriously, you Americans are such hypocrites! You can’t be against the Iraq war and drive an big gas guzzler.

  • Bruno

    says:

    SteveL… to use your own words: Suck it up and bear it” for at least 5 […] years

    Progressives have had to suck it up and bear it for 8 years under a Republican president, not to mention even longer under a Republican Congress.

    2009 is the year when things can potentially turn around.

    The best thing, for people like you, to do is: To suck it up, shut up, and let some reasonable people be in charge. We’ve had the screw ups for long enough.

  • Bruno

    says:

    Willian @ 28 said:…McSame is a windbag; even simpletons get that

    Are you sure about that? Didn’t you read the drivel from SteveL? He may not be a simpleton, but he certainly still doesn’t get it. and if he doesn’t get it, I doubt that the rest of the GOP will bet it, because those are even worse than good ol’ SteveL.

    There are quite a few trolls dropping in here, and obviously none of them are getting it. Isn’t it scary? Those are the ones who have access to a computer and can type. I hate to think what’s going on with the low-information Republican voters.

  • Bruno

    says:

    MarkD @ 34 said:…Obama’s team needs to craft ads that absolutely HAMMER McCain for all the big oil money he’s received

    Actually Obama already has an ad that addresses McCain’s 2 million oil donations.

    Here’s the link to Obama’s own site, where the YouTube video plays

    It’s a pretty good one, but I think it needs some more zing. Obama is still being too nice in comparison.

  • Bruno

    says:

    Aaron @ 39 is asking ‘where’ the money for the $1,000 is going to come from. Then he starts whining about Big Oil already paying enough taxes. Typical Republican talking points.

    I don’t agree with Obama and the so called windfall tax. that is a dangerous precedent.

    All Obama has to do is take away the subsidies the Oil Companies are still getting, regardless of their big profits. I’m not sure about the exact amount, but I though it was somewhere in the $300 million per year range.

    Obama’s idea to have Big Oil commit to drilling on the leases they already have, or let someone else do it, is also a good way to go.

    In my opinion, since the Republicans are all about FREE market, and Open Markets, etc… Why not open the unused leases up for bids again. Let all Big Oil Companies bid on it. This would include non-American companies.

    Just look at it this way. Exxon, BP and Big ‘American’ Oil are so used to pick up those leases for nickles and dimes compared to what they are worth. How about letting the Russians, the Saudi’s, the Chinese, and anybody else who wishes bid on them.

    Let it go to the highest bidder. The successful bidder has a specific time period to show that they are serious in finding oil on the Federal leases. They also have to offer collateral to protect against potential environmental damage. (I’d say in the range of at least $ 1 billion dollars per region) On top of that, the collateral is not released back to them, until the area is returned back to the pristine state it was before they started exploring.

    Sure: Republicans and Big Oil would cry wolf, etc… But WHY is it that ‘old’ energy is entitled to operate at lower costs than ‘new’ energy? Scrubbers on those dirty coal plants anyone?

  • Bruno

    says:

    CJ @ 42…. Thanks for your grass roots effort in contacting the newspapers and point out the bias. I’ll make an effort to start doing that again. In the past it used to be one ear in, the other ear out.

    It has to start somewhere.

  • goto L

    says:

    [not having read other comments, I say] The exerpts of Obama’s speech posted here would make a fine–and refreshingly adult–campaign commercial, even if aired verbatim.

  • Daniel McLaughlin

    says:

    In 72/73 I was in Okinawa in uniform when the oil embargo hit. We saw the films of cars lined up, even/odd, for gasoline. The knee-jerk reaction was a rush to produce small efficient cars. As soon as the crisis passed, we forgot. Now here we are some 35 years later in the same position. I don’t give a damn who is in the WH, we are a shorsighted nation. Quit pointing fingers and get on board to gain an independence from this whole situation. If T. Boone Pickens can champion non-petroleum solutions, so should more of the oil companies. Become energy companies and help your customer.
    As for a tax on big oil to fuel a $1,000 refund to the consumer…where is the help in that? Once it’s spent it’s gone and will you create another and another? After that little boat sails the oil companies will hit us with an upcharge for the rebate that is of no long term value. America, wake up and help yourself out. Use less, use it wisely, and help unhook us from the teat of the middle east producer and investment hawks who drive up the price. Oh, and come November – get out of your easy chair and vote…

  • Gustavion

    says:

    Honestly, I just can’t believe this. Why does he think it’s the governments job to keep oil prices low??? I wish I was a better writer so that I could better express my outrage. If we want to see oil prices significantly lower then let’s, as consumers, support the alternative energy movement. In general, I think it is important for us to support ‘green’ business that not only provides a social utility but also helps the environment. For example, Simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment. But I digress… Obama’s political idealogy is a slippery slope (John’s isn’t much better). Where will liberty be in 100 years if the gov’t continues down the road it is along.