Obama politicises BP spill to push climate bill

Cheap politics

This environmental disaster could not have come at a better time for the Obama administration, desperate to push their economy-wrecking climate bill through the Senate, and he shamelessly hijacks the BP oil spill to lecture the American people on the evils of fossil fuels (despite the fact that cheap energy is what drives economic growth and prosperity – duh):

In his first Oval Office address, Obama compared the need to end the country’s “addiction to fossil fuels” to its emergency preparations for World War II and the mission to the moon. Hours after the government sharply increased its estimate of how much oil is flowing into the gulf, the president warned that risks will continue to rise because “we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” He called for fast Senate action on an energy bill that has already passed the House.

“There are costs associated with this transition, and some believe we can’t afford those costs right now,” Obama said. “I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security and our environment are far greater.”

In other words, because of one spill (albeit a big one) we should take our economies back to the Dark Ages, right? I can just see people abandoning their SUVs on the roadside as we speak…

Read it here.

Comments

  1. OzJuggler says:

    Well now your true colours are shining through. I thought you were a legitimate skeptic, but it seems on the issue of Peak Oil you are as deluded as the rest of the herd.

    Transitioning away from fossil fuels is inevitable because they are a finite resource. The question of exactly when we’ll reach 1.0 on the Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio of oil production is almost moot. The real question is: since it is logically obvious that recoverable oil will be entirely depleted, will we wait until that final day to make the transition in chaos and collapse, or will we instead start the transition pre-emptively on a schedule and manner of our choosing?

    • @OzJuggler: Maybe back off the ad homs next time, hmm? Or else the comment will be trashed. It’s not about transitioning to a fictitious “green economy” at any cost, it is about transitioning to alternative power sources when they are competitive, which right now, they certainly aren’t. And new reserves of fossil fuels are being discovered faster than we can use them …

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    What is surprising is how long it took him. As James Delingpole says There’s nothing greens love more than a nice, juicy oil-spill disaster.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100041764/theres-nothing-greens-love-more-than-a-nice-juicy-oil-spill/

    And OzJuggler….yawn….peak oil alarmism. Please….spare us.

  3. OzJuggler says:

    The sheer quantity being discovered is not decisive after the feasibility of recovery and cost of refinement is included. Regardless of occasional oil spills there is a vastly greater energy and dollar cost in producing the new deposits that are often lesser quality and always less conveniently located than old wells. At the wellhead, ER / EI >= 10 or else drilling is futile because then 9 barrels equivalent energy are used in oil transportation and refinement, leaving no useful net gain. Recent estimates put the ratio in the low 20s for new wells. It was 100 in the 1890s. These are the stats as best as anyone can calculate. They are not improving. You don’t have to believe them, but what evidence do you have for thinking Industry can continue for much more than another decade running on oil?

    There’s no alarmism here, and I’m not advocating a particular solution, whether it be Obamas or anyone else’s. It would be more alarming if collapse was impending, but we still have plenty of time as long as transition development plans are implemented soon enough to bear fruit. Soon means now. Continually ignoring the inevitable is not the same as dismissing misguided alarmism. An admission that oil drilling will eventually reach zero net return is the only concession I’m asking for.

    Besides, it won’t be the Dark Ages.
    More like, The 1860s Plus Biotech!
    See that doesn’t sound so bad.

  4. Amanda Ambrose says:

    1860’s not so bad….huh, maybe you should pick up a history book. Is all I can say. and the reason we drill in deep water here in the USA is because we have ridiculous environmental laws that prohibit shallow water drilling, where it is safer b/c the blow out preventers are above the water and if this had happened there it would have been stopped within a week. If we had drilled in ANWAR and this had happened it would have been stopped within a week. But we have environmental laws that prohibit new land wells. so basicially due to environmental laws you believe that we are drilling so far out b/c we have no other oil reserves to go to, that is laughable! We have enormous amounts of resources here as well as developing technology to extract oil from shale rock. convieniently almost all of these land based resources are located on lands that the federal government has taken ownership of for the “park service”

    I really do not understand how you are so sure we will run out of oil when we haven’t even found all of the reserves available to us. and you know isn’t oil formed by decaying organic material? did organic material just stop decaying once these reserves filled up? or is it possible that the earth still forms oil? albeit wayyyy slower that we use it?????…..

%d bloggers like this: