Why Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cripple US

A BBC story begins to put Barack Obama’s energy dilemma into perspective:

As environment ministers from all over the world prepare for negotiations on climate change at Poznan in Poland this week, all eyes are on the future president of the United States.

Barack Obama has pledged to overturn George Bush’s policies by pushing for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

But he inherits an energy system dependent on a heavily polluting fuel – coal.

The question absolutely BEGS to be asked: “Why is our energy system so heavily dependent on coal?” The answer should have a profound impact on our thinking: because it is the cheapest source of energy, bar none (see here also).  And because it is abundant.  The United State has been called “the Saudi Arabia of coal for good reason.  We have more coal than the Arabs have oil, with a supply that will easily last us another 200 years.

Should we turn our backs on such cheap domestic energy?  Let us consider carefully the course that Barack Obama proposes to lay out for us.

Obama is cited in a major television ad campaign saying,

“This is America.  We figured out how to put a man on the moon in ten years, and you’re telling me that we can’t figure out how to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States and make it work.”

President Obama intends to make “clean coal technology” a hallmark of his energy policy.

For all the soaring rhetoric, Obama makes two crucial concessions here: 1) the clean coal campaign is currently largely theoretical; and 2) it will be massively expensive to bring it into the real world.

Consider Kennedy’s speech on the need to put a man on the moon.  We needed to race to the moon, he said, in order “to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny.”  We had to maintain the vital technological edge over our enemies.  The race to the moon was part of the Cold War effort.   The technologies necessary to put a man on the moon were also necessary to develop the best Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile systems.  It was part of our vital national security.

And it would be expensive.  Incredibly expensive.  In Kennedy’s own words: “No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.”

Now contrast this with other Obama quotes, which put his goals into much better perspective:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And the result of shutting down plants that produce half our electricity in Obama’s own words:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi revealed her megalomania when she said, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned [on energy policy].

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid might be even worse:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

With Barack Obama – who is on the record favoring the green, global warming alarmist agenda – in the White House, along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in total control of Congress, you can rest assured that we will see shocking increases in our energy costs as we transition to “alternative energy.”  Coal is cheap; “clean” coal is not.  Coal is plentiful; “clean coal” won’t be when much of the coal industry is bankrupted by Obama’s “cap and trade” policies.

Let’s understand something: we voted for this.  We are going to get it, and we deserve to get it.  To put it without tact: a great many families will freeze in the dark at night because they voted for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

While the United States massively increases the cost of its energy in order to conform to the pseudo-science global warming hype, will our economic competitors so hamstring themselves by running away from low cost energy?

Absolutely not.  China is building coal-fired plants as fast as they can, and India is on their heels:

China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants – nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72.

China is building about two coal-fired plants a week, according to the BBC, while Barack Obama is talking about bankrupting much of our coal industry and sending the cost of electricity soaring.

Let me ask you a question: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama – after a massive social spending program – is actually able to produce a fuel that replaces oil.  How much will this new “spaced-out” version of Kennedy’s space program” cost?  And how much will the fuel cost?  Will it even begin to compete with oil on a bang-for-your-buck basis?

No way, say the experts.  To quote the Global Education Project:

The energy stored in oil is significantly greater than in any other currently available source. There is no other equivalently cheap and powerful energy available from nuclear energy, natural gas, solar power, wind power, hydrogen, biomass or coal.

Now, imagine what will happen to the cost of oil as oil-demanding America pulls out of the oil market.  The price of oil will drop dramatically, as per the law of supply and demand.

And who will directly benefit?  Our competitors.  The energy that will fire their industrial base will cost them a fraction of what ours will cost us.

And who will subsidize low cost oil that will give our competitors an insurmountable competitive advantage over America?  That’s right.  Put your “Kick me because I’m stupid” sign on your backs.  We will hamstring ourselves, perhaps fatally, because at a critical time we elected leaders who live in a world of bogus theory while those who would gladly dance on our graves choose the real world.  China, India, and other growing economic powerhouses – who are NOT crippled with leaders like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid – will outproduce us on a scale that we have never seen because they will be able to add the cost of cheap energy to the cost of cheap labor.  You think “outsourcing” is bad now?

We need to move to domestic sources of energy, and we need to keep do so as inexpensively as possible.  That means drilling for domestic oil offshore, and developing shale oil technology to harness our massive shale deposits, which Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have opposed.  It means taking full advantage of the fact that we have more coal in this country than Arabs have oil, which Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi oppose.  And it means building nuclear power plants, which for all practical purposes Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi oppose (by laying so many predonditions on nuclear power that we will never be able to actually develop it).

Obama compares his alternative energy program to Kennedy’s space program.  But Kenndy’s program was intended to promote our national security interests and give us a competitive advantage over our enemies, while Obama’s program comes at the expense of our competitive advantage, and undermines our national security interests.  Even if we “win” by developing alternative energy sources, we will lose.  We just can’t make alternative energy cheap enough to compete with the coal and oil used by our competitors.

This country has a rendezvouz with mediocrity coming.  We voted for it, and we’re going to get it.

2 Responses to “Why Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cripple US”

  1. Michael Ejercito Says:

    If global warming is such a threat, why not just set off tons of nukes at nuclear test sites (TTAPS study)?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Oh my goodness, Michael!

    Don’t give these idiots any more stupid ideas! They might just do it!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: