Falling for the Lipstick and Missing the Pig: Obama’s Energy Policy

Well, it turns out that I failed to read the fine print yesterday before I published an article praising Obama’s new energy policy. I read the President’s speech and agreed with many of the proposals he recommended, but I also warned that the devil was in the details.

Upon reviewing the administration’s more detailed, Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future, it turns out there was more than just one devil. It also leads me to believe that some in the administration probably thought no serious conservatives would bother to read the President’s plan.

In this context, the President’s speech appears to be more about improving his reelection prospects than making an actual bipartisan effort to support sensible energy independence measures.

My post today on Big Peace provides the specifics of why the President’s policy will likely not do what he claims it will do.

Advertisements

About Sean Patrick Hazlett

Conservative clean energy crusader, national security hawk, financial analyst, engineer, and former military officer.
This entry was posted in Clean Energy, Clean Tech, Climate Change, Defense, Energy Security, Finance and Economics, International Security, Middle East, Nuclear Power, Policy, Politics, Solar, Wind and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Falling for the Lipstick and Missing the Pig: Obama’s Energy Policy

  1. Charles McCormack says:

    Did you pay no attention at all to the BP Gulf oil disaster last spring and summer (the long-term effects of which we still don’t know about)? Wasn’t that a “heads-up” warning about the true cost of uncontrolled drilling? Drill-Baby-Drill is a great sound bite, but since oil producers sell to the highest bidders on the global market, there’s no guarantee that domestic oil drilling will reduce US oil imports. On the contrary, its just as likely to be China and India that buys this oil. Isn’t it obvious that the only people who really benefit from DBD are the oil companies?

    • Sure it has its risks, but so does $10 a gallon gasoline. I’d rather suffer through 10 of those spills than a global economic meltdown.

      The bottom line is that the more we produce, the larger the supply and the lower prices will be. Not drilling or exploring domestically is like cutting off one arm to solve the energy problem. You cannot afford to invest in alternative energy if a larger percentage of the nation’s dollars are being diverted to pay higher oil prices.

      Clean energy technologies are still not cheap, so we need a stop gap measure to get there affordably. This is why we need a bipartisan policy, because left’s dreams of a clean energy economy will never be achievable as that are completely unrealistic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s