Obama energy policy page offers some rhetoric, and no solutions. Empty, fluffy word, pablum read below or go see for yourself.
Well, I don’t believe that climate change is just an issue that’s convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it’s one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That’s why I’ve fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That’s why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn’t just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
Why is global warming a moral challenge? Assuming anthropogenic exists, and the science is still weak, is this not instead a technical challenge? This could be an issue of survival for the species, culture or nation, depending on how deep the impact of the warming. This is not a moral issue. Stealing from you neighbor, killing your neighbor, sleeping with his wife are moral issues. Failing to insulate you house, or sleeping in the road, while dumb, are not moral issues.
Note that Obama’s ‘solution’ is to attack the domestic auto manufacturers. This coupled with his plan to increase taxation on investments and to treat them as income will quickly have us remembering the good old days under Jimmy Carter. Furthermore, since when does the constitution empower the government to meddle in factory design. For shining examples of government lead industrial policy see any one of the Soviet Unions five year plans.
Then there are Obama’s disastrous cap and trade ideas as espoused on his website …
Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
So we are to be limited to creating one fifth of the CO2 we generated in 1990? We are to do this without nuclear power as well. Windmills people, we are tilting toward windmills, except when they are to be built anywhere within 40 miles of Ted Kennedy’s summer home. The economic dislocation wrought by this policy will make the great depression look like an era of prosperity. The energy policy is less about energy than it is about reducing CO2 regardless of the social impact. This is not an energy policy but a hysterical global warming policy. Al Gore would be proud.
Our country is growing, our economy, despite George Bush, will continue to grow as well. There is no science that even remotely suggests that we can meet our future needs and cut that much CO2 production. The science concerning the link between warming and CO2 emission is immature. Most critically the impact to our economy given worst case scenario from the U.N. documentation in this issue will be less destructive than this policy.
This is a policy born from one end of the political spectrum. If Obama is about change, as he alleges ad nauseam, if he is about reaching across the aisle then where are the practical aspects of the policy that take into account: the current need for a greater oil supply; the need for a transitional energy source that will keep the economy going as opposed hand outs for the unemployed; a willingness to investigate the deployment of proven as opposed to hoped for (mythological) energy sources?
Obama’s campaign site contains a laundry list of pie in the sky list of wants. This is not a plan but a long drawn out slogan with partisan anti business, anti-growth overtones. It is demands the current energy providers fund their future competition. Such behavior only happens willingly in totalitarian junta;’s or in the mythology of the environmental left.