iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama SOTU Addresses Clean Energy, Environmental Policy

First Posted: 01/24/2012 11:52 pm Updated: 01/26/2012 5:39 pm

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama clearly laid out his energy agenda in Tuesday night's State of the Union address, promising "responsible development" of domestic oil and natural gas even as he pledged to invest in renewable energy. “We don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy,” he said.

Though he made no mention of Solyndra, the bankrupt solar company that benefited from a government loan program, or Keystone XL, the controversial oil pipeline he rejected to much celebration and criticism last week, the president showed political backbone in refusing to back down from his commitment to investing in developing renewables.

Obama vowed to incentivize manufacturers to make energy upgrades, as well as to green the carbon footprint of the nation's military. He announced that the Department of Defense will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history, with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes per year.

“I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes,” said Obama. It’s an area where the government has significant money to spend.

“Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail," the president said. "But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy ... I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

It was the closest the president came to referencing Solyndra, the California solar panel manufacturer and Department of Energy loan recipient that went belly-up last year. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly used the company's failure to try to undermine the administration’s investments in renewable energy. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee, has led the charge, arguing that the government should have never invested in the manufacturer because "we can't compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines."

The reality, of course, is more complex, but Stearns' logic was precisely the sort of defeatism that the president boldly dismissed.

“We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough,” Obama said. “It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.”

The comments came as part of a larger meditation on energy policy, in which the president pulled a leaf from the Republican playbook, pledging to expand drilling and increase other forms of domestic energy production as a way to create more American jobs.

“Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy,” Obama said in the address. “Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”

In the same breath, he emphasized the importance of breaking the country's dependence on foreign oil.

“Last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years,” the president said to hearty applause. “But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy –- a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

U.S. crude oil production increased from 5.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010, according to a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Over the next 10 years, the EIA predicts continued development of tight oil, extracted from rock formations using hydraulic fracturing. That continuation, in combination with the ongoing development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, will push domestic crude oil production to 6.7 million barrels per day in 2020, a level unseen since 1994.

Obama's rhetoric on expanding domestic fossil fuels could prove discomforting for environmentalists, who watched in dismay as he scrapped smog regulations and expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska last year. Indeed, his argument that expanding oil and gas production in America is a way to a way to create tens of thousands jobs would appear to be the very Republican talking point repeatedly leveraged against him in debates around the construction of Keystone XL.

The speech had environmental groups walking a cautiously supportive line.

“Home-grown sources of energy certainly are preferable to imports, especially from unstable regions of the world," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, following the address. "But as the president noted, feeding our addiction to fossil fuels is not the long-term solution; we need to embrace renewable sources of energy with even greater fervor as well as energy efficiency."

Obama, for his part, wasn't putting all his eggs in the renewable energy basket.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years,” Obama continued, “and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.” In what was perhaps an attempt to soften the message for environmentalists, he added, “I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

Obama made only passing mention of global warming during the speech, lamenting that "the differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change."

But his failure to mention the Keystone XL pipeline, arguably the biggest energy-related issue he has faced thus far, constituted the speech's largest omission on the environmental front.

House Republicans have taken every opportunity to punish the president for rejecting the pipeline, and on Tuesday Speaker John Boehner's State of the Union guests included oil executives “hurt” by the Keystone decision.

“President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone project has caused a public outcry and provided another example of how his policies are making our economy worse,” Speaker Boehner said in a statement announcing his guests. “The president owes America’s workers an explanation, and I hope he will provide one tonight with these leaders and job creators on hand.

Earlier on Tuesday, environmental activists, including Keystone foe Bill McKibben and Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, organized a marching band and about 500 protestors dressed as referees to march on the National Mall, throwing penalty flags at Congress for the amount of money they have received from the fossil fuel industry.

McKibben, for his part, was heartened by the speech.

"[Obama] spoke out strongly tonight, and we'll be making this case across the nation in the months to come," he said in a statement. "Congress takes small presents from oil companies and gives them huge ones back -- with our money. Time for it to stop."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama clearly laid out his energy agenda in Tuesday night's State of the Union address, promising "responsible development" of domestic oil and natural gas even as he pl...
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama clearly laid out his energy agenda in Tuesday night's State of the Union address, promising "responsible development" of domestic oil and natural gas even as he pl...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 406
  • 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 »  (6 total)
04:02 PM on 01/26/2012
If politicians all over the globe would only stop and listen to the garbage they put out there and stop polluting our planet with all that hot air they emit. And if only the people would take the time to think 'outside the box', they would realize how dumb-down they have allowed themselves to become.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:21 PM on 01/26/2012
Where is the outrage from the speech where Obama (DINO) said he'll open 3/4 of public lands to oil drilling and gas fracking? Then today he opens up all land around the Gulf to bidding??
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
03:40 PM on 01/26/2012
"75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources ” is not the same as 3/4 of public lands.
In fact, that's pretty much the same thing as the expanded offshore drilling he proposed a couple of months ago.
And that isn't much different than what's opened up right now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:25 AM on 01/30/2012
I'm plenty outraged - he's had a pretty bad record on climate change.

Still better than anything the GOP has to offer.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:14 PM on 01/31/2012
That's it. Still better, but vote for the Kucinich, Warren. Grayson cpc-progressives in the primaries and the dems in the general. The GOP.Tea want the multinational to rule and the republic to be weak enough for them to drown it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gordon Soderberg
The Green Veteran
01:08 PM on 01/26/2012
http://coloradoenergynews.com/2012/01/denver-veterans-green-jobs-gets-white-house-visit-on-friday/

Veterans Green Jobs will get a visit tomorrow from the white house. Hopefully, they will learn from what we started and apply these lessons to create a national program to help veterans rebuild a sustainable future for America.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SallyMaclennane
Yes I did build that!
01:04 PM on 01/26/2012
Just because he says it doesn't make it so.
04:12 PM on 01/26/2012
Bush lied and still did nothing but steal....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:26 AM on 01/30/2012
No, it's the data from reality that makes it so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:57 AM on 01/26/2012
There is no such thing as clean coal yet. They have made some decent improvements in mercury and other nasty stuff coming out of the stacks, but CO2 is still a big problem. And older coal plants aren't doing very well with any of them. We have hundreds of years of coal, and my state of MT has some of the most. Mining is increasing and much is shipped to the west coast to import to China. Yeah, we can keep burning more and more coal over the next 100 years but then what? Seems like climate change will only be made worse. We expect at least 30 more coal trains a day traveling through Missoula, MT headed to the port in Longview (I think it's Longview) for shipment to Asia. The US really, really, needs to come up with a better long term plan. I'm looking into the new Prius v. Probably can't afford it but it sounds good to me. Be hard to give my old Odyssey van that I can haul stuff with.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
04:57 AM on 01/26/2012
Sounds like China needs a better long term plan too. At least we are exporting something to China.
06:11 AM on 01/26/2012
Our coal is higher quality coal than China's so there is some reason to be thankful they are using it. China is already the largest CO2 emitter in the world although on a per capita basis they are quite a bit lower than we are. If the US and China don't have some bilateral agreement on climate change, 2050 is going to be a very warm year.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
10:27 AM on 01/30/2012
China's long-term plan has resulted in them spending FAR more money and effort on renewables than us. They're expending their coal power production, but they're using that power to expand their renewable power production too, and at a greater rate than we are.

It would be nice not to cede THAT market to them as well...
09:18 AM on 01/28/2012
Buying a new car may cost more environmentally than driving an existing one? There should be some place to do that math. I have a stationwagon that gets pretty good mpg (no emissions too). I can't give it up for something that I can't schlepp stuff around in. I try to drive less instead.
We have coal trains headed hundreds of miles away to outside ATL GA several times a day. ATL is in the South....you'd think they'd be all solar by now. Why is it cheaper to transport coal rather than hold on to it and use it locally when needed?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:41 AM on 01/26/2012
There are just too many questions yet to be answered about Keystone. What's the big rush anyway? Some say 20,000+ jobs, others a few thousand. Several say it will take oil from midwest refineries to TX for export, raising fuel prices in that area. There is so much BS and lies on this pipeline, we need to take the time to work through these. I'm against the tar sands development in Canada but the US can't stop that. There is a lot of opposition in Canada for a pipeline to their west coast too. I do believe much of that oil and it's refined products will be shipped overseas if Keystone is built. But I suppose in an emergency the US could stop the overseas shipping. For sure the tar sand development is one of the most destructive methods of extracting a real bad crude oil. And if it's so dang important for US energy independence it doesn't have to go to TX. The midwest refineries can handle it.

Wait till these pipeline crews come to your town. Saw this happen before where I lived. Bunch of guys with lots of money to spend and the local small town girls go all crazy over them. When this pipeline does get going all you fathers and boy friends keep close tabs on your daughters and girl friends when they come to town for a few months!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
05:03 AM on 01/26/2012
Why do you think that the oil and it's refined products will be shipped overseas? Consider this:

1) We basically don't ship any crude overseas. See the EIA site for a source. There is no reason to believe that will change. What will change is that Houston will buy more from Canada and less from OPEC. Houston only buys enough to feed their refineries.

2) Unless our refining capacity expands, we won't export more refined products either. But if they do expand refining capacity and export more, at least we'll get the jobs. At the moment though, Mexico and Canada are our biggest buyers.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:16 AM on 01/26/2012
Incorrect. We export hardly any crude, but we ship massive amount of finished product--- in fact, we're currently a net exporter of gasoline (Check EIA). Refining provides very small profit margins, and refineries need to run near capacity in order to stay economical. So with the same capacity, plus the sharp decline in gasoline consumption that accompanied the recession, we've been sending more and more abroad, mainly to South America.

Also read the State Dept report on the Keystone pipeline.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:16 AM on 01/26/2012
Amounts*
06:15 AM on 01/26/2012
This oil will be used whether it goes through the pipeline or not. Killing the pipeline virtually assures that at some point it will go to China. I am concerned about the tar sands as well because of their carbon intensity but we cannot stop their development unless we want to invade Canada along with our other adverntures. There are already 13 pipelines crossing Nebraska. We should be picking our fights on climate change and opposing another pipeline seems to be a tree issue when we have a big forest to be worried about.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
09:35 AM on 01/26/2012
IF and only IF we are determined to pursue a "war for oil" strategy, Canada is the most attractive target. Their policy of sending a series of deadly winter storms into our country every winter could provide a convenient pretext for an invasion. Their military strength is such that the N.J. State police could probably handle the whole enterprise.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KarlaElisa
The atmosphere is Toxic
01:36 AM on 01/26/2012
“We don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy,”

UH...yeah we do. Sustainable isn't just a popular, politically correct term. It means RENEWABLE. If you are using materials that don't renew themselves or can't renew as fast as they are used, you're NOT being sustainable.

No Economy = a planet with no economy that still houses and nourishes life.
No Planet = No Economy, no life, no chance, game over.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:17 AM on 01/26/2012
We can build a sustainable economy, is the point of what Obama's saying. We don't need to live in trees and eat raw meat.
01:29 AM on 01/26/2012
This is kind of funny Considering obama brought down Solyndra and was involved with the BP oil disaster, considering obama was funded by BP. Bush, cited BP 6x for safety violations where as Obama pretended not to see it.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:18 AM on 01/26/2012
Wow, that's just completely inaccurate. It's almost like you went out of your way to be wrong.
04:13 PM on 01/26/2012
Bush did not site anything.. The EPA did.
12:24 AM on 01/26/2012
THE overwhelming question re: energy policy is how do we reduce greenhouse gas radically and extremely quickly. Obama does not list this as a goal he is working toward, excusing himself by saying only that some would politically oppose it. Coward.

The goal was instead reducing imports and proceeding with ALL forms of "American" energy -- which means not only nuclear but also COAL, so popular in those battleground states in the 2012 election. I guess Obama is buying into the myth of "clean coal" or carbon capture. Instead of leading on the issue of climate change, Obama is either bringing up the rear or acting as an apologist for the current energy establishment. Very, very disappointing. It's like he is either not paying attention or has decided his reelection is more important than telling the American public what the real state of the union is.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
01:04 AM on 01/26/2012
It seems like he is in the
"let's keep the prosperous future far, far away" crowd.
I KNOW America, and indeed, the rest of the world, could automate the best solar and the best batteries for pennies on the dollar. And resulting installations would more than make up for lost coal jobs...(it takes many thousands of square miles here in the states alone for solar to actually rival fossil fuels).
Yet solar exponentiation, if given the chance, will already power "everything" at the rate it is currently growing in less than forty years!
I believe big business just does not want that to happen, hence solydria and their silly little overpriced tubes... Even I knew they wouldn't make it and now "everybody" doesn't trust solar!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
10:48 PM on 01/25/2012
"as well as to green the carbon footprint of the nation's military"

Funny. Bush directed the military (i.e., Air Force) to find a solution that would promote energy security. The Air Force converged on coal-to-liquid.

Obama scraps that and directs the military to find a green solution. No wonder the effort failed. It was more about being green than being secure.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:20 AM on 01/26/2012
Um, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The military has been at the forefront of alternative energy development. Solar energy, in particular, decreases the load of batteries soldiers have to carry with them, which is enormous as it stands. They're also working on biofuels development, including for aviation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
06:02 PM on 01/26/2012
Funny, once again, you agreed with me but didn't realize it. The biofuel initiative replaced teh CTL initiative.

Also, the battery issue was about weight, not being green. Lugging around heavy batteries in backpacks is painful to the soldier.
04:16 PM on 01/26/2012
That was simply stupid..and you know it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
06:04 PM on 01/26/2012
Which part? I agree that the synthetic fuel mandate is now stupid. It made sense with coal-to-liquid but not with biofuel-to-liquid.

Keep it about energy security and less about being green.
09:29 PM on 01/25/2012
Free alternative clean energy is out their, do we really want to continued with the choke hold that the Energy Industrial Complex has on humanity. Stay alert, educate yourself. Live and love within your means!...?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:44 PM on 01/25/2012
How about 'greening' the military by drastically downsizing it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
10:50 PM on 01/25/2012
The pipeline would have mitigated security risks. Meanwhile, we need to secure our energy distribution routes. Poor planning.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:21 AM on 01/26/2012
Wrong again. See above comment on the current status of refining and plans for export. And read, as I said, the State Dept report.
04:16 PM on 01/26/2012
Submit yours...
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
05:44 PM on 01/25/2012
I'd feel a lot better about all of the "happy, happy" around increased U.S. production if it weren't accompanied by gasoline and diesel and jet fuel being our new #1 export:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1

To me, we're just depleting our reserves faster - which isn't good, for even if we manage to quit burning hydrocarbons, we still need them for plastics.
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
10:23 AM on 01/26/2012
Exports have risen because refineries need to maintain throughput in order to remain profitable. There was a sharp decline in gasoline consumption that accompanied the recession. Hence, we export more.