<\/p>\n
President Obama will open large swaths of the Atlantic, <\/p>\n On Wednesday morning Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced<\/a> an end to a longstanding <\/p>\n The Arctic Ocean north of Alaska will be opened <\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” Obama said (full speech here<\/a>). “…But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is … stunning. Baffling. With the new policy <\/p>\n I’m holding out hope that things appear worse than <\/p>\n A few more notes…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On gas <\/p>\n Not much will change for a long time—estimates<\/a> figure that new oil won’t be available for 10 to 12 years, with <\/p>\n On foreign <\/p>\n Not much will change for a long time—again, the <\/p>\n On the West Coast<\/strong>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Dunno what’s going on here. No mention of it. [Update<\/strong>: The Pacific coast gets no mention because the drilling ban there remains in place.]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On the <\/p>\n This is supposed to win support for a <\/p>\n So the big question is whether Democrats have <\/p>\n The early <\/p>\n On the DailyKos comment <\/p>\n The <\/p>\n The substances at issue here—oil and natural <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Senate climate bill to fund Utah tar sands development<\/a><\/p>\n What to make of the Pollan\/Schlosser agreement with Wendy’s?<\/a><\/p>\n How offshore drilling will affect the Alaskan wilderness<\/a><\/p>\n
\nGulf, and Alaskan coasts to offshore oil and natural gas drilling in a stunning
\nconcession to fossil-fuel companies, the New York
\nTimes<\/a>, Los
\nAngeles Times<\/a>, Wall
\nStreet Journal<\/a>, and others are reporting.<\/p>\n
\nmoratorium on oil drilling along the East Coast from Delaware to the central coast of Florida.<\/p>\n
\ntoo, while the Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected—the sole
\nnew protection. New areas of the southeast Gulf Coast would also be opened,
\ndespite bipartisan opposition from political leaders in Florida and Alabama. The
\nTimes has a map<\/a> of all of this, and you need to see it to comprehend the size of the affected
\narea.<\/p>\n
\nObama appears to be taking a major step toward siding with carbon-polluting
\nindustries in the battle to defend the energy status quo.<\/p>\n
\nthey are. Because the key isn’t how much offshore drilling is allowed. The crucial issue is whether
\noil and gas companies decide it’s worth their money to go out, find, and
\nretreive the stuff. And things could be brighter on that front, because, as Joe
\nRomm explains<\/a>, the payoff in these reserves may not be worth the trouble.
\n(Nobody knows precisely how much oil and gas are in these places.) GOP
\npoliticians like John McCain and
\nSarah Palin<\/a> have used offshore drilling as a rallying cry, but energy
\ncompanies need to keep clear heads, crunch the numbers, and decide if a given project pays.<\/p>\n
\nprices and your money<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
\npeak production coming several years beyond that.<\/p>\n
\noil, energy independence, and bankrolling violent extremism<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
\nnew oil won’t be available for years.<\/p>\n
\npolitics<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
\nclimate\/clean-energy bill from wavering Senate Republicans. Obama compromises,
\nthey compromise—that’s the hope. But Republican lawmakers have shown very
\nlittle interest in compromising on legislation in the Obama era.<\/p>\n
\ngotten GOP senators to commit to
\nsupporting a bill. Did this win a few crucial votes, or is it a giveway for
\nnothing? No one seems to know yet. No public vote commitments, at least.<\/p>\n
\nreaction<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
\nthread<\/a>, it’s mostly frustration with the apparent giveaway. “There’s no
\nreal level on which this is anything but pandering,” writes one commenter. “We
\nneed more oil like we need a hole in the head. In the ten years it takes
\nto get it to market we could have renewables. Enough subsidies for big oil.”<\/p>\n
\nreporting<\/strong>:<\/p>\n
\ngas—will eventually be burned, releasing heat-trapping pollutants that cause
\nglobal warming. If that continues unchecked, it could be the most destructive
\nand unjust phenomena of the coming century. There’s no mention of any of this
\nin the stories from major news outlets. Just sayin’.<\/p>\n