Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

Obama’s Misguided Green Energy Policy

Kenneth Gulley |
September 19, 2012 | 8:31 p.m. PDT

Guest Contributor

"Obama’s Misguided Green Energy Policy" is part of a new series, "Political Perspectives."

(Dawn Megli / Creative Commons)
(Dawn Megli / Creative Commons)

Obama’s energy policies seem noble at face value: making America less dependent on foreign oil, building sustainable and renewable clean energy at home, and paving the way for new high-tech green energy jobs. Who wouldn’t like that? Those damn Republicans! Stuck in the stone age of coal, oil, and hideous things like free-markets.

Free markets? The economy? What’s that have to do with energy? Everything. In fact, much like the powerful exports a young America of yesteryear provided, oil and energy fuel the country’s economy.

Though free-market capitalism is the reason we have been so successful as a country, the current administration seems committed to denying this fact. It has attempted to substitute the dream of the free market with a new dream, one in which the successes of some should be redistributed. By applying this philosophy to big oil’s overall profits, the Left has found it easy to demonize those “horrible,” “greedy” oil companies. Further, Obama has used the topic of green energy in both of his election campaigns as one of many means to regulate free market companies.

I am not here to tout or defend the oil companies - or for that matter, coal and nuclear energy – though I favor them. I would love to see more green energy. Yet, the fact remains that these technologies do not satisfy America’s demands, are often less efficient than conventional energy sources and are consistently very expensive. I am here to tout what we have, and what works.

America has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and Canada, our number one trading partner, boasts even more. We also have an abundance of natural gas. This begs the question: while we work to make green energies cost-effective, why aren’t we producing oil, natural gas, etc.?

It’s all about the vote. Obama is very aware of his voting bloc, and he strategically makes each move to bolster his chances of re-election. Take the current examples of re-applying "Jerusalem" and "God" to the Democratic platform, presumably to retain the Jewish vote, or conveniently “evolving” to support gay marriage. Plainly, Obama’s green energy policy is nothing short of a cowardly appeal to uninformed liberal voters who are particularly sympathetic toward environmental issues.

In multiple cases, the Obama Administration has pursued failed energy policies and investments, such as Solyndra or Solar Trust of America LLC. Both companies declared bankruptcy after receiving $535 million and $2.1 billion “conditional” green energy government loans, respectively. As long as such endeavors help perpetuate the illusion of “creating” and “investing” in green energy, the Obama administration has shown that it will promote them at the American taxpayers’ expense. How else do you explain spending $26 a gallon to fuel a “green” Navy?

It is this misguided, self-serving, re-election-driven political attitude that is destroying our economy. For the sake of a solidified vote, Obama quashed one of the most important energy plans of the decade - the Keystone Pipeline. The pipeline would have stretched from Canada to Texas, providing 4,000 jobs and secure energy from a friendly nation. Instead, President Obama’s unwillingness to play into a Republican-friendly industry cost American jobs, eliminated an energy supply which would have lowered gas prices and compromised security (Canada now seeks a deal with China, and we maintain our dependence on Gulf Coast oil). At least Israel has found a more reliable and friendly North American partner.

Mitt Romney has a clearly outlined plan for American energy policy. While liberal politicians turn “deregulation” into a dirty word, these moves actually free up the market to begin producing energy domestically, thereby providing jobs and creating a self-sufficient America. Obama’s plan has been incoherent, wasteful and restrictive. He touts the idea that during his presidency, America has imported less oil than it did in the last decade and produced a larger share of exports, but he fails to mention that the reason for low consumption is directly related to our lack of productivity (i.e. 8.1 percent unemployment), and that the higher oil output has been achieved by the private industries based on actions taken while the Bush Administration was in the White House.

We should learn from the USSR that a government force-fed market is inherently inefficient and destined for failure. We have all read of the outdated and useless creations developed in such a society, and should be weary of mimicking. One embodiment of government inefficiency in the area of clean energy, in addition to the previous example of Solyndra’s failure, is the Chevy Volt: an innovation created by the government bail-out giant General Motors that loses tens of thousands of dollars on every model sold. By promoting free enterprise, America will be more competitive and ultimately successful on a global scale in areas of energy technology, especially compared to countries with state-run economies, like China.

In short, Obama’s green energy myth is withering like an autumn leaf, and with it, our pockets are becoming less green.

 

Editor's Note: Read an opposing article explaining why President Obama's energy policy is sensible here.



 

Live On Twitter

Buzz

Things I'm Thinking 6/19/13

Week two of Calum Hayes' summer opinion series, "Things I'm Thinking."

U.S. Beats Honduras, Nears World Cup Bid

America goes 3-for-3 in summer qualifying matches.

 


Comments

Lutz Richter (not verified) on September 20, 2012 7:48 AM

The writer should get the fact right: Solar Trust of America has never received funding from the DoE.

Your rating: None
LR (not verified) on September 20, 2012 7:50 AM

... one more thing... Solar Trust of America has never received any funding from the DoE.

Your rating: None
Chris (not verified) on September 20, 2012 6:57 AM

You should check your facts. Democrats are not the only ones lending government support to otherwise uncompetitive energy sources. The GOP has been supporting loan guarantees for nuclear power plants for 40 years. A strategy that picks winners even more than liberal clean energy policies because NOT A SINGLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT has ever come online in this country without government support. They are simply too costly, too risky, and not competitive enough. The second the GOP comes back to power they're going to provide Solyndra like loans to nuclear power companies (something they've been doing for 40 years) and watch a bunch of companies fail in the same way. They're no better than Democrats, they just have different donors and ergo different interets too protect.

Your rating: None
Chris (not verified) on September 20, 2012 7:00 AM

You also shouldn't conflate government support (ie loan guarantees, tax incentives, etc) with government ownership of an energy source. These are very different things. Comparing financial incentives for private energy production with USSR style government ownership of resources just makes you sound unintelligent.
I sincerely hope that the College Republicans have members who are more knowledgeable about energy policy than you.

Your rating: None
Ken (not verified) on September 20, 2012 10:45 AM

Many of the "conditional loans" set out have strong government curved incentives that act/dictate the ptivate use of the green energy creation... hence my comparison. We end up dictating routes (also note the partial ownership of Detroit Car companies from the bailouts also give us dictating rights - hence volt loses 39K per every car made, yet its subsidized). Also, Solar Trust WON the rights to the loan, but they did not recieve it... I made that clear in my original message, but it was edited to simplify my sentence, and that information was lost.

Lastly, if and when Repubs start acting stupid with the Nuclear Energy crowd, I'll be here ripping them a new one; that given, Nuclear Energy is a proven workable source of energy - not a hideously unproven money-waster. (P.s. Georgia is building 2 as of this year).

Your rating: None
Chris (not verified) on September 20, 2012 6:23 PM

I'm going to ignore the fact that "government curved incentive" is a phrase with devoid of all meaning and focus and just point out that none of what you just claimed about nuclear energy is true. The honest to god non-partisan truth is that nuclear energy is a proven workable energy source, just like wind, solar, and all the renewable energy sources that Democrats routinely tout. But workable does not mean cost competitive, and just like wind, solar, and other renewables, nuclear energy has no ability to compete with conventional sources like natural gas, coal and oil without massive government subsidies. You should check out those two plants in Georgia, their being subsidized to an extend Solyndra and Solar Trust could not have dreamed of. The public is paying for them through a system that forces them to pay higher energy bills and the same loan guarantees you hate when they go to renewable energy companies. Only with nuclear the plants will cost $800 billion more, will take 20 more years to come online, and will put thousands of lives at risk considering the risk of a meltdown and the fact that we have no permanent solution for storing nuclear waste. I'll give you that you know more about the domestic energy market than I thought you did, but you're still just relying on cherry-picked facts from the National Review and Weekly Standard as opposed to actually engaging with market realities

Your rating: None
Ken (not verified) on September 22, 2012 12:21 AM

Im glad I meet/surpass your standards, whatever those are. And I do not read the NR or Weekly Standard (on a regular basis if at all)... though apparently they are presenting a side that sticks, so maybe I will read them more.

But then again, I voted for Obama in 2004 so what do i know.

Your rating: None
friarfool on September 19, 2012 11:00 PM

and climate change, we should ignore?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
KG (not verified) on September 19, 2012 11:19 PM

Of course not. Not against Green Energy, but there is way of approaching it... should we waste and destroy our economy to stop an inevitable and natural climate change?

Your rating: None

Leave a comment

Name
E-mail*
URL
Comments*