U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012 in Washington, DC.
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images/Getty)
President Obama's decision last week to halt the Canadian tar-sands pipeline project was the right choice for the environment, a win for environmentalists—who had staged incredible acts of civil disobedience protesting the project—and a talking point of attack for GOP candidates through the debates and South Carolina speeches that followed.
Those on the left cheered that this destructive plan—which had been cautioned as "game-over for the planet"—wouldn't be realized. However, the Keystone Pipeline was just one very extreme front in this fight, and as environmentalists realized just a few days later, it's not a fight that they are winning. In his State of the Union, the president showed his support for more domestic energy exploration—which many understand to include controversial fracking techniques and ever-deeper and riskier oil drilling. We may have stopped one pipeline, but we haven't changed a system that demands us to pipe more oil and natural gas further distances to power our everyday lives.
Meanwhile, the GOP hyperventilated at the president's actions, claiming that the pipeline could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and create jobs. After his Address, they didn't applaud for his dangerous commitment to the fictions of clean, safe coal, oil and gas—rather they continue to pound on his Administration's support of the ill-fated solar company Solyndra as an example that the government should stay out of the energy game.
And while Obama may be able to claim that being attacked from both sides means he's doing something right, that axiom may be true in terms of political positioning but doesn't count as good governance. Maybe many Americans will feel that he has found a sensible center, but we're likely to see an entire term of President Obama without a significant, ambitious vision for America's energy policy.
Ever since the GOP killed any hope of cap-and-trade—what had been the conservative alternative to a carbon tax before the Republicans dove deep into rightward obstructionism—the Senate and House have been scared to put muscle behind bold ideas on energy. This is an issue that connects the economy, international security and the environment—it's one where thinking big and governing big could make a real difference—yet it seems as politically toxic and stagnant as a superfund site.
In Congress, our representatives feel boxed in by political realities. Among the environmental movement, the defensive posture against a string of terrible ideas puts lefties in the position of chanting, "No, no, no" with less room—or less coverage—for the ideas for which they chant "Yes, yes, yes." With the Tea Party saying no to any reforms, you have two Parties of No, two sides telling us what can't come next, but no megaphone for the champions and visionaries who can show us what must come next.
That's not to say there are no good ideas. Green jobs, green infrastructure, urban retrofitting are all finding their policy niches. Wind and solar are advancing, though everyone acknowledges they are further off than we can bank on for our ever-growing needs. Big energy companies are getting into the game of alternative sources—a sure sign that down the road, those new fields will be big bets.
But that just leaves us with bad choices in the short term. You have governors—including the members of the Democratic Governors Association who will be greeted in midtown today by anti-fracking activists—being told to choose between fracking and nuclear, or between neither and coal-power plants, or none of the above and higher utility bills and rolling brown-outs. That's not a great position to govern from.
In a case like this, a president might be the only voice loud enough to change the debate, something defensive activists, trapped Representatives and bomb-hurling rivals can't do on their own. Even this president, who is great at the Big Speech at Hail Mary moments, hasn't found his opportunity. He may have squandered the chance to call for bold reforms following the BP spill devastation. But as the public's attention dissipated, so did our resolve. Ironically, of all the presidents who for 40 years have called for us to break our addiction on oil, it was the Texas speculator-in-chief, George W. Bush, could have galvanized that reform if after 9/11 he made a war-time level investment in new energies of the future.
But Bush let his opportunity stall in the deserts of Iraq, and Obama is passing up his opportunity to thing, speak and lead big.
If he remains boxed in, he'll have nowhere to go. The GOP will say he has nowhere to go but down in a "drill, baby, drill" mentality. But with an energy policy this stagnant, anything is an improvement, and if he can articulate a policy that frees us from international entanglements, create jobs and truly speaks to "winning the future," he really has nowhere to go but up.
Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal."
Comments [8]
So, not many JKrebs fans out here today!
Listen, you guys bring up some good points. Especially Vance's point about how boating oil to China is worse than it running through a pipeline. That can be true. But I think the more important point is this: Should the US base important decisions on the lesser of two evils? Of course not. Haha, what next? The company going further by saying they are going to boat it over in a 1920s coalboat or something? The real tragedy of Keystone XL isn't as much the pipeline as it is the damn Tarsands. The Canadian's really went weak knees on that. It is tearing the Boreal Forest apart, and for nothing. The output is pathetic. C'mon Canada.
Next there is the points about the failing alternative energy companies. I found three companies that failed with generous govt money. The last was Ener1. Ener1 got money from BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVT AND THE CONSERVATIVE GOVT OF INDIANA. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/ener1-energy-company-cliff-stearns_n_1235141.html
That is the thing about business. Sometimes they work, sometimes they fail. Is it infuriating to know they failed after getting all of that money? Yes! But guess what, you have to fail to succeed sometimes. Look, if the NY Giants win the superbowl, they failed 7 times this season! Alternative Energy is a new market, and very difficult because of the Chinese. Furthermore, I would much rather see my portion of taxes go towards an alternative energy company than going towards a subsidy for an oil company or compensating for a tax break for BIG OIL.
Blue Hen, I think it is important to know that alternative energy is a scientific field that is growing and changing quickly. It is now highly competitive which actually is a problem. It is like buying an Ipad, only for $20 Grand. Think about it...if you put solar panels on your roof, don't you want them to be the most effective possible for all of that money? Now, knowing that the technology is advancing by the year, isn't it discouraging to spend all that money to know that it will be considered obsolete or inadequate in a couple of years?
SMFIC: First, you are definately correct that the vetoed Keystone Pipeline cost American jobs. But that will happen, and continue to happen. I, for one, am vehemently opposed to fracking. I don't want it done anywhere near me. I don't care how many jobs it adds to the area. I would rather be poor and eating government cheese then having to deal with whatever long term problems arise from fracking. That is an excuse, in my opinion. Where does it stop? Don't shut down the tire burning plant! We'll lose jobs! No way. I agree with the Pipeline being shutdown. The conservatives and even Democrats backed by their very influential oil lobby will continue to make up these cheesy arguments to try and convince regular Americans that alternative energy is corny and weak, and oil is cool and tough. By the way, cool and tough is said in a South Park voice.
C'mon Justin, tell about the Unicorn stool and Fairy flutter we can use in the wildly successful Green Energy Revolution! Don't hold back. How many new jobs at Solyndra? Check those Volt sales! Take another hit off your spliff and spend some more tax money -- Obama loves to do that, plus, it's free! free!
Before commenting on the actual article, hopefully whoever is responsible for the WNYC.org blog will see that this author's product produced a whopping 4, yes FOUR, comments in the 24 hours since it's release.
Great job there Justin Creep, I mean Krebs!
Now, to the article. Obama's choice to kill the pipeline was just more of the same from our political lightweight nitwit. He tries to play both sides at the same time. He's stopping the pipeline! Yippee Greenie Weenies, the planet's saved! And suck it to the American people and businesses that would've clearly benefitted from the jobs, economic jolt, and possibly lower gas prices. But the halt is only temporarily. Oh sorry environmentalists, and here's alittle nugget to you little people out there that are sick of $4 gasoline, 11% unemployment, and buying oil from terrorist nations.
It would've been nice if there was some realization that Obama's current energy plan has been a complete failure. We see weekly stories of "green" companies going out of business because the market simply would not sustain them. Hint: if you want communism, go to Cuba. They have a thriving economy and healthcare system, right? Command and control never works. We knew it before, we see it again, and will continue to see company after company fail. But no, Solyndra only failed because of GOP obstruction. As if it weren't for Republicans, then Obama and his magic unicorn would've been able to ride from town to town installing solar panels, quick charging stations, and hydrogen fuel stations with his "enchanted golf clubs of truth" to reduce the use of oil to zero.
The most ridiculous line is "With the Tea Party saying no to any reforms, you have two Parties of No, two sides telling us what can't come next, but no megaphone for the champions and visionaries who can show us what must come next." It's the supposed TEA party House that's passed bill after bill after bill trying to address our energy needs. What must come next is a rational, realistic approach that recognizes wind, solar, hydroelectric energy is now and never will be more than a bit player. Mere single percentage suppliers. There is no peak oil problem. There is no shortage. Let the market sort things out and we'll all be much better off. Of we could just do more of the same, go deeper into debt, and finance the next Solyndra for a billion dollars next time.
It's a pity that Krebs has chosen to reject the calls for civility and instead has opted for using violent imagery "bomb throwing". He spins a lofty tale about the efficacy of alternate energy sources. The fact that he felt the need to demonize people who dare to disagree with him by using violent terms is telling. We were told by our leftist betters that such terms incited violence. Except when they use them.
We'll give you extra credit for managing to work in a "George W Bush screwed things up" in the middle of an 'analysis' on Obamas' energy policy.
Nice to have a "scientist" weigh in on this debate. Why don't you call you friends at East Anglica and the IPCC and discuss what to do next. Do-gooders-couldn't find snow in Siberia!
Justin Krebs' lack of knowledge re: energy is both breathtaing and laughable.
I can't imagine that anyone would ever take him seriously.
We have a president who feels he has to pander to environmental lobby even if the country would benefit from the Keystone Pipeline Project.
I fear the president is surrounded by persons as stupid and unthinking as Justin Krebs.
Justin - it is called "fracking" which is short for "hydraulic fracturing" whereby fluids and solid materials are injected into an oil or gas well to fracture the source rock and open channels for oil and gas to flow into the well bore.
"franking" is a term for putting an official seal or stamp on a document instead of postage on an item to mail.
Rejecting Keystone XL will make the environment WORSE not better. The oil still gets developed and sold in the Pacific Rim. A million barrels a day of oil gets put on a tanker instead of Keystone XL which would have displaced a million barrels of oil brought on tankers from somewhere else. Tankers, although they have an excellent safety record, are not as safe as pipelines. Tankers burn oil and spew greenhouse gases as they steam towards their destination. Pipelines run on electric pump stations - which can be driven by wind power. Keystone XL runs through plains states with excellent wind resources.
Opposing Keystone XL was a form of political self-gratification. It felt good at the time but in the end you go home with nothing.
A land based Keystone Pipeline running between Canada and the USA with all their laws and regulations would be the safest way to transport oil rather than Canada shipping the oil via tankers to China which has no serious environmental regulations. Could it be something else is motivating the environmental movement and our President?
What is also ignored is how crony capitalism with the celebrated Warren Buffet influenced the halting of the Keystone Pipeline.
How many jobs are lost, business opportunities dashed and how much gas money of working people squandered by this political decision to pacify wealthy environmental and corporate fundraisers?
Where are the shouts of 1 and 99 percent when we need them?
Like the bogus calls of civility one year ago, it is used only when politically useful.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.