« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why we can’t have nice things. Like a profitable energy policy.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  December 8th, 2012 at 10:15 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Let me tell you the difference between ‘think’ and ‘expect.’

  • I think that Barack Obama should take the advice of this New Geography article and pick future energy production over keeping radical eco-freaks happy.  It will be better for the environment and better for the country (unfortunately, it’d also be better for the Democratic party, but life is like that).
  • I expect that Barack Obama will instead choose to keep said radical eco-freaks happy.  It will be better for him personally over the next four years, and that’s pretty much it right there*.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

Moe Lane (“Why we can’t have nice things. Like a profitable energy policy.”)

*Barack Obama is already assured of a place in history from being the first President to successfully pretend to be African-American.  Oops, did I write that out?  My bad.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • DerKrieger

    Barack Obama’s goal is to bring this country its knees and yoke all Americans to the central government. He doesn’t care about our energy potential beyond figuring out to kill it. He doesn’t care about the wreckage he will make of his party, it’s just a means to his end. If it gets destroyed on his single-minded journey of transforming our country then so be it.

  • jawilson58

    Transaction politics is a sordid business and the bill will be coming due frequently. Brack will go along with a fair number of his investors like on energy policy and it won’t benefit the greater public welfare. The only question in my mind is who he will be willing to stand up to?

  • spinoneone

    O is as O does. Ergo, no one.

  • stevemaley

    I’ve been saying for a couple of years that Obama coulda been The Energy President. Ideology got in his way.

    Or maybe it’s not even ideology, it’s this whole fairness thing. If capitalist risk-takers are able to make a little dough by being smart & hustling, that’s just not fair (especially if they’re mostly Republicans). Giving money from the public treasury to green energy hucksters who just happen to be connected Dems, why it just doesn’t get any more fair than that.

  • everclear

    For the most part Obama can’t either pick or not pick energy production over other goals. The vast expansion of natural gas is the factor driving US energy policy today. No one will build a coal fired power plant today because natural gas is so cheap. The greens are finally sort of getting over their aversion to nuclear, but it’s too late. No one will build a nuke plant in the US until natural gas prices quadruple. Another factor tying Obama’s hands is that the EPA does not have the power to regulate fracking — it’s in state hands, and NY and PA are not interested in slowing down natural gas development.

  • greyeagle

    The EPA supposedly doesn’t have the power to do a lot of things, but they do it any way. They are putting regulations in play that have never been done by any EPA in history, because Obama tells them too. They are crazy.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I’m not sure I understand either the point of the New Geography article, or the writer of this article (not to mention the ludicrous and idiotic last line).

    The article makes no factual assertions, other than “growth is good” (obviously) and that energy sector jobs are good (obviously), but it fails to make any factual point about what precise policies Obama is failing to champion. It actually contradicts itself by pointing out that the current administration is opening 20 million acres of land for oil exploration.

    Critiques like this one, and the article it links to, accomplish and mean nothing.