Obama wants to curb U.S. oil imports by a third
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will set an ambitious goal on Wednesday to cut U.S. oil imports by a third over 10 years, focusing on energy security amid high gasoline prices that could stall the country's economic recovery.
Obama will outline his strategy in a speech after spending days explaining U.S.-led military action in Libya, where fighting, accompanied by popular unrest elsewhere in the Arab world, has helped push gasoline prices toward $4 a gallon.
Discussing the speech, the Democratic president said the country must increase its energy independence.
"What we were talking about was breaking the pattern of being shocked at high prices and then, as prices go down, being lulled into a trance, but instead let's actually have a plan," Obama told party activists in New York late on Tuesday.
"Let's, yes, increase domestic oil production, but let's also invest in solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and let's make our buildings more efficient and our cars more efficient. Not all of that work is done yet, but I'm not finished yet. We've got more work to do," Obama said.
The White House says this is a deliberate turn toward energy security and will be followed by other events to highlight his strategy.
So come on, who could be against this? We know we need to reduce our energy dependence, particularly that that comes out of the looney-filled Middle East, what with their dictators, insanity, 2000-year-old wars and terrorists.
Yet against it they will be, whoever they are.
The oil companies will most assuredly be against this because they're making ga-zillions from the oil in the Middle East and they like what's coming in so naturally, they'll give money--probably in the range of $2000.00 to $5000.00--to their Senators who will, in turn, then, say it's a crazy idea and imprudent and we should go another way.
Man, I hope we've learned we need to do this.
And if we haven't learned already, I hope we do shortly.
Link to original story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_obama_energy
Posts
6 comments:
"Let's, yes, increase domestic oil production,
...except in any domestic place that actually has oil, or where there might be any environmental impact. While we're at it lets make vague promises to decrease the murder rate.
let's also invest in solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and let's make our buildings more efficient and our cars more efficient
How do we force people to comply? At a fundamental level, this is a huge issue--how much do I get to run my own life? How much is 'for the good of the collective' going to be used to restrict what I can do, what I can invest in, what I can buy? We haven't changed the political process that brought us ethanol as the solution to energy problems--if we give government control of our gas tank and furnace, how do we ensure that we don't have a repeat of ethanol? Or a repeat of England where the government-mandated furnaces freeze up and require thousands in repair?
With or without government interference we will get more efficient and less wasteful of scarce resources because it makes economic sense.
I call nonsense, Sevesteen, on your first reply, above. check out domestic oil production under this president, then get over it:
"Domestic oil production under President Obama is the highest since 2003. In December 2010, the U.S. produced 5.6 million barrels per day of oil, the most since 5.7 mbd were produced in 2003." (source: http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/15/conservatives-blame-obama-policies-for-higher-gasoline-prices/)
How do we force people to comply?
Well, with laws... and do you know why? Because we need to. We have to. It's for the best of the nation. We're being torn apart at least politically what with all our wars in the Middle East, and economically by giving the Middle East so much of our money, so we can keep our "oil fix".
Yeah, the cowboy culture of Amerika isn't going to like it--in fact they'll fight it all the way--but we need to do what Europe and Japan and most of the rest of the world does and that is, get along. We're going to to have to cooperate and collaborate and compromise and do what's best for the country instead of each of us insisting like either some 3 year old child or, as I said above, some redneck hillbilly or cowboy that, by gosh, "I gotta' have my own way!" and drive my bigassed car and burn oil from the Middle East, etc., etc.
We can't afford to be selfish any longer, Sevesteen.
The party is over. In fact the "I gotta' have it my way" party has been over for some time.
Most Americans just don't know it yet.
Get ready for "government interference" in your life, Sevesteen. It isn't fun and it isn't pretty but since we wrecked our own and the world's economy with all that "free market Capitalism" that was supposed to be so great, in the banking industry, we just got a lot poorer, financially and we're going to have to gear down, big time.
Oil prooduction has increased as sources that were unprofitabale at 40 per barrel are tapped. It takes a while to start a new field-what new sources has the administration allowed?
If we cannot afford greed, then we are doomed. Greed cannot be eliminated. It can be channeled and used for good-in which case the same trait gets a new name like ambition or drive.
We need to stop forcing compliance where it isn't clearly necessarry-that goes for foreign wars as well as at home. What you are advocating sounds an awful lot like 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'
Ah, but there's the rub--compliance, in this case with both not using any more fossil fuel oil from the Middle East and conserving, etc., along with a lot of other things, is all becoming necessary, as we're finding out.
Compliance with what people who fly around in private jets have decided ordinary people should do to save energy.
A better solution is to let the mideast take care of itself, and allow us oil exploration and production with a fixed set of rules.
We need less force, period. Not restricted to any one viewpoint. No force in the mideast to protect oil interests, no force to restrict the kind of light bulb, toilet or washer you can use, no force to restrict drugs to the ones rich white men prefer, or to say who you can't sleep with, what you can read or publish, what kind of pictures you look at.
Well, I'm telling you, as we get more people and we have more meteorological events and more terrorists, etc., etc., we're going to get more rules telling us we can or can't do this or that. It's coming. I'm not supporting it, I'm only saying more is on the way, regardless.
Post a Comment