General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama doesn’t back down on clean energy
By David Roberts
After every State of the Union speech, pundits rush to lament that the speech contained lofty rhetoric unmatched by substantial policy proposals. All the concrete ideas are small bore, a laundry list. And indeed, thats a fair way to characterize last nights speech...But that criticism misses the point...its main function was to set Obama up for a strong defense of clean energy.
Thats what I was watching for: whether the president would back down on clean energy in the face of coordinated GOP assault...He did not. Instead, he doubled down: Some technologies dont pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. The portion of the speech on clean energy policy was both longer and stronger than I expected. This is the killer bit:
Now, of course I like this. But check out the results from a focus group consisting of 50 swing voters from both parties:
This is what the administration has figured out that many CW-immersed political journos have not: No matter how much the right squawks, no matter how much money the Chamber of Commerce spends on attack ads, Americans love clean energy. They know that fossil fuels are the past and clean energy is the future and it makes sense to them to shift public resources from the former to the latter. This is a killer political issue.
- more -
http://grist.org/politics/obama-doesnt-back-down-on-clean-energy/
An aside from the commentary:
ProSense
(116,464 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts). . . proving that he can regulate the drilling for natural gas in a safe and ecologically sound way. I understand he's taking steps and mouthing the right words, but it's not going to satisfy those who are just dead set against fracking, under any circumstances. That's not a constituency that's going away.
...not sure that's possible. "Safe drilling" is an oxymoron, but the oil industry is entrenched in our economy, both in terms of jobs and energy. The U.S. needs to do everything it can to speed not only the end of the reliance on foreign oil, but also the reliance on fossil fuels.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)If it is such a safe process and can be regulated, the exemptions from the Bush/Cheney Energy Act should be specifically addressed, which have not been to date.
Additionally, when The President is referring to hydraulic fracturing by utiliizing gas industry verbiage ('shale gas extraction') I am not holding out on any major policy changes to the process from the federal government.
FFS, the EPA; rather than deliver clean, safe drinking water to Dimock, PA residents after Cabot refused delivery, would rather cancel the deliveries than have the federal government set a precedence on hydraulic fracturing *may* affect groundwater or watersheds within well casings.
Three glaring positions that I am not very hopeful on coming from the federal government.
I am currently involved in several moratorium pushes in small central New York communities because the state-wide moratorium expires on June 1...
If you have ever been to the Finger Lakes region, you'll understand why.
So yeah, I guess I'm one of those constituents who aren't going away; *OR* another way of putting it:
A life-long New York State resident concerned for the public health safety and environment of my community that I work, live and play in.
bigtree
(86,005 posts). . . do you?
More power to you . . . I stand with the residents in New York State, and elsewhere (Pennsylvania), who are fighting this in their communities.
bananas
(27,509 posts)"They know that fossil fuels
are the past and clean energy is the future and it
makes sense to them to shift public resources
from the former to the latter. This is a killer
political issue ."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Fuck you LePage
YUP