The EPA is in the process of issuing new emissions rules affecting coal-fired power plants, which rules will cause one-fifth of such plants to shut down.
The U.S. imports nearly 65 percent of its oil — more than 4 billion barrels a year at a cost of approximately $440 billion. Imported oil accounts for 62 percent of the U.S. trade deficit. In recognition of those facts, you gave a speech a few months ago about moving the nation toward energy independence. You set a goal of reducing oil imports by one-third over the next decade by “finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing dependence on oil with cleaner alternate fuels and greater efficiency.” Among the alternate fuels you cited was natural gas.
Yet, despite your speech:
-
You continue to oppose drilling in several regions in Alaska, including ANWR — estimated to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil.
-
As reported by Robert Bluey, deepwater oil drilling permits are down 71 percent from their historical average.
-
Your administration has canceled or stalled the development of oil shale leases in the mountain west.
-
Shell Oil canceled plans to drill for an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil off the Alaskan coast after the EPA denied a permit.
-
No new construction of nuclear power plants has begun in 30 years.
-
As reported by Kevin Mooney, ten oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico since you imposed the deepwater drilling moratorium and 8 other planned rigs were moved elsewhere (i.e., the coasts of Africa, South America).
-
The shut down of coal-fired plants noted above will add tens of billions to energy costs and the Commerce Department estimates tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.
What specific steps has your administration taken to increase, rather than impede, energy produced form oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources?
Does the jobs plan you expect to release in September seriously address U.S.energy requirements? If not, why should the plan be treated as credible?
Assuming that your jobs plan does contain a significant energy component, will the jobs you expect to be created consist primarily of “green” jobs?
What evidence do you have that these “green” jobs are any more likely to materialize than the 4 million ”shovel-ready” jobs you promised would materialize upon passage of the $814 billion stimulus package?
Alinsky has already instructed BHO to ignore your questions and spew the same "green energy" fantasies for the umpteenth time in the Vineyard Jobs Plan.
d(^_^)b
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Obama's War on Jobs continues according to plan ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
"Mr. President, when do you plan to start on your third autobiography?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo doubt when the rolling blackouts start next summer, Obama will be up there lecturing us that if only BUsh had built more windmills, we wouldn't be having these problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a cadre of conservative pols who balk at the idea that Obama is deliberately trying to harm the economy. Their only real argument is that if he wants to be re-elected then he needs a strong economy. But consider that his policy decisions have been largely gambles, including his penchant for blaming everyone else for his problems. No matter how bad things get he will continue his gamble and dissemble and blame away his problems. If the election is as close as it has been purported then perhaps his gambles have paid off somewhat well so far.
The RNC would be criminally neglegent if they don't produce commercials and broadcast them ad nauseum, quoting Obama saying that he wants higher energy prices.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The RNC would be criminally neglegent if they don't produce commercials and broadcast them ad nauseum, quoting Obama saying that he wants higher energy prices."
They've proven to be criminally incompetent in the past.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese theoretical question sessions could be a lot shorter:
"Mr. President, if you were being paid by someone to wreck the United States, what exactly would you be doing differently?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou scoff at the idea of green energy, but how many people lost their jobs because of the BP spill? How many people are unable to even return home after the earthquake which caused the Fukushima disaster? I know the right's approach to everything is to rush in headlong and hope you don't hit anything, but some people prefer not to needlessly endanger the health and safety of the American population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe number of people who temporarily lost their jobs due to the spill are but 1/10th the number of people who lost their jobs due to the govts over reaction to the spill.
How many nuclear power plants in the US are liable to be hit by 30 foot tsunami's following a 9.0 earthquake?
Until you can answer that question, your question on nuclear power is not relevant.
Some people believe that any danger is too much danger and try to use govt to ensure that nothing bad will ever happen. We usually call these people delusional. When we aren't calling them liberals.
The truth is that green energy is a pipe dream and always has been.
BTW, another worker fell to his death yesterday while working on a wind turbine. It turns out that wind power is even more deadly than coal mining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTypical leftist - ignore the fact that "green energy" can't possibly hope to provide the energy our country and the world needs to survive. It's much easier to cite rare anecdotes using unanswerable questions.
Besides, if I've learned anything from former Enron lackey Paul Krugman, it's that environmental disasters and catastrophes are good for the economy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou scoff at the idea of green energy, but how many people lost their jobs because of the BP spill? How many people are unable to even return home after the earthquake which caused the Fukushima disaster? I know the right's approach to everything is to rush in headlong and hope you don't hit anything, but some people prefer not to needlessly endanger the health and safety of the American population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many lost jobs BECAUSE of the spill? Can't think of many. I don't think that the initial responders who violated the Feds protocols for responding did.
A lot lost their jobs in the near shutdown of off-shore exploration. More lost theirs in the ramp up of energy prices that followed. And More never got a job in the first place in the stalled economy this all helped create.
But the shutdown did not have to follow the spill. Just another crisis not to be wasted!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou scoff at the idea of green energy, but how many people lost their jobs because of the BP spill? How many people are unable to even return home after the earthquake which caused the Fukushima disaster? I know the right's approach to everything is to rush in headlong and hope you don't hit anything, but some people prefer not to needlessly endanger the health and safety of the American population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother (rhetorical) question for the president that the national media refuses to ask:
Why did you just unlawfully grant administrative amnesty to 300,000+ illegal aliens and pledge to give them work permits -- when unemployment is stuck above 9% and 22 million Americans can't find full-time work?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Obama economic plan is as follows:
"Tax rates, energy prices and government spending will increase until the economy improves."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the long run, Obama's plan to increase "green energy" in this country by driving up energy costs will hurt the development of green energy. R&D is expensive. So is the creation of new infrastructure. The longer Obama imposes burdens on a languishing economy, the longer it will take to create the wealth and prosperity necessary to drive demand for green energy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only shovel ready jobs will be the people they will have to hire to shovel all the B.S. out of the White House in January 2013.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNadja:
You might want to ask Spain how their "Green Jobs" agenda worked out for them. (Hint: not well.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse