I just read the energy speech Obama gave on Tuesday in Nevada. I'd call it a TKO if I didn't sound so unconvincing using boxing metaphors.
Watch what he leads with: "A green, renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now."
This is what the campaign, correctly in my judgment, has decided people need to hear first and foremost: It's happening. People just like you, who live around here, are getting jobs doing this stuff.
The Obama campaign is way ahead of most pundits and politicians on this issue. They've realized that in the fight for sane energy policy, you don't need the environmental message (climate change is mentioned just once, in the context of criticizing McCain for empty rhetoric). You need economic competitiveness, security from scary dictators, and a sense of collective purpose. It's about translating the "green economy" abstraction into nuts and bolts.
There's nothing wrong with "the environment" of course, and Obama's called it out before, but he's casting a wide enough net now that he pulls in plenty of people who don't give a frack about polar bears and icebergs.
And he just dismantles McCain. It's one jab after another. Like this one, about the $300 million prize McCain proposes for new electric car battery:
When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people.
Or this one, on the universally debunked claim from McCain that offshore oil drilling would bring "short-term relief," which McCain has since ... modified:
Just yesterday, Senator McCain actually admitted this. In a town hall he said, and I quote, "I don't see an immediate relief" but "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, "It polls well."
That's going to leave a mark. Thing is, none of this is mudslinging. He's hitting McCain on legitimate policy differences. He's just doing it with a little flair.
Now listen to McCain's return blow:
"On this energy issue, yeah, it's easy to say 'no' to everything," Mr. McCain said. "That's what Senator Obama is doing. We've got to come forward with bold proposals, innovative ones, and ones that will bring this nation to energy independence for national security reasons as well as others."
Feeble and off-key. This is what you get when you ask your granddad about a new rock band. It becomes pretty clear he can't follow the tune. And the tune voters just heard from Obama is full of Yes: new energy, new jobs, new opportunities, new leadership. Meanwhile, as for "bold" and "innovative" proposals, it's tough to see how drilling for oil and serving pork to the nuclear industry, whatever their merits, fit that bill. That's singin' to the oldies.
McCain and Obama agree on high-toned energy rhetoric, but this is just like when Democrats used to try to finesse the national security issue by going Bush-lite. A choice between Bush and Bush-lite will always go to Bush. A choice between two guys who agree on the need for new energy policy will go to the guy who's offering it up, not the guy who's lip-syncing the words.
I don't know if this stuff will register in the polls -- there still aren't enough people paying attention to it -- but as far as I can tell Obama is completely outflanking McCain on the energy issue, and winning on substance to boot. He's got an increasingly honed message while McCain is being buffeted about the demands of his base, tripping over his inch-deep grasp of policy, and flip-flopping so fast he's already done on both sides. And it's only June.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
Besides the problems inherent in using a substance that is super lethal and lasts forever, don't forget that nuclear plants will make terrific targets. Alternatively, with the weather becoming ever more unpredictable, something could happen that way, too. Japan narrowly escaped a catastrophe recently when an earthquake quaked near a reactor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
To say: "A green, renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now" is not a proposal; it is a platitude. What is his speciic proposal for creating energy? (And remember - it has to be one that provides "immediate" energy, since his principle objection to drilling for new oil is that it is not an "immediate" solution.)
Does Obama have ANY agenda on ANYTHING? Besides "Change" and raising taxes he doesn't seem to have any specific plans.
If you want to cut consumption, you increase prices by placing more restriction and taxes. Ask Grey Davis how well this works politically?
Nukes can only provide 25 years of the worlds energy, then the Uranium wars start.
Meanwhile we get 1 million years of intractable deadly waste.
Nukes=only 25 years of energy.
They also take 15 years to commission.
Wind can produce 50 nukes worth of energy in just 3 years.
Sustainable forever.
1 T$ over 10 years to replace coal nukes and imported oil with wind and solar. Not much more then the nuke coal and oil subsides over the past 20 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
I especially find hard to believe that Wind Power is so viable that it could produce power equal to 50 Nuclear Power Plants in just three years..
Like I said, I find it hard to believe, but am willing to consider it.. If you could provide some evidence to support the conclusion.
Michale....
A couple points.
Your growth rate on the wind power pre-supposes that the LAND to place wind power on will be readily available. As we have seen with the Kennedy debacle, this is not a given.
And your Solar Power argument pre-supposes that Solar Power systems will come down in price enough to be affordable to the majority of those who would be in the best position to utilize them. Again, I see no evidence of that.
But, consider a Solar Power Program where the government funds that gives homeowners viable Solar Power Systems.
This is a very logical and rational approach, but it won't be implemented. Because it doesn't stream money into the pockets of Al Gore and all the others who are making a killing by perpetuating the Human Caused Climate Change con...
Michale.....
Wind is not so sustainable nor yet so efficient. There are only select locations that provide the sustained winds for good efficiency. There are not enough such locations in the US to provide complete replacement. Right now, wind costs are about 3X of coal. Right now, wind provides only 1% of our total energy needs.
Nuclear power is very viable.. but we have that pesky problem of nuclear waste and what to do with it... a few nuc power plants are okay but thousands?
The only way we will get off oil is to firmly set our country's scientific and energy policy to discovering an alternate sustainable energy source and to give it the funding that it needs... already, Europe is researching fusion... http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/jet.html
and... through unconfirmed rumor I have heard that the Navy has achieved cold fusion on a small scale but to carry it to a larger scale would be dangerous?
Big Oil has 60 million acres of leased land that they are not drilling on and they do not need more offshore drilling sites... if they wanted to drill more oil, then they would be doing it already...
Listen to the man who sees our future and not the man who thinks with our past...
Obama 08!
However, there are real questions about the overall efficiency of corn ethanol. Best case it is only 25% energy efficient. It takes 75 gallons to produce 100 gallons. Cornell and many others have studies showing corn ethanol is NEGATIVE when you include all the energy costs of planting, growing, fertilizer, water, harvesting and production of ethanol.
The worst issue is water. It takes over 4,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Water is much more precious to the poor and elderly than fuel.
Obama;s position couldn't have anything to do with Archer Daniels having him in their pocket , could it?
No wonder voters in Iowa were so crazy about him.
However, like most of Obama's messages, it's pretty rhetoric (and Mr. Roberts seems to agree) but there is where it stops. Criticizing bounty and prestige? That is what science runs on, at least, that's what it does nowadays. Everyone trying to become famous with their humanitarian concerns. And yeah, what Obama levied is mudslinging, folks just don't like admitting their golden child does it. For someone who talks about hope, he's not adverse to using it against his colleague.
Will this make a difference? I doubt it. People are still bleating about Obama's skin color and "McBush" or whatever the buzzword is now.
In contrast McCain's energy plans are unsafe, expensive and unhelpful in solving some of our most pressing issues. Furthermore his plans do nothing for the immediate future. Nuclear power plants are a bad idea for several reasons: 1) no one has yet discovered a safe way to dispose of the radioactive waste 2) the likelihood of withstanding a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tornado would be slim at best 3) it is terribly expensive 4) nuclear power is very dangerous. Anyone re_member Chernobyl?
I may not agree with Obama on every issue, but I have yet to agree with McCain on any issue.
Nuclear disaster is slim. There have been a total of 2 major nuclear disasters (Count them. Two. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) and a handful of partial nuclear disasters. Nuclear meltdown follows the path of the Challenger explosion and other disasters, where an isolated incident is assumed to be the inevitable conclusion.
As for expense, well, so are a lot of eco-alternatives. Even eco-alternative supporters admit things are pricey, they just say it's worth it. Eco-alternative fuels often require an infrastructure overhaul, which leads to "hidden" prices.
Secondly, there is nothing more dangerous than radioactive waste from nuclear reactors.
What possible byproduct can be more deadly? Asbestos maybe.....but not many. Nuclear waste takes more than 100 years to cool and become non-radioactive. Now where would you want that stored when we have hundreds of nuclear reactors in the years to come.
I'm not against nuclear and I like it as an alternative energy source. But I feel the others mentioned such as wind, solar, electric cars, are more viable and cleaner if given the massive funding nuclear got all these years.
I assume you drive a car and use electricity and you are very incovneienced and put out when it is not available? Well it doesn't come from the tooth fairy, it comes from the efforts of hard working folks who do their damndest to produce oil and natural gas so you can sit in air conditioning and post on this blog. Please study the topic just a tad, then comment from an informed viewpoint.
Nuclear power is really our only alternative to oil in the foreseeable future..
It's a constant source of amazement to me how people can be so hysterical about the problem, yet be equally hysterical and irrational about the BEST (and ONLY) solution...
Michale....
There are good biofuels that can be used in certain circumstances too, but corn-based ethanol is not one of them.
We can also cut 20-30% of oil and coal usage via simple conservation - fuel efficiency in cars, better management of commercial buildings, etc.
I keep hearing the neocones say drill here, drill now, save money. Drilling in the US is ok but the oil that is produced is going to sell at market price. So drilling here is not going to help. Would love to see more drilling here though. At least the money we are paying for foriegn oil will stay here. No need to drill offshore either. There is just as much oil on dry land. Just have to find it.
Keep a check on active drilling rigs in the US. Go to bakerhughes.com to get an idea on active rigs. Last time I checked it was at 1900 rigs active and climbing. There is a shortage of rigs right now but as soon as more get built there should be more drilling.
The more I hear about Obama, the more I like him...
First his support for the FISA updates..
Now a sane energy policy that doesn't by into the hysterical con job that is Human Caused Climate Change...
Obama is it....
Michale.....