By Joe Romm
The President loves fossil fuels, at least when they are extracted here — or, rather, anywhere in North America. On Friday the UK Guardian reported, “White House officials … gave strong indications the President is inclined to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.”
On Saturday, Obama gave a big wet kiss to oil and gas in his weekly radio address:
"Let’s keep moving forward on an all-of-the-above energy strategy. A strategy where we produce more oil and gas here at home, but also more biofuels and fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power and wind power. A strategy where we put more people to work building cars, homes and businesses that waste less energy. We can do this. We’re Americans. And when we commit ourselves to something, there’s no telling how far we’ll go."
Watch it:
Now it is true that Obama was touting his proposed “Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us” finally “shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good.”
But I’ll bet you didn’t know this included research into vehicles that run on fossil fuels with higher life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions:
We can support scientists who are designing new engines that are more energy efficient; developing cheaper batteries that go farther on a single charge; and devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.
Yes, in the Energy Security Trust, natural gas vehicles count as replacing oil with “new sources of clean energy.” Not.
As the National Journal reported last year:
“The president has proposed we switch trucks to natural gas, and I’m here to tell you today that every truck we switch to natural gas damages the atmosphere,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said at the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates annual conference here. Krupp said the little data available about how much methane — a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide — escapes during the production of shale natural gas compels him to refuse to support a shift toward more natural-gas vehicles.
More at the link
Also see:
http://current.com/green/94058252_could-obama-craft-horse-trade-deal-for-keyston...
I actually thought the trade off would be working to limit emissions from existing coal plants, but that may not come to pass either... so I suppose deferring to the Nixonian NEPA rule which may in the end just prolong the projects and not stop them really isn't even a tradeoff. And when it comes to addressing this crisis tradeoffs are not an option. This is one good reason why those who see the urgency of this should be supporting the Progressive budget because it is the only one calling for a carbon tax. At least the Progressive Caucus is not afraid to stand up for what is right and necessary instead of always using the Tea Party as an excuse to back off when we should be in their faces. This is about our abilty to feed ourselves at this point, not about always campaigning for the next election.
http://stopthecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hurricane-Sandy.jpg
-
added by:
![]()
JanforGore
- 33 comments
