More

Obama Talking Energy Policy As Gas Prices Climb

Obama Energy Strategy

By JULIE PACE   03/30/11 11:24 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Facing pressure to curb rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama is calling for the U.S. to reduce its oil imports by one third by 2025, a lofty goal likely to run into significant obstacles.

The White House said Obama will seek to reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil by boosting domestic energy production, increasing the use of biofuels and natural gas, and making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient. Obama planned to outline these steps during a speech Wednesday at Georgetown University.

In a speech Tuesday in New York City, Obama pointed to rising gasoline prices to underscore the need for a comprehensive energy plan.

"We've still got a lot of work to do on energy," the president told an audience of donors at The Studio Museum in Harlem. "The last time gas prices were this high was 2008 when I was running."

Obama contrasted his approach to an energy slogan popular among Republicans.

"The other side kept talking about `drill, baby, drill.' That was the slogan," he said. "What we were talking about was breaking the pattern of being shocked by high prices" and then lulled into inaction.

Obama is far from the first president to set out to make the country more energy independent. U.S. presidents dating back to Richard Nixon had similar goals that achieved little success; the U.S. continues to be the world's top oil consumer and gets more than 60 percent of its oil from foreign sources.

Still, the White House is eager to show that the president understands the burden rising gasoline prices have on middle-class Americans, particularly as his re-election bid draws near. Gas prices have jumped more than 50 cents a gallon this year, due in part to a spike in oil prices amid instability in the oil-rich Middle East. Last week, gas prices averaged $3.58 a gallon nationwide, according to AAA's daily survey.

Even if U.S. consumption of oil drops, it will have little if any impact on gasoline prices, since oil is priced globally and increased demand from China and other developing nations continues to push prices up.

Republicans put the blame for the increased costs on Obama's policies, pointing to the slow pace of issuing permits for new offshore oil wells in the wake of last summer's massive Gulf of Mexico spill and an Obama-imposed moratorium on new deep-water exploration. GOP leaders have also assailed the president for saying last week in Latin America that he wanted the U.S. to be a "major customer" for the huge oil reserves Brazil recently discovered off its coast.

"The problem isn't that we need to look elsewhere for our energy. The problem is that Democrats don't want us to use the energy we have. It's enough to make you wonder whether anybody in the White House has driven by a gas station lately," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday.

In order to meet his goal of cutting oil imports by one third, Obama will call Wednesday for new incentives for companies to speed up oil and gas production on current and future leases. An Interior Department report released Tuesday said more than two-thirds of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico are sitting idle, neither producing oil and gas nor being actively explored by the companies who hold the leases. The department said those leases could potentially hold more than 11 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Obama will also call for increased use of biofuels and the construction of four new advanced biofuel plants in the U.S. within the next two year. However, advanced biofuels – fuels made from non-food sources such as wood chips, switch grass or plant waste – are still in their infancy and cannot yet be made in amounts similar to corn ethanol. Congress has directed more money to research and development of those fuels in recent years as some critics of corn ethanol have linked the diversion of corn for fuel to rising food prices.

The president will also order government agencies to ensure that by 2015, all new vehicles they purchase are alternative-fuel vehicles, including hybrid and electric. Obama has previously set a goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015.

Administration officials said Obama's plans would require significant spending on research and development, though they offered no cost estimates.

Officials said Obama also would reaffirm his support for nuclear power, which has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after an earthquake and tsunami in Japan severely damaged a nuclear power plant there. As a result of the crisis, U.S. government regulators are reviewing a wide range of issues potentially affecting the 104 U.S. nuclear power reactors, including safeguards to protect them against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Matthew Daly and Jonathan Fahy contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Facing pressure to curb rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama is calling for the U.S. to reduce its oil imports by one third by 2025, a lofty goal likely to run into significant...
WASHINGTON -- Facing pressure to curb rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama is calling for the U.S. to reduce its oil imports by one third by 2025, a lofty goal likely to run into significant...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,876
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
DRaymond 12:26 PM on 03/30/2011
'But don't make us change our light bulbs!  Or drive smaller cars!'  The Republicans whine.
 
We cannot drill our way out of imports.  It is mathematically impossible.  The best we could likely hope for was to keep pace with the decline in production from fields that are going dry.
 
Sometimes we seem entirely reversed in our decisions regarding what we do centrally  Read More...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:24 PM on 04/09/2011
Instead of talking "Energy policy as prices climb" it would be helpful if he talked countering speculation policy? We distract so easily, though.
04:18 PM on 04/01/2011
The US uses more corn to make ethanol than Mexico produces and Mexico is the fifth largest producer in the world. Ethanol requires massive subsidies and uses almost as much energy to produce as you get. The farm lobbies should not rule energy policy. Yes people are starving and its our fault for letting this happen.
photo
Loxinabox
I live in a van down by the river
11:37 AM on 04/01/2011
What about the world wide shortage of food? There are poor people out there starving to death.
There is not enough food or clean water in America to try what Brazil has done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media4me
05:11 AM on 03/31/2011
We are using more fuel, nobody is buying electic and SUV's still rule the road.

From GasBuddy.com
3/31/09 -- $2.01
3/31/11 -- $3.59
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released the December fuel numbers recently
2010 - 3,297,528,000 barrels x 42 = 138,496,176,000 gallons
2009 - 3,283,730,000 barrels x 42 = 137,916,660,000 gallons
http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/2011/02/2010-gasoline-consumption.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:29 PM on 03/30/2011
this is why we need a bigger gasoline tax. at least if americans are paying more for gas, part of that money is re-circulating in our economy towards fixing roads or whatever instead of funding terror groups abroad, and also de-incentivizing wasteful consumption at home.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
steamboat
09:31 PM on 03/30/2011
(1) I heard the other day GM sunk almost $2 Billion into this car, the Volt. Results so far: 281 sold.

(2) Amazing how we now have no control over gas prices. Yet, when Bush was President the same people who say "we have no control" said back then "its because he's in cohoots with his oil buddies".

(3) Drilling off-shore before was a no-no. But Obama says we're going to do so, now its a great idea.
photo
Loxinabox
I live in a van down by the river
11:22 AM on 04/01/2011
What about the world wide shortage of food? There are poor people out there starving to death.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:24 PM on 03/30/2011
the problem is consumption. face it, americans are a wasteful society. we use stuff up once and throw it away. we leave water running when we brush our teeth, leave our lights on when we leave the house and get in our gas guzzling vehicles to go to the store to buy a pack of cigarettes.

yeah, some of us are more conscientious, but as a whole, it's sick and unsustainable.

weening ourselves off of foreign oil only solves the foreign oil problem, but doesn't solve our cultural problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media4me
04:36 PM on 03/31/2011
Tell that to China and India, then get back to me about our habits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:26 PM on 03/31/2011
what do our habits have to do with anyone else's? they are still our habits.

typical american evasion of responsibility. point fingers at someone else.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:28 PM on 03/31/2011
first of all, those are 2 developing countries who's populations are exploding and they have no source of cheap energy at the moment. but mark my words, china will be green way before the u.s. is.

look at brazil, the "china" of south america, they weened themselves 80% off of foreign oil almost 10 years ago.

it just takes a commitment. however, there are too many profits to be made in the energy sector, and we as americans are encouraged to consume as much of it as we can, because unfortunately our economy is based on consumable commodities. how else do you explain gas guzzling SUV's, light bulbs that don't last, etc.??
photo
Loxinabox
I live in a van down by the river
11:23 AM on 04/01/2011
tell Al "private jet" Gore to cut back
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
zena11111
06:41 PM on 03/30/2011
Corporate interests destroying American democracy
http://rt.­com/usa/ne­ws/corpora­te-interes­ts-america­n-democrac­y/

The theory says that over the past two years, social and political life in America has been radicalized and polarized. Using history as his guide, Rath contended the US is currently similar to pre-WWII Germany where corporate interests and biased media pose a great danger to American democracy. Everything from the crisis and corporate funded political parties contribute to the destruction of democracy, the theory says.
Rath argues corporations wish to maintain a monopoly in business and a monopoly over the people, in order to control them – effectively converting democracy into dictatorship.
“Currently we have major areas of society in any country being controlled by special interests,†he said.

While no one today in power in America is a N azis, he said, the circumstances surrounding events are very similar. As corporations gain more power and finance US politics, they can hand pick the government to their favor.
“They [companies] have an interest to keep their economic power in place,†Rath explained.
He argued industries which feel threatened by US President Obama will finance politicians and others in order to have their way in US politics – The Tea Party is a prime example of a group with corporate funding, taking to the streets and stirring up fear, hatred and anti-government lingo much like how Adolf H itler came to power in German.
photo
Loxinabox
I live in a van down by the river
11:24 AM on 04/01/2011
“They [companies­] have an interest to keep their economic power in place,†This has been true since there were companies do you have a point?
04:53 PM on 03/30/2011
if we have establishe­d anything over the past 40 years, it is that fossil fuel supplies are not static. At the proven reserve levels of the 1970s all of the world's oil would have been utilzed by now, for example.

Additional­ly, contrary to the stated premise of the greenies, like obama, additional demand from developing nations has not and will not collapse the system for the simple reason that the markets for energy and products is constantly adjusting to bring supply into equilibriu­m with demand. At some point, if the trend continues [and it may well NOT continue], some alt eng sources may become viable -- along with presenly useless and overpriced products like the volt. but more likely, additional oil fields will be discovered or become viable to exploit, there will be increased yield from old fields, and oil shale, coal, nuke, LNG and methane hydrate will be utilized.
04:19 PM on 03/30/2011
and just to inject some reality into obama's pipe dream.... the greenies' solid gold standard for 'new' energy ....second gen solar cells, using cadmium telluride as the semiconductor material, are not now and will never become cost effective energy replacements. And, Third gen cells, using polymers, remain a researchers w.et dr.eam. And failing any technological "solution" in alternate energy sources, obama's and the greenies' solution amount to "just abstain".... they dont like abstinence as a recommendation for young teens, but they sure do like the idea when it comes to de-powering america.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media4me
04:14 PM on 03/30/2011
Is this the gradual price rise he was refernig to that he hoped would happen?
photo
Loxinabox
I live in a van down by the river
11:27 AM on 04/01/2011
Why do folks think the call it the "green party"? they plan on partying with our green
04:08 PM on 03/30/2011
As reflected in the Report of the Congressional Research Service: Although the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’s oil reserves at around 28 billion barrels, according to the CRS, the US in reality it has around 163 billion barrels
10:15 PM on 03/30/2011
you're going to have to provide a link to that info. I tried googling your information and all I could find was info from other blogs and one from Facebook, not a reliable source IMO. Do you have a link to the congressional research service?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
media4me
03:11 PM on 03/30/2011
Another call for something he has no power and no idea of how to accomplish it.

Did anyone see that GE just bought up 50,000 Chevy Volts because no one else was buying them?

"This is one reason that Volt sales are anemic: 326 in December, 321 in January, and 281 in February. GM announced a production run of 100,000 in the first two years. Who is going to buy all these cars?"

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
steamboat
09:35 PM on 03/30/2011
To be exact, the American Public had only bought 281 of these cars from the last report. Which is what now, less then a 1000 total so far. Didn't GM sink $2 Billion into their production?
03:10 PM on 03/30/2011
Regarding the net energy balance of ethanol (the energy yield versus energy inputs) Kim and Dale (Michigan State University), showed the Net Energy Yield of ethanol production is 78.6%..that is, for every unit of energy input to the process of making ethanol you get 1.786 units in the ethanol fuel product:

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/MSU_Ethanol_Energy_Balance.pdf

Note when authors refer to "net energy" they are referring to the amount of energy consumed to produce one full unit of energy of the same measurement. So when they say Ethanol's "Net Energy" is .56 they mean it takes .56 units of energy consumed to produce 1 unit of energy output in the form of fuel ethanol. IN TERMS OF NET ENERGY BALANCE THAT WOULD BE: 1/.56 = 1.7857...OR A NET GAIN OF 78.6%

Note that a more recent industry survey by Shapouri, Ghallagher and Nefstead concluded an Energy Balance ratio of 1.9 to 2.3 (to 1) for the current ethanol industry. This means for energy consumed in making ethanol you get a 90% to 130% NET GAIN in energy contained in the ethanol fuel produced.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf

authors (not complete list):

H. Shapouri, Agricultural Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of
the Chief Economist, USDA

Paul W. Gallagher, Associate Professor, Economics Department, Iowa State University

Ward Nefstead, Associate Professor, Applied Economics Department, University of
Minnesota