The Oil Drum

I don't believe that he is making any conspiracy theories here. He just has 30 seconds to get his message out. And his message is very different from McSame as Bush: alternative energy, a resistance to rolling over for hte energy companies, and a clean look at what has to happen next. Obama's people ARE aware of the issues with oil supply going forward.

On the Exxon profits dig: that is clearly shorthand for the redistribution of wealth that is occurring, from the middle class to IOCs and the NOCs. And that level of profit is is hard to defend, unless one admits that Exxon is now a tontine that refines and distributes oil as well. It is a factually true statement, and quantifiable in a way that Saudi Aramco's profits are not.

Expect an Obama presidency to take any increase in fossil fuel taxes and use those directly to reduce fossil fuel consumption going forward, sort of the same way that we now use gasoline taxes to encourage further gasoline consumption. Obama will have a better way of delivering the message that Americans need to hear, and to make them understand why what needs to happen needs to happen. As we saw in speech about race, he has a willingness to talk to Americans as if they are adults, and they are responding to that.

I thought it would be of interest to see what Obama had written about energy in his book (which was copyrighted in 2006) “The Audacity of Hope”. The following is taken from pages 167 through 171. Any typos are mine not Obama’s.

“The Last Critical investment we need to make America more competitive is in an energy infrastructure that can move us toward energy independence. In the past, war or a direct threat to national security has shaken america out of its complacency and led to bigger investments in education and science, all with an eye toward minimizing our vulnerabilities. That’s what happened at the height of the Cold War, when the launching of the satellite Sputnik led to fears that the Soviets were slipping ahead of us technologically. In response, President Eisenhower doubled federal aid to education and provided an entire generation of scientists and engineers the training they needed to lead revolutionary advances. That same year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, was formed, providing billions of dollars to basic research that would eventually help create the Internet, bar codes, and computer-aided design. And in 1961, President kennedy would launch the Apollo space program, further inspiring young people across the country to enter the New Frontier of science.

Our current situation demands that we take the same approach with energy. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which our addiction to oil undermines our future. According to the National Commission on Energy Policy, without any changes to our energy policy U.S. demand for oil will jump 40 percent over the next twenty years. Over the same period, worldwide demand is expected to jump at least 30 percent, as rapidly developing countries like China and India expand industrial capacity and add 140 million cars to their roads.

Our dependence on oil doesn’t just affect our economy. It undermines our national security. A large portion of the $800 million we spend on foreign oil every day goes to some of the world’s most volatile regimes -- Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and indirectly at least, Iran. It doesn’t matter whether they are despotic regimes with nuclear intentions or havens for madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds--they get our money because we need their oil.

What’s worse, the potential for supply disruption os severe. In the Persian Gulf, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on poorly defended oil refineries for years: a successful attack on just one of the Saudis’ major oil complexes could send the U. S. economy into a tailspin. Osama bin Laden himself advises his followers to “focus your operations on[oil], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.

....
A nation that can’t control its energy sources can’t control its future.”

I don't see that as conspiracy. He's not talking about profits, only "windfall profits". He's talking about redistribution of those profits in the public interest. He's also talking a bipartisan message of government illegitimacy - capture by the corporate lobbyists. It sounds good.

Redistribution is necessary. No more limitless growth means we have to address redistribution. And scale. Energy independence avoids the scale issue, but the scale issue cannot be avoided. As far as I'm concerned, he loses a lot of credibility there. [To be fair he phrased it loosely "free ourselves from foreign oil", and that could, after all, be done with LESS rather than more." To be more precise; it will be done with LESS rather than more - only a matter of time.

Were I an oil exec, I'd find Obama's message rather comforting. We can look forward to dithering over "what's a windfall" and how to reinvest it in my green energy subsidiary. That's the problem; everyone finds Obama's messages comforting - except maybe the Palestinians, Iraqis, Venezuelans and other non-citizens of our empire. But they don't count any more than the other species on the planet.

The implication of this ad is that everything will be ok again - Obama is going to fix it. Not only do I find that incredibily debilitating and offensive, but have to conclude either he's a liar or he doesn't know better. So our best hope is electing someone and hoping he's lying to us from the start and will turn out better than he promises to be.

Yeah, probably the right frame.

Time to start spreading the Jello over the floor now....

cfm in Gray, ME

Good comment.

Who is your MLA quixotic? I have David Swann, and have received similar comments from him and came to the same conclusions. It's very frustrating.

I also beleive that he is heading in the right direction. Realizing and mentioning the idea of energy sources is important. I believe it would of been effective to mention some of these alternative energy sources that he is planning to develop. By naming a few, the population might take it more seriously instead of just believing that it is somethign that must be said during a campaign. The budget he throws out needs to be justified. is it for nuclear development or other froms of energy. Something he says must be different than what exists already, as the GNEP during the Bush era indirectly claims to have the same aims; just focusing primarily on nuclear energy. The fact that he emphasizes how much consumers are paying and how much oil producers are making is effective. Becoming less dependent on foreign energy should also have been adressed. We must not forget that he does only have limited time to get his message across.