Pages

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Remarks by the President on America's Energy Security

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary


Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

11:36 A.M. EDT
     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Everybody, please have a seat.  Please have a seat. It is wonderful to be back at Georgetown.  (Applause.)
We've got a number of acknowledgements.  First of all, I just want to thank President DeGioia for his outstanding leadership here, but also for his hospitality. 
We also have here Secretary Steven Chu, my Energy Secretary. Where is Steven?  There he is over there.  (Applause.)  Secretary Ken Salazar of the Interior Department.  (Applause.)  Secretary Tom Vilsack, our Agriculture Secretary.  (Applause.)  Ray LaHood, our Transportation Secretary.  (Applause.)  Lisa Jackson, our EPA Administrator.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, who is our Council on Environmental Quality director, right here.  (Applause.) 
A couple of great members of Congress -- Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington.  Where’s Jay?  There he is over there.  (Applause.)  And Rush Holt of New Jersey is here.  (Applause.)  We've got -- he didn’t bring the weather with him -- but the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, is in the house.  (Applause.)  Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Arizona, is here.  (Applause.) 
And most importantly, the students of Georgetown University are in the house.  (Applause.) 
I want to start with a difficult subject:  The Hoyas had a tough loss, Coach.  (Laughter.)  Coach is here, too, and I love Coach Thompson.  I love his dad and the great tradition that they’ve had.  (Applause.)  And it turned out VCU was pretty good. (Laughter.)  I had Georgetown winning that game in my bracket, so we’re all hurting here.  (Laughter.)  But that's what next year is for. 
We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world.  In a matter of months, we’ve seen regimes toppled.  We've seen democracy take root in North Africa and in the Middle East.  We’ve witnessed a terrible earthquake, a catastrophic tsunami, a nuclear emergency that has battered one of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world’s third-largest economy.  We’ve led an international effort in Libya to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region.  (Applause.) 
And as Americans, we’re heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events.  We’re deeply moved by the thirst for freedom in so many nations, and we’re moved by the strength and the perseverance of the Japanese people.  And it’s natural, I think, to feel anxious about what all of this means for us.
And one big area of concern has been the cost and security of our energy.  Obviously, the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security.  The situation in Japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources.
In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody -– workers, farmers, truck drivers, restaurant owners, students who are lucky enough to have a car.  (Laughter.)  Businesses see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line.  Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  And for Americans that are already struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices really makes their lives that much harder.  It hurts. 
If you’re somebody who works in a relatively low-wage job and you’ve got to commute to work, it takes up a big chunk of your income.  You may not be able to buy as many groceries.  You may have to cut back on medicines in order to fill up the gas tank.  So this is something that everybody is affected by.
Now, here’s the thing -– we have been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon.  I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign.  Working folks certainly remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard.  And because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians -- they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas.  You remember that -- “drill, baby, drill”
-- and we were going through all that.  (Laughter.)  And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem.  There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened.  Imagine that in Washington.  (Laughter.) 
The truth is, none of these gimmicks, none of these slogans made a bit of difference.  When gas prices finally did fall, it was mostly because the global recession had led to less demand for oil.  Companies were producing less; the demand for petroleum went down; prices went down.  Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up.  Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising that oil prices are higher.  And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
The point is the ups and downs in gas prices historically have tended to be temporary.  But when you look at the long-term trends, there are going to be more ups in gas prices than downs in gas prices.  And that’s because you’ve got countries like India and China that are growing at a rapid clip, and as 2 billion more people start consuming more goods -- they want cars just like we’ve got cars; they want to use energy to make their lives a little easier just like we’ve got -- it is absolutely certain that demand will go up a lot faster than supply.  It’s just a fact.
So here’s the bottom line:  There are no quick fixes.  Anybody who tells you otherwise isn’t telling you the truth.  And we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for a secure, affordable energy future. 
We’re going to have to think long term, which is why I came here, to talk to young people here at Georgetown, because you have more of a stake in us getting our energy policy right than just about anybody.
Now, here’s a source of concern, though.  We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades.  Richard Nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.  And every President since that time has talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.  Politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. 
I talked about reducing America’s dependence on oil when I was running for President, and I’m proud of the historic progress that we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal, and we’ll talk about that a little bit.  But I’ve got to be honest.  We’ve run into the same political gridlock, the same inertia that has held us back for decades. 
That has to change.  That has to change.  We cannot keep going from shock when gas prices go up to trance when they go back down -- we go back to doing the same things we’ve been doing until the next time there’s a price spike, and then we’re shocked again.  We can’t rush to propose action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button when they fall again.  We can’t keep on doing that.
The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground.  We can’t afford it when the costs to our economy, our country, and our planet are so high.  Not when your generation needs us to get this right.  It’s time to do what we can to secure our energy future.
And today, I want to announce a new goal, one that is reasonable, one that is achievable, and one that is necessary.
When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day.  By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.  That is something that we can achieve.  (Applause.)  We can cut our oil dependence -- we can cut our oil dependence by a third.
I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil.  It will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time, until we’ve gotten alternative energy strategies fully in force.  And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we’ve got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources.  We also have to look at other countries like Brazil.  Part of the reason I went down there is to talk about energy with the Brazilians.  They recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and we can share American technology and know-how with them as they develop these resources.
But our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard -- because we boast one critical, renewable resource that the rest of the world can’t match:  American ingenuity.  American ingenuity, American know-how.
To make ourselves more secure, to control our energy future, we’re going to have to harness all of that ingenuity.  It’s a task we won’t be finished with by the end of my presidency, or even by the end of the next presidency.  But if we continue the work that we’ve already begun over the last two years, we won’t just spark new jobs, industries and innovations -- we will leave your generation and future generations with a country that is safer, that is healthier, and that’s more prosperous. 
So today, my administration is releasing a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future that outlines a comprehensive national energy policy, one that we’ve been pursuing since the day I took office.  And cutting our oil dependence by a third is part of that plan. 
Here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we can achieve these goals.
Now, meeting the goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things:  first, finding and producing more oil at home; second, reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply. Even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels -- and I know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change -- the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work. 
Now, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  And for the first time in more than a decade, oil we imported accounted for less than half of the liquid fuel we consumed.  So that was a good trend.  To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production -- as long as it’s safe and responsible. 
I don’t think anybody here has forgotten what happened last year, where we had to deal with the largest oil spill in [our] history. I know some of the fishermen down in the Gulf Coast haven’t forgotten it.  And what we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility.  For example, if you’re going to drill in deepwater, you’ve got to prove before you start drilling that you can actually contain an underwater spill.  That’s just common sense.  And lately, we’ve been hearing folks saying, well, the Obama administration, they put restrictions on how oil companies operate offshore.  Well, yes, because we just spent all that time, energy and money trying to clean up a big mess.  And I don't know about you, but I don't have amnesia.  I remember these things.  (Laughter.)  And I think it was important for us to make sure that we prevent something like that from happening again.  (Applause.)
Now, today, we’re working to expedite new drilling permits for companies that meet these higher standards.  Since they were put in, we’ve approved 39 new shallow-water permits; we’ve approved seven deepwater permits in recent weeks.  When it comes to drilling offshore, my administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well that the industry started to drill.  So any claim that my administration is responsible for gas prices because we’ve “shut down” oil production, any claim like that is simply untrue.  It might make for a useful sound bite, but it doesn’t track with reality.
What is true is we’ve said if you’re going to drill offshore you’ve got to have a plan to make sure that we don’t have the kind of catastrophe that we had last year.  And I don’t think that there’s anybody who should dispute that that’s the right strategy to pursue.
Moreover, we’re actually pushing the oil industry to take advantage of the opportunities that they’ve already got.  Right now the industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where they’re not producing a single drop.  They’re just sitting on supplies of American energy that are ready to be tapped.  That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives that promote rapid, responsible development of these resources. 
We’re also exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas development from Alaska to the Mid- and South Atlantic states, because producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, can help create jobs, and can enhance our energy security, but we’ve got to do it in the right way.
Now, even if we increase domestic oil production, that is not going to be the long-term solution to our energy challenge.  I give out this statistic all the time, and forgive me for repeating it again:  America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.  What that means is, is that even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess -- offshore and onshore -- it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.  We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil.  We only have 2 percent of the reserves.  Even if we doubled U.S. oil production, we’re still really short.
So the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil.  We’re going to have to find ways to boost our efficiency so we use less oil.  We’ve got to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy that also produce less carbon pollution, which is threatening our climate.  And we’ve got to do it quickly. 
Now, in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options.  The first is natural gas.  Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves –- perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves -– in the shale under our feet.  But just as is true in terms of us extracting oil from the ground, we’ve got to make sure that we’re extracting natural gas safely, without polluting our water supply. 
That’s why I’ve asked Secretary Chu, my Energy Secretary, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process.  And Chu is the right guy to do this.  He’s got a Nobel Prize in physics.  He actually deserved his Nobel Prize.  (Laughter and applause.)  And this is the kind of thing that he likes to do for fun on the weekend.  (Laughter.)  He goes into his garage and he tinkers around and figures out how to extract natural gas.  (Laughter.)  
I’m going to embarrass him further.  (Laughter.)  Last year, when we were trying to fill -- figure out how to close the cap, I sent Chu down to sit in the BP offices, and he essentially designed the cap that ultimately worked, and he drew up the specs for it and had BP build it, construct it.  So this is somebody who knows what he’s doing.  (Applause.)  So for those of you who are studying physics, it may actually pay off someday.  (Laughter.) 
But the potential for natural gas is enormous.  And this is an area where there’s actually been some broad bipartisan agreement.  Last year, more than 150 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle produced legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. And that's a big deal.  Getting 150 members of Congress to agree on anything is a big deal.  And they were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil, but who is out there making the simple point that we can’t simply drill our way out of our energy problems. 
So I ask members of Congress and all the interested parties involved to keep at it, pass a bill that helps us achieve the goal of extracting natural gas in a safe, environmentally sound way.
Now, another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels -– not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass and wood chips and biomass. 
If anybody doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil.  As I said, I was just there last week.  Half of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels -- half of their fleet of automobiles can run on biofuels instead of petroleum.  Just last week, our Air Force -- our own Air Force -- used an advanced biofuel blend to fly a Raptor 22 -- an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound.  Think about that.  I mean, if an F-22 Raptor can fly at the speed of -- faster than the speed of sound on biomass, then I know the old beater that you’ve got, that you’re driving around in -- (laughter) -- can probably do so, too.  There’s no reason why we can’t have our cars do the same.
In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016.  And I’m directing the Navy and the Department of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but also trucks and commercial airliners.
So there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using these renewable fuels throughout America.  And that’s why we’re investing in things like fueling stations and research into the next generation of biofuels.  One of the biggest problems we have with alternative energy is not just producing the energy, but also distributing it.  We’ve got gas stations all around the country, so whenever you need gas you know you can fill up -- it doesn’t matter where you are.  Well, we’ve got to have that same kind of distribution network when it comes to our renewable energy sources so that when you are converting to a different kind of car that runs on a different kind of energy, you’re going to be able to have that same convenience.  Otherwise, the market won’t work; it won’t grow.  
Over the next two years, we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground for four next-generation biorefineries -– each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year.  And going forward, we should look for ways to reform biofuels incentives to make sure that they’re meeting today’s challenges and that they’re also saving taxpayers money. 
So as we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuels, we can also reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place.  Seventy percent of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation -- 70 percent.  And by the way, so does the second biggest chunk of most families’ budgets goes into transportation.  And that’s why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save folks more money is to make our transportation sector more efficient.
Now, we went through 30 years where we didn’t raise fuel efficiency standards on cars.  And part of what happened in the U.S. auto industry was because oil appeared relatively cheap, the U.S. auto industry decided we’re just going to make our money on SUVs, and we’re not going to worry about fuel efficiency.  Thirty years of lost time when it comes to technology that could improve the efficiency of cars. 
So last year, we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks.  We did this last year without legislation.  We just got all the parties together and we got them to agree -- automakers, autoworkers, environmental groups, industry. 
     So that means our cars will be getting better gas mileage, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program -- 1.8 billion.  Our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump -– $3,000 on average over time you will save because of these higher fuel efficiency standards.  And our automakers will build more innovative products.  Right now, there are even cars rolling off the assembly lines in Detroit with combustion engines -- I’m not talking about hybrids -- combustion engines that get more than 50 miles per gallon.  So we know how to do it.  We know how to make our cars more efficient. 
But going forward, we’re going to continue to work with the automakers, with the autoworkers, with states, to ensure the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in the United States of America.  That’s going to be a top priority for us.  (Applause.)
This summer, we’re going to propose the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks.  And this fall, we’ll announce the next round of fuel standards for cars that builds on what we’ve already done. 
And by the way, the federal government is going to need to lead by example.  The fleet of cars and trucks we use in the federal government is one of the largest in the country.  We’ve got a lot of cars.  And that’s why we’ve already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet.  And that’s why today I am directing agencies to purchase 100 percent alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015.  All of them should be alternative fuel.  (Applause.)
Going forward, we’ll partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets.  And this means, by the way, that you students, as consumers or future consumers of cars, you’ve got to make sure that you are boosting demand for alternative vehicles.  You’re going to have a responsibility as well, because if alternative-fuel vehicles are manufactured but you guys aren’t buying them, then folks will keep on making cars that don’t have the same fuel efficiency.  So you’ve got power in this process, and the decisions you make individually in your lives will say something about how serious we are when it comes to energy independence.
We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering all Americans, whether they are urban, suburban, or rural, the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
Still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles.  Soon after I took office, I set a goal of having one million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015.  We’ve created incentives for American companies to develop these vehicles, and for Americans who want them to buy them. 
So new manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years.  And a modest $2 billion investment in competitive grants for companies to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jumpstarted a big new American industry.  Pretty soon, America will be home to 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity for these advanced batteries. 
And for those of you who are wondering what that means, the thing that’s been holding back electric vehicles is the battery that stores that electricity, that energy.  And the more efficient, the more lightweight we can make those batteries, the easier it is to manufacture those cars at a competitive price.
And if we can have that industry here in the United States of America, that means jobs.  If those batteries are made here, the cars are made here.  Those cars are made here, we’re putting Americans back to work.
Now, to make sure we stay on this goal we’re going to need to do more -– by offering more powerful incentives to consumers, and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for the adoption of these vehicles.
Now, one other thing about electric cars -- and you don't need to talk to Chu about this -- it turns out electric cars run on electricity.  (Laughter.)  And so even if we reduce our oil dependency, and we’re producing all these great electric cars, we’re going to have to have a plan to change the way we generate electricity in America so that it’s cleaner and safer and healthier.  We know that ushering in a clean energy economy has the potential of creating untold numbers of new jobs and new businesses right here in the United States.  But we’re going to have to think about how do we produce electricity more efficiently.
Now, in addition to producing it, we actually also have to think about making sure we’re not wasting energy.  I don't know how we’re doing on the Georgetown campus, Mr. President, but every institution and every household has to start thinking about how are we reducing the amount of energy that we’re using and doing it in more efficient ways.
Today, our homes and businesses consume 40 percent of the energy that we use, and it costs us billions of dollars in energy bills.  Manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products, they're challenged by rising energy costs.  And so you can’t separate the issue of oil dependence from the issue of how we are producing generally -- more energy generally. 
And that’s why we’ve proposed new programs to help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plants with new, energy-efficient building materials -- new lighting, new windows, new heating and cooling systems -– investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year, and free up money for investment and hiring and creating new jobs and hiring more workers and putting contractors to work as well.
The nice thing about energy efficiency is we already have the technology.  We don’t have to create something new.  We just have to help businesses and homeowners put in place the installation, the energy-efficient windows, the energy-efficient lighting.  They’ll get their money back.  You will save money on your electricity bill that pays for those improvements that you made, but a lot of people may not have the money up front, and so we’ve got to give them some incentives to do that.
And just like the fuels we use in our cars, we’re going to have to find cleaner renewable sources of electricity.  Today, about two-fifths of our electricity come from clean energy sources.  But we can do better than that.  I think that with the right incentives in place, we can double our use of clean energy. And that’s why, in my State of the Union address back in January, I called for a new Clean Energy Standard for America:  By 2035, 80 percent of our electricity needs to come from a wide range of clean energy sources -- renewables like wind and solar, efficient natural gas.  And, yes, we’re going to have to examine how do we make clean coal and nuclear power work.
Now, in light of the ongoing events in Japan, I want to just take a minute to talk about nuclear power.  Right now, America gets about one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy.  And it’s important to recognize that nuclear energy doesn’t emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  So those of us who are concerned about climate change, we’ve got to recognize that nuclear power, if it’s safe, can make a significant contribution to the climate change question. 
And I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe.  So in light of what’s happened in Japan, I’ve requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe.  And we’re going incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in design and the building of the next generation of plants.  But we can’t simply take it off the table. 
My administration is leading global discussions towards a new international framework in which all countries who are operating nuclear plants are making sure that they’re not spreading dangerous nuclear materials and technology.
But more broadly, a clean energy standard can expand the scope of clean energy investments because what it does is it gives cutting-edge companies the certainty that they need to invest.  Essentially what it does is it says to companies, you know what, you will have a customer if you’re producing clean energy.  Utilities, they need to buy a certain amount of clean energy in their overall portfolio, and that means that innovators are willing to make those big capital investments. 
And we’ve got to start now because -- think about this -- in the 1980s, America was home to more than 80 percent of the world’s wind capacity, 90 percent of the world’s solar capacity. We were the leaders in wind.  We were the leaders in solar.  We owned the clean energy economy in the ‘80s.  Guess what.  Today, China has the most wind capacity.  Germany has the most solar capacity.  Both invest more in clean energy than we do, even though we are a larger economy and a substantially larger user of energy.  We’ve fallen behind on what is going to be the key to our future.
Other countries are now exporting technology we pioneered and they’re going after the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century clean energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy. 
I want America to be that nation.  I want America to win the future.  (Applause.) 
So a clean energy standard will help drive private investment in innovation.  But I want to make this point:  Government funding will still be critical.  Over the past two years, the historic investments my administration has made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. 
I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays that are among the largest in the world.  I've tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line.  I mean, I didn’t really test it -- I was able to drive like five feet before Secret Service said to stop.  (Laughter.)  I’ve toured factories that used to be shuttered, where they’re now building advanced wind blades that are as long as 747s, and they’re building the towers that support them.  And I’ve seen the scientists that are searching for the next big breakthrough in energy.  None of this would have happened without government support.
I understand we’ve got a tight fiscal situation, so it’s fair to ask how do we pay for government’s investment in energy. And as we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we’re going to have to make some tough choices.  We’re going to have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. 
Unfortunately, some folks want to cut critical investments in clean energy.  They want to cut our research and development into new technologies.  They’re shortchanging the resources necessary even to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling.  These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs; it would terminate scientists and engineers; it would end fellowships for researchers, some who may be here at Georgetown, graduate students and other talent that we desperately need to get into this area in the 21st century.  That doesn’t make sense.
We’re already paying a price for our inaction.  Every time we fill up at the pump, every time we lose a job or a business to countries that are investing more than we do in clean energy, when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet that you will inherit -– we’re already paying a price.  These are costs that we are already bearing.  And if we do nothing, the price will only go up.
So at moments like these, sacrificing these investments in research and development, in supporting clean energy technologies, that would weaken our energy economy and make us more dependent on oil.  That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past.  I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.  We are not going to do that.  (Applause.)
Let me close by speaking directly to the students here -- the next generation who are going to be writing the next great chapter in the American story.  The issue of energy independence is one that America has been talking about since before your parents were your age, since before you were born.  And you also happen to go to a school [in a town] that for a long time has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices.  And so I forgive you for thinking that maybe there isn’t much we can do to rise to this challenge.  Maybe some of you are feeling kind of cynical or skeptical about whether we’re actually going to solve this problem.  But everything I have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise. 
I think that precisely because you are coming of age at a time of such rapid and sometimes unsettling change, born into a world with fewer walls, educated in an era of constant information, tempered by war and economic turmoil -- because that’s the world in which you’re coming of age, I think you believe as deeply as any of our previous generations that America can change and it can change for the better. 
We need that.  We need you to dream big.  We need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism and that bold willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness -– to save a democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and our own imagination.
That’s what America is capable of.  That's what you have to push America to do, and it will be you that pushes it.  That history of ours, of meeting challenges -– that's your birthright. You understand that there’s no problem out there that is not within our power to solve.
I don’t want to leave this challenge for future Presidents. I don’t want to leave it for my children.  I don’t want to leave it for your children.  So, yes, solving it will take time and it will take effort.  It will require our brightest scientists, our most creative companies.  It will require all of us –- Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between -– to do our part.  But with confidence in America and in ourselves and in one another, I know this is a challenge that we will solve.
Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END         
12:24 P.M. EDT

America’s Energy Security


March 30, 2011 | 46:59 | Public Domain

President Obama lays out his plan for America’s long-term energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, developing more domestic energy resources, and encouraging conservation in a speech at Georgetown University.




The Obama Administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future

“Today, my Administration is releasing a Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy we’ve pursued since the day I took office.  And here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we will secure that future."
-- President Obama, March 30, 2011
Rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners.  Businesses see it impact their bottom line.  Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder.  Demand for oil in countries like China and India is only growing, and the price of oil will continue to rise with it. That’s why we need to make ourselves more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio.
 Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America’s independence from oil, but Washington gridlock has prevented action again and again.   If we want to create a more secure energy future, and protect consumers at the pump, that has to change.  When President Obama took office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day.   Today, he pledged that by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third, and put forward a plan to secure America’s energy future by producing more oil at home and reducing our dependence on oil by leveraging cleaner, alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
We’ve already made progress toward this goal – last year, America produced more oil than we had in the last seven years.  And we’re taking steps to encourage more offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible.   And, because we know we can’t just drill our way out of our energy challenge, we’re reducing our dependence on oil by increasing our production of natural gas and biofuels, and increasing our fuel efficiency.  Last year, we announced ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that will save consumers thousands of dollars and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil.
And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear power  – keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.
To help us reach these goals, the Obama Administration is releasing a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future (pdf) – which outlines the comprehensive national energy policy that this Administration has pursued since day one, and the which we will build upon to secure our energy future. The Blueprint is aimed to:
  • Develop and secure America’s energy supplies:  We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy.  To get there, we need to:
    • Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production
    • Lead the World Toward Safer and More Secure Energy Supplies
  • Provide consumers with choices to reduce costs and save energy:  Volatile gasoline prices reinforce the need for innovation that will make it easier and more affordable for consumers to buy more advanced and fuel-efficient vehicles, use alternative means of transportation, weatherize their homes and workplaces, and in doing so, save money and protect the environment. These measures help families’ pocketbooks, reduce our dependence on finite energy sources and help create good jobs here in the United States.  So, we’re implementing policies that:
    • Reduce Consumers Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
    • Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings
  • Innovate our way to a clean energy future:  Leading the world in clean energy is critical to strengthening the American economy and winning the future.  We can get there by creating markets for innovative clean technologies that are ready to deploy, and by funding cutting-edge research to produce the next generation of technologies.  And as new, better, and more efficient technologies hit the market, the Federal government needs to put words into action and lead by example.  That’s why we need to:
    • Harness America’s Clean Energy Potential so that 80 percent of electricity will come from clean energy sources by 2035
    • Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
    • Lead by Example so that the Federal Government models best practices and clean energy technologies
Read the full Blueprint (pdf).

Obama: U.S. can't keep going from 'shock to trance' based on gas prices


AP
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking about his plan for America's energy security today at Georgetown University in Washington.
From NBC's Athena Jones
In laying out his administration's plans for increasing U.S. energy independence, President Obama set a big goal: to reduce oil imports by about one-third in a little over a decade.
The president set out that goal in a wide-ranging nearly 50-minute speech during which he spoke about a series of steps his administration would take to increase domestic oil and natural gas production and promote research into and production of biofuels and raise automobile efficiency standards.
He argued the best opportunities to improve America's energy security "can be found in our own backyard," and he set a goal of breaking ground on at least four commercial-scale cellulosic or advanced biorefineries over the next two years. He made the remarks at Georgetown University, the same place he laid out his sweeping economic agenda two years ago.
Today's speech is part of a White House public communications effort to focus America's attention on energy security during a time of unrest in the Middle East and rising gas prices at home.
"Obviously the situation in the Middle East affects our energy security," Obama said. "In an economy that relies on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody -- workers and farmers, truck drivers and restaurant owners; businesses see it hurt their bottom line; families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder."
He went on to say there were no quick fixes to America's energy challenges and that addressing them would require a long-term strategy.
"We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again," he said. "It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future."
As part of the administration's new push on energy, Cabinet officials will hold a series of energy events in Washington and around the country. In an afternoon briefing with reporters, Energy Secretary Steven Chu talked about the "great strides" made in areas like fuel economy, electric vehicles, development of advanced batteries and biofuels and the president himself plans to highlight green vehicles on Friday by visiting a UPS shipping facility in Landover, MD, where he will view vehicles from AT&T, FedEx, PepsiCo, UPS and Verizon's clean fleets.
Despite Japan's nuclear crisis, Obama said nuclear energy would remain part of the U.S. mix of energy sources and said he had called for comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all existing U.S. nuclear energy facilities are safe.
But he also spoke about his administration's work to expedite new oil and gas drilling permits. The administration also wants to provide incentives to encourage energy companies to develop the millions of acres in available oil and gas leases.

In a conference call with reporters to preview today's speech, one senior administration official cited a Department of the Interior report showing that last year the oil and gas industry leased only 2.4 million out of 37 million acres offered. The official said in the Gulf of Mexico, companies were sitting on an estimated 11.6 billion barrels of oil and tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.
"These are massive supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped," the official said.
Republicans have argued the Obama administration has made it harder for companies to drill, dragging its feet on issuing new permits. And soon after the president's speech, congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, released a statement in which he said he agreed with the president's goal, but noted, "[W]e have very different ways of getting there. The President wants to decrease imports by telling Americans to use less and to pay more. Republicans want to decrease imports by increasing U.S. production -- while simultaneously creating American jobs, raising revenue to help pay down the national debt, lowering energy costs and increasing our energy independence. I hope the President would be willing to work with Congress in achieving his goal to cut imports by unlocking our American energy resources.”
White House officials believe they can get bipartisan support for several of their energy initiatives and pointed to the Natural Gas Act, a bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), as an example of legislation with the support of members from both sides of the aisle. The bill -- which was co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Orrin Hatch  (R-UT) and has the support of billionaire energy executive T. Boone Pickens -- aims to spur the development of natural gas vehicles and decrease America's dependence on foreign energy.
Still, officials have suggested that not all of the incentives and other proposals the administration is putting forth will have to be passed by Congress. They noted the Obama White House has used its administrative authorities aggressively -- whether regarding auto efficiency standards or efforts to green the federal fleet -- since the president took office, and that it would continue "thinking creatively" about what can be accomplished using existing authorities.

House, Senate No. 2s battle over federal budget




Cantor's 'Law of the Land'


John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Jeb Hensarling
J. Scott Applewhite  /  AP
Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP leaders comment on the Senate Democratic leadership and the problems in passing a long-term spending bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday.

Sen. Schumer and Rep. Cantor's multimedia war can resemble a Spy vs. Spy contest

By LAURIE KELLMAN
updated 3/30/2011 9:51:23 AM ET
They're a pair of flamboyant lawyers who are fond of cameras and adept at messaging, two No. 2s with ambitions to land, someday, on top.
So the emerging political warfare led by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, now playing out in multimedia form over the budget impasse, can resemble a Spy vs. Spy contest over some of the most serious issues facing Congress and the nation.
Story: Dems hint at flexibility in budget talks For them it's not just about getting to a budget agreement, cutting spending or the deficit. In fact, neither Cantor nor Schumer is directly involved in the sensitive, secretive budget negotiations. But the snippy rhetoric is expected to intensify as the April 8 deadline — and a possible government shutdown — loom.
First Read: 2012 GOP race off to slow start To these two, and arguably all of the congressional Republicans and Democrats they represent, the federal budget mess is a campaign within the long 2012 re-election campaign. And that means all the responses and "pre-sponses" the Internet, the Twitterverse, television and the old-fashioned telephone allow.
'Extreme and draconian' Tuesday provided an apt, daylong example. Reporters dialing in to a news conference-by-phone could hear Schumer, the media-savvy New Yorker tapped by Majority Leader Harry Reid to handle the party's messaging, giving talking points on the budget to other Democratic senators. He was clearly unaware that reporters were already on the line.
Schumer's advice was familiar: Call the House Republicans' proposed spending cuts "extreme."
"Extreme and draconian," Schumer, 60, advised. "The subtext of this is, the only way we can avoid a shutdown is for (House Speaker John) Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the tea party wants."
Is this thing on? Open mic reveals moment of Dem strategizing
The GOP's victory dancing began, from Cantor's office and beyond. Within moments, Boehner's office fired off an email with an account of the overheard conversation.
Then Cantor, 47, referred to Schumer several times during the Republican's weekly off-camera briefing.
"We have seen what the motive is behind Mr. Schumer," Cantor said. "He says every spending cut is unreasonable."
On-camera later, there was more. "I think we did find out that Chuck Schumer's intent on playing political games," the Virginia Republican said.
Other Republicans chimed in.
With a flash of smirk, Boehner twice referenced the Democrats' "marching orders."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., another Republican leader, said he wonders who's in charge of the Senate.
Story: Time short, tempers flaring in budget showdown "Do we have a de facto leader in Schumer, who thinks he wants to engineer a political game, as many reporters could actually hear on the call?"
And Rep. Jeb Hensarling quipped that it was "extremely revealing that Senate Democrats have instructed their members to use extreme language."
Twitter war The exchange followed a similar back-and-forth last week, which included Schumer's response to a Cantor speech at Stanford University — before the Republican had delivered it, and before many reporters had even obtained a copy.
On Friday, a Twitter war broke out after Schumer said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that "some progress" had been made between Reid and Boehner in budget talks.
In one tweet, Cantor's office didn't even mention Reid.
"Sen. Schumer and the WH (White House) continue to abandon their responsibility to get our fiscal house in order by negotiating off of the status quo," tweeted CantorPress.
For his part Tuesday, Schumer wasn't backing off the talking points overheard by reporters. They're the same ones he and other Democrats have been using for weeks, a point underscored when Schumer stopped talking, the conference call officially began and the senators on the line delivered prepared statements.
First up: Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.
"We have a very straightforward message and each of us will give it in our own words. And my words are these," Boxer said. "We Senate Democrats are calling on Speaker Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing of his Republican caucus."

Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Admits Motive Was Union Busting

29 March 2011


Let there now be no doubt that Wisconsin’s budget fight was not about the budget. Think Progress, emphasis mine:

State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) has already revealed that the true motivation behind the bill was to defund unions to make it “much more difficult” for Democrats, including President Obama, to get elected in Wisconsin. Now, attempting to fend off efforts to recall eight of his Senate colleagues, he’s mailed out a fundraising letter that removes any doubt about the GOP’s motive:

Fitzgerald in the fundraising letter:

quote(Unions have) ruined California and Illinois, but they’re not going to ruin Wisconsin. That is because Republicans faced down Big Labor’s bully tactics and a Democratic walk-out in the state Senate to break the power of unions like WEAC and AFSCME once and for all.
Well, hey, we knew that it was about union busting early on. But, it’s always nice to get it out in the open via the horses mouth. They now have no further ability to deny their real motivation.
Not that they won’t do exactly that anyway.

Republicans Plan to Halt Economic Recovery Through Mass Layoffs

March 30, 2011
By Ray Medeiros
 
 

The elections of 2010 focused of jobs, the GOP ran on a lack luster economic recovery from the Republican induced recession.  They won the  U.S. House and gained seats in the U.S. Senate.  Now that they have won, they are very timid about talking about the economy.  I pointed out to you in a previous article the latest GOP jobs plan. It aims to increase  thousands of highly skilled former government workers into the  already saturated private labor market in an attempt to drive down middle class wages.
Rather than increasing real demand, which is the base of a healthy economy, the GOP wants to build a facade by lowering Americans’ wages.
Under the leadership of President Obama, the economy has grown. Unemployment continues to go down, and weekly unemployment filings also follow that trend, dropping the week ending March 26 to the lowest level since July 2008 as lay-offs slowed.  The months of February and March has seen some  job growth.
 
The best indicator for our economic health is small businesses and according to the Financial Times ,  Small businesses – those with fewer than 50 employees – hired the most workers, adding 102,000 jobs. Medium-sized businesses added 82,000, while large businesses, which employ more than 500 workers, hired 17,000 new employees.
So maybe the reason why there hasn’t been much focus on the economic front is because it would point to an improving economy, something that would increase public satisfaction for President Obama and thus nullify the Republican chances of winning in 2012.
Don’t get your hopes up to soon though. The Republicans have a trick up their sleeve to ensure an economic slow down.  They intend to lay off thousands of employees from the federal government, there by sucking more  demand out of the economy. Most public employees spend all of their money into the economy, just like the private sector.  Without that demand, the economic engine will slow down and propel us back into negative jobs territory.
If that happens rest assured the Republicans and their think tanks will begin to talk about the economy again. This is their plan to set up for the 2012 elections. It’s not about what is best for the American people, it’s what is best for the Corporate Party, called the GOP.
 
 
Nefti on March 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
EVERYONE! I mean EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN from here in California to Wisconsin Indiana Ohio Floria ..and to all of you denying repub constituents who are watching as your RW leaders strip the average everyday American of his/her job, benefits, homes–THEY HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO SHIP YOUR JOBS OFFSHORE..as BACHMAN SAID AT THEIR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE PAC the other..THE OUTSOURCING CREATES JOBS HERE!!! WTH? Do you actually believe that? Are you that devoted to YOUR PARTY that you DO NOT MIND SUFFERING? Do you not know that what they are doing is going to IMPACT ON YOU, YOUR KIDS, YOUR PARENTS, YOUR GRANDPARENTS??? I beg of you to please NOT VOTE PARTY..but do vote for the PARTY THAT ISN’T TAKING OUR JOBS AWAY, OUR BENEFITS AWAY, OUR DIGNITY AWAY. THEY TRULY WANT TO OWN US ALL….like Ghadaffi..DO NOT VOTE REPULICAN. THEY ARE LITERALLY LYING EVERY DAY IN OUR FACE AND TAKING JOBS AWAY. How and why would you support that..when YOUR JOB MAY BE NEXT!!!!!!!!
 

Clueless in Wisconsin: Newt Gingrich Praises Gov Walker as Job Creator

March 30, 2011
By Sarah Jones
 
 
 
Republicans Have No Idea Why You're So Mad; Things Are Great for Them!
Republicans Have No Idea Why You're So Mad; Things Are Great for Them!
In Marquette, Wisconsin for a showing of his film that seemed more like a campaign stop, Newt Gingrich touted Governor Walker as a good county executive and claimed that people would like Walker once his programs were proven successful by creating jobs.
Newt Gingrich led the “Republican revolution” against President Clinton as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999 and resigned his seat in disgrace after bringing the Republican Party’s short majority to a close by trying to oust President Clinton from office over what turned out to be exceptionally hypocritical claims to family values, given that Newt left his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer in 1980 and then after marrying his mistress, cheated on her with a House of Representatives staffer 23 years younger than himself while he was screaming about Clinton’s blue dress. Newt has recently claimed that love for his country drove him to have these affairs.
In case you’ve been in a cave and forgotten just how petty Republicans can be, as he left, Newt whined, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”
In our last flashback to Newt’s leadership skills — after all, praise should be vetted via the source — Newt shut down government after he felt slighted by President Clinton who refused to discuss the budget with Gingrich on the plane ride home following a funeral. In spite of having ruined the GOP with his pettiness and hypocrisy, Gingrich is still touting his shut down of government as “doing what Americans elected them to do” and says it was definitely not a mistake. In 1997, he also made history as the first Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. All of this should warn you that he is a shoe-in for the Republican candidacy.
At Marquette University Tuesday for his film on Pope John Paul II (Newt is now a Catholic, which can be seen as a sign of his flexibility in bending to his various wives’ values — for a time, at least ), Newt took swipes at President Obama, suggesting that Obama would be easy to beat unless he magically makes the world a better place (you know, like Republicans are in Wisconsin and Michigan and Florida). Newt said, “If the economy is at 7 percent unemployment and coming down, if the budget has gotten dramatically less expensive, if Libya turns out to be wildly successful, and his next Final Four picks don’t all crash and burn, I can imagine a circumstance where Obama will be fairly formidable.”
 
Of course, Newt doesn’t deal with reality well, being a Republican, so he must not have heard about the latest Michigan poll that shows the President beating him in an approvals match up with Obama at 53% and Gingrich 37%. The same poll places Gingrich just above Governor Scott Walker, whom Gingrich praised on his campaign stop, with Barack Obama at 52% approval, leading Walker whose approval is a shame-inducing but well earned 32%.
Speaking of the universally loathed and proving himself to be as out of touch with the public now as he was in the late ’90′s, Gingrich praised Governor Scott Walker to Wisconsinites, saying he was very fond of him and that after Walker’s plan creates jobs, people will embrace him.
Jim Cryns reporting for WisPolitics:
Gingrich said he didn’t meet with Gov. Scott Walker while in town, but said he liked him very much and was with him the last week of the campaign.
“I’m very fond of him. He was a very good county executive,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said he suspects as people understand Walker’s effort to create jobs for the state, they will embrace his administration.
“He will turn out to be a very good hands-on leader,” Gingrich said.
I wonder if Newt realizes that creating lower paying jobs to replace the higher paying jobs Walker gave to the Koch brothers isn’t going to go over well, and while wealthy Republicans who do not live paycheck to paycheck might not notice a $200.00 a week change in their pay, for struggling families it can mean the difference between losing their house or not. Something tells me Wisconsinites won’t forget that very soon.
Meanwhile, back in crazy land, Gingrich patting himself on the back as a Presidential candidate, said, “I’m not talking about ‘Gee, I’d like to do this.’ I’m talking about ‘Well, this is how we did it last time. Wouldn’t it be good to balance the budget again, go back and reform things again?”
Just how many times can these boys run on “reforming” their own bad policies with the same bad polices before the public catches on? Reform. That’s so 1997, Newt.
Please note people that when a Republican talks about “creating jobs”, you should immediately flash to Wisconsin and Michigan and ask yourself, creating jobs for whom? Serfs? And remember that when they “create” these jobs, they will do so by reaching into your wallet, your grandparent’s wallet, and your sick friend’s wallet, and they will take every last dime out of the wallet, with a stern lecture about entitlements, and they will proudly hand your dimes to the Koch brothers, who will then “create” jobs for you, where you will be entitled to earn your dimes back one year at a time, working 18 hour days.
Who is going to tell Scott Walker that in the modern age of branding, when Newt Gingrich approves of the job you are doing, your career is doomed? Newt and Walker, looking down from their castle window at the little people, have no idea just how mad the serfs are. And this isn’t the ’90′s. We have the internet now.
Clueless, boys. Just clueless.
 
 
  1. Scott Rose on March 30, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    Why do we never see polls of the unemployed, asking if they are Democrats or Republicans? Think about it. It could be significantly more difficult for an unemployed person to vote. Long-term unemployed people, for example, would be more vulnerable to serious depression. If a majority of unemployed identify as Democrats, the Republicans could be motivated to keep them unemployed.
    • Phil Perspective on March 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm
      Good question. It would be interesting to see a poll of that.
      • Reynardine on March 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm
        That’s not all. If they lose their places of residence, it becomes a lot easier to disqualify them as voters.
  2. Eykis on March 30, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    Sarah,
    You could not be more correct as to the CLUELESSNESS of Newtie and Scottyboy along with every Rethug in office.
    They seem to believe what Faux Noise promotes – that everyone who votes only watches Faux Noise and believes every single lie they perpetrate. Not so~as is evidenced by protests all over this country. I have a feeling this is going to be the Summer of Protests against the Rethugs and their dictator ways. People cannot afford to lose any more than they have already lost.
    Right now, I am applying for a job (second interview, wish me luck) at one-half the pay and no benefits except partking, for a position that was paying $42,000 three years ago. I will be grateful to take the job – I have been looking for 8 months and apply to at least 7 jobs a day. This is my 4th interview in 8 months. I had worked on a 1099 for two years, so I only received 13 weeks of UI and then 3 tiers of UI, so I have been without pay for nearly one year.
    Yeppers, go ahead Rethugs, We The People are interested in working for nothing, 30 years experience and a college degree mean nothing anymore. You have already ruined our pensions and 401ks, so the Baby Boomers get to look forward to NOTHING in our retirement years.
    That will certainly impress everyone.
    • Sarah Jones on March 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm
      My thoughts are with you. Your story is exactly what is wrong with their narrative of creating jobs and lazy people who don’t want to work. The fact that they think so little of Americans ought to tell us a lot- they think this country is “exceptional” for going to war without the resolution of the UN, they like to talk about how wealthy we are, but they don’t think the American PEOPLE are exceptional.
      I know a lot of people who are out of work, but I don’t know a lot of people who aren’t LOOKING for work desperately. And those people are willing to take major pay cuts to boot, while corporations are “entitled” to our money in bailouts but don’t have to sacrifice anything along with the rest of us.
      The American PEOPLE are exceptional- they are hard working, tough, compassionate people with tremendous spirit, as evidenced in WI, MI, etc.
  3. Hrafnkell on March 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    The potential Republican candidates for 2012 seem more interested in outdoing each other in levels of lunacy than saying anything that makes sense; they certainly offer no hope that they intend to tackle any of America’s real problems, including unemployment. We all know the real threat comes from women’s reproductive rights and marriage equality.
  4. Anne on March 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    Newt Gingrich is clueless about everything that matters, and I agree totally that the potential GOP presidential candidates for 2012 are a bunch of pandering, hypocritical, and terminally idiotic sad sacks. They are bereft of ideas, and if they had any leadership qualities, they would not be pandering to the worst elements in their party.
  5. Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    jobs are going to be the key. Speaker Boehner, Gov. Walker, Gov. Snyder, and all the other states that are screwing with the unions had better be showing some real high gains in employment by 2012. Because if they’re not, well I probably better not say this because it probably isn’t true, the Democrats will pounce all over them. and if they are showing job gains it will be manipulated data
    Gingrich isn’t clueless. He’s a very smart man. He is also a fraud and a charlatan. He is the medicine man that you see in the Indian tent selling your dreams. he knows how to cheat anyone out of their money, but I think he also knows he has absolutely no chance of winning the primaries. I think he is doing the same thing that Sarah Palin is doing. He’s playing dodgeball with the Democrats making them think that he is going to run. Why you ask? I haven’t a clue, it’s a game they play
    • Reynardine on March 30, 2011 at 2:13 pm
      To divert attention from the real one, of course.
      • Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm
        Im sorry Rey, I’ve been very sick for 4 days now and reality is passing me by and forcing me to ask silly questions
    • Anne on March 30, 2011 at 3:36 pm
      Actually, he IS clueless about a number of things, no matter how “smart” he is. For one thing, how did he think that blaming his hard work and patriotism for his infidelity would go over?
      And then there’s the fact that he still thinks the 1995 government shut down he was part of was a good idea. You know there had to be a lot of clueless people who made the GOP a Senate and House majority during that time, although Bill Clinton did get re-elected.
      • Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 3:44 pm
        No, I think he knew people would laugh at him and within his ow party, they would blow it off in time
  6. Twrex on March 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Here’s Newt’s line of policy making and wife choosing footwear
    http://wp.me/p1dwVT-2l
  7. Phantom on March 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    What do you mean about Republicans “creating jobs by reaching into your wallet” ? Really, that’s the Republican’s complaint about the Dems: they tax people then use the money to make more government employees.
  8. Bette on March 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Republicans don’t create jobs or even care to create jobs! all they care about is filling their own pockets and protecting the big money people! They want to keep hard working people under them, whether it be public or private, union or not. They want the POWER and the money! Why are we fighting with each other ? (that is what they want.) The Republican party of today is nothing even close to the party of years ago.They now are the party of hate, stupidity,and just plain mean, and hypocritical! Look at the people they are considering to run for President! Really people, think about it! Newt, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann,Donald Trump,Pawlenty,etc,etc. It is just plain crazy!
 

Michael Moore Debates Union Busting with Stephen Colbert


March 30, 2011
By Hrafnkell Haraldsson


Moore Reframes the Conservative Narrative
Michael Moore appeared on The Colbert Report the other night and debated the famous “conservative” pundit on the war against the middle class and collective bargaining (hey, some conservatives still think Colbert is one of them so let’s play along). Colbert as is his way came right to the point  “Michael, you went out to Wisconsin to go out to that rally there where the unions are attacking the governor. Why are public sector unions attacking Republican Governors around the United States? Justify that.”
Moore counters, “I think it’s the other way around … ”

“That’s not how I framed it,” replies Colbert to laughter, immediately seizing upon the attempt of the Republican and Tea Parties to establish their narrative, to frame the argument in such a way that people unwilling to be reduced to serfdom are being unreasonable.



Moore: “The governors of these Midwestern states, many states actually, are trying to take away bargaining rights the unions have…”
Colbert: “The states are broke.”
Moore: “The states are not broke.”
Colbert: “They are broke.”
Moore: “No, they’re not broke…”
Colbert: “No, no, no, millions of dollars in debt. The money is gone. Poof! Pensions, healthcare…”
Moore makes clear that the wealthy are waging war on this country. He makes it clear that the wealthy are sitting on money they “sucked out of the economy” bringing about a discussion of just whose money it is.
Colbert sadly laments, “Comrade, comrade,” and reminds him “the tractor does not belong to all of us in the village.” To which Moore retorts,
“The street and the bridge and the school in the library and this country does belong to all of us.”
He goes onto explain that the Governor of Michigan wants to cut corporate taxes while raising taxes on “old people and poor people.”
Colbert claims that Unions made working in the United States too expensive and says the solution is to drive wages here down to what they are in Guatemala.  I think Colbert is being overly optimistic.
Using the medium of humor, Colbert demonstrates how laughable Republican rhetoric and tactics truly are, holding them up to ridicule as Moore expertly and efficiently skewers them with the facts.

Rachel Maddow: Union Busting Is The GOP’s Weapon of Self Destruction

March 24, 2011
By Jason Easley


On her MSNBC program Rachel Maddow used recent polling data to illustrate the fact that the state level Republican war against American workers is destroying support for the GOP. Maddow said, “The trouble with trying to do really unpopular things in politics is that they have a tendency to make the doer of those things really unpopular.”
Here is the video from MSNBC:






Rachel Maddow opened with a very simple political truth, “The trouble with trying to do really unpopular things in politics is that they have a tendency to make the doer of those things really unpopular. You‘d think politicians would understand this since their careers are made or broken on the popular vote.”
After describing the situation in Tennessee where the Republican legislature is ignoring thousands of protesters and pushing through a union busting bill, Maddow said, “Look at the polling on this. The Republicans great 2011 overreach against people who work for a living is not working out well politically for the Republicans.
She discussed how John Kasich in Ohio has pushed through a union busting bill and seen his popularity fall like a rock, “Here‘s the response from the people of Ohio. From a Quinnipiac Poll released today, quote, “Ohio voters disapprove 46 percent to 30 percent of the way Governor Kasich is handling his job.” In other words, Governor Kasich‘s approval rating is 30 percent right now — 30 percent of Ohioans approve of the job he is doing as governor.”
Maddow continued, “On union-stripping, specifically, more than half said they oppose his bill to limit collective bargaining rights, 55 percent say he should balance the budget some other way from the one he is proposing, 53 percent call his budget flat-out unfair to people like them. And in Ohio, as in the rest of the country, 53 percent is what‘s known as a majority.”
Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania took office, claimed that the state was broke, and then promptly gave away $833 million in tax breaks to businesses. Even the Republicans in the Keystone State have rebelled against this as 41% of them have assessed the new governor’s performance as poor.

Rick Snyder in Michigan in the midst of trying to pull off the biggest state Republican authoritarian power grab of all, and Maddow said of Snyder, “Michigan Governor Rick Snyder comes into office, also says the state‘s broke, Michigan is broke. So, we‘ve got no choice but to spend $1.8 billion on a big business tax giveaway. He also wants to raise taxes on seniors and working class people. The results of those unpopular proposals for Governor Snyder‘s popularity, rock carefully balanced on hill, meet gravity. A survey yesterday from Public Policy Polling finds Governor Snyder has got an approval rating of 33 percent, also known as a third. A previous poll found that more people object to raising taxes on Michigan seniors and the poor and giving that money to business than like the idea.”
On the bright side, as Maddow pointed out, at least these Republicans governors aren’t Wisconsin’s Scott Walker. Wisconsin voters now say that if they had a do over, Walker would not be governor, and in a way Wisconsinites will get their chance at fixing their mistake when Gov. Walker will almost certainly face a recall election early next year.
Rachel Maddow concluded by pointing out an obvious lesson that these new Republican governors have never learned, “What these new Republican governors are learning the hard way is that doing unpopular things really does make you unpopular—taking money and resources away from working class and middle class voters and giving to corporations to folks at the skinny part of the economic pyramid—it‘s not working for you guys. I‘m just saying.”
Since 2006, the once formidable Republican Party has transformed itself into an overreaching group of bumbling ideologues who more times than not simply can’t get out of its own way. The GOP has collectively cultivated an expertise in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The 2010 election was handed to the Republicans on a silver platter. The economy was terrible. The Democratic base was apathetic at best and showed no interest in the election. Democrats had no message, and all the Republicans had to do was sit back and say we think the economy sucks too, and that was more than enough for them to win.
Once they were given a boatload of governorships and control of the House of Representatives all they had to do was not screw it up. They could have sat around and waited for the economy to turn. Knowing full well that once the economy recovers most voters would give them at least partial credit, but the Snyders, Walkers, Kasichs and Corbetts appear to be masters of ignoring the obvious.
Instead of sitting back and trying to build on their majority the Republicans at both the state and federal level have acted with madcap desperation as if they are trying to fulfill a political bucket list before voters wake up and realize what they have done.
What did Republicans do when they were gifted more political power then they had seen in almost a decade? They set out to break the backs of their rivals through an attack on collective bargaining the likes of which have not been seen in this country in 30 years.
Not surprisingly most Americans quickly saw through the bumbling attempts at secrecy of their clueless leaders.Their political scheme to defund the Democratic Party was quickly exposed as a massive upward redistribution of wealth and an attack on the rights of middle class and working people.
What the GOP thought was a weapon of mass Democratic destruction has turned into a weapon of mass Republican self-destruction. Their attack on working class people has not destroyed the left, but empowered it. Instead of wiping out our collective memories of George W. Bush, and assuring voters that they can be trusted to govern, Republicans have proven that they don’t share the priorities of the American people. In short within a few months, Republicans have punched their ticket and put themselves back on the fast track to minority political status in 2012, all because they didn’t have the patience and common sense not to overreach.
Just as Bush did with 9/11, these governors tried to use a budget crunch as a political blank check to pursue an unrelated ideological agenda. The problem is that the target in 2011 wasn’t a faraway nation like Iraq. It was the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the middle class, and the working people of our great land, and even more damning is the fact that Republicans seem surprised that this revival of the failed strategy of a failed unpopular president has resulted in an epic bash lash against them.
Rachel Maddow was right. When a politician does unpopular things, they will be unpopular, and when a politician or their party throws itself full throttle down the road to self-destruction, they will almost certainly find themselves destroyed.

Michigan Becomes First State To Curtail Jobless Aid


Ricksnyder
AP FILE: Rick Snyder
First Posted: 03/28/11 02:41 PM ET Updated: 03/28/11 02:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Gov. Rick Snyder signed controversial legislation on Monday, making Michigan the first state in the country to reduce unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Starting in January, laid-off Michiganders will be eligible for 20 weeks of jobless aid, instead of the standard 26 weeks.
Snyder, a Republican, said the change was necessary to win political support in the Michigan legislature for maintaining the state's eligibility for the federal Extended Benefits program, which provides 20 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed. Without the bill, an estimated 35,000 Michiganders would not have received their EB checks in April.
"These benefits are a lifeline for many Michigan families who are struggling in this challenging economy," Snyder said in a statement. "Cutting them off so abruptly would have jeopardized the well-being of those who are trying hard to find work."
EB kicks in for people who exhaust 53 weeks of federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation and 26 weeks of state benefits. Opponents of the bill say the EB measure was not worth reducing the state benefits. Advocates of unemployment insurance fear other states will follow Michigan's lead.
Michigan Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives asked Snyder in a letter on Monday to veto the bill, saying the change would "turn back the clock on 50 years of needed protections for the unemployed in Michigan."
Daniel Ytterock of Redford, Mich. told HuffPost that he lost his job in publishing sales in July 2009 and is currently on the final tier of EUC. He said he doesn't love the deal, but that knowing he'll still be able to receive EB in the coming months gives him peace of mind.
"After so many months and years looking for a job, I don’t see any signs that looking for a job is going to get easier or more successful," he said. "I just feel bad for the others that follow after January."
Both federal programs are set to expire in January, and the Michigan Democrats wrote that there is "absolutely no guarantee they will be extended," meaning laid-off Michiganders could be left with just 20 weeks of benefits. "In 2010, over 171,000 individuals drew more than 20 weeks of regular UI benefits, with 130,000 of these drawing 26 weeks," the delegation wrote.
"There is no valid reason why keeping federally-financed Extended Benefits in place in Michigan should require a permanent reduction in the 26 weeks of unemployment benefits paid in our state’s UI program," Rick McHugh, a staff attorney with the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement. "The Governor’s actions today mean that Michigan will be the only state paying less than 26 weeks for their maximum duration of benefits in the U.S. Michigan has paid 26 weeks of benefits since 1954."
Many states are considering new laws to maintain eligibility for EB, which triggers based on unemployment patterns in the state over the previous two years. The legislation adjusts the trigger to look back three years instead of two.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce lobbied against a standalone EB fix, arguing that further depleting the federal government's unemployment insurance trust fund would eventually result in higher unemployment surtaxes on businesses.

Beer and Union Busting in Pennsylvania


Cross-posted to DailyKos and Diatribune
Imagine the following scenario: You work a decent, well paying, union job at a local brewery. The town you live in is fairly small, and the brewery provides the majority of employment for the area. You love your job, and you need to hang on to it, in order to keep your family afloat. If you were to be laid off, you likely wouldn't be able to find anything else in the area. Certainly nothing that pays as well.
One day, you, and the other employees, are called into your boss's office, to talk about the future of the business. He blasts the union - calling them "those guys from Philadelphia" - and threatens to close the company if the workforce remains unionized.
What would you do in that situation? Because it's precisely the situation that workers at D.G. Yuengling & Son faced last year - and, it's why the Teamsters Union is now boycotting Yuengling's products.
Unions in America have been on the decline for the past 40 years. The decline has been documented in many places, including in a recent diary by ManfromMiddletown, in which he notes that only 1 in 8 workers belonged to a union in 2005, as compared to 1 in 3 in 1964. This has major ramifications for the standard of living of U.S. workers, for, as noted by the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Department of Labor's own statistics show that union workers earn 30% more than non-union workers. For many Americans, the decline of unions has firmly slammed shut the doors that once allowed access to the middle class.
What, exactly, is driving the decline? While conservatives contend that the decline of unions has more to do with their "lack of relevancy" to the modern labor force, the truth is that workers face anti-union pressure, both subtle and not so subtle, every day. Those pressures, and the fear of losing a steady paycheck, can be enough to keep unions at bay.
It is such pressures that, according to the Teamsters Union, lead the workers at D.G. Yuengling to dump their union.
A small, regional brewery for most of its history, D.G. Yuengling was founded in 1829, by the great-grandfather of Dick Yuengling Jr., the man who runs the operation now. In the 1990s, however, the company expanded rapidly, due in part to the popularity of a lager it introduced in the late 1980s.
The only major employer in Pottstown, PA, D.G. Yuengling was known for having a decent relationship with its union. This relationship took a turn for the worse in 2005, however, when the Labor Board rewarded back pay to a number of former employees for being laid off "out of seniority." It was in the shadow of that decision that Dick Yuengling called his employees into his office and, according to the Teamsters, as written in a recent article in the Morning Call Online:
Dick Yuengling told the workers that he would sell the business or shut it down unless they shed their decades-long affiliation with the Teamsters.
After their meeting with Yuengling, brewery employees started a decertification drive, and opted to dump their union. According to the Teamsters, their view of the events - that Dick Yuengling threatened to take the company out of business unless his workers dumped their union - is supported
by two people who said they were at the meeting and who spoke with The Associated Press at the request of the union. They said that Dick Yuengling Jr. blasted the "guys from Philadelphia" - the Teamsters. They said he also told employees they should "read between the lines" and threatened to close the brewery. The two said they did not want to be identified because they feared retribution.
However, proving the accusations, even with two witnesses, can be difficult when so many other workers – and so many in your town – rely on Yuengling for employment:
When the union took its allegations to the Philadelphia office of the NLRB, Grace said no one would testify against Yuengling. Instead, workers told labor board investigators that Yuengling had given them a "pep talk" about the company's future "and the need for employees to work harder," according to Dorothy Moore-Duncan, an NLRB regional director.
As with many labor disputes, problems have developed in finding witnesses who are willing to come forward. Yuengling employees have to think about their families, which means living in fear of losing their $20 an hour jobs. Furthermore, the importance of Yuengling to the employment and economy of Pottsville creates pressure on people not to testify about any anti-union intimidation that may have occurred.
As much as conservatives want to claim unions are declining because of "corruption" or "irrelevance," the fact of the matter is that employer pressure, and government policies that favor employers over unions, have as much, if not more, to do with the decline of organized labor than anything else. Many major employers begin working hard to instill an anti-union message in their employees from the day they hire them. Often, employees are required to report union organizing as soon as they hear of it. And, as pointed out by a Leadership Conference on Civil Rights report on the matter, more than three-quarters of companies require employees to attend one on one anti-union seminars when workers launch an organizing effort. Some employers, such as Wal-Mart, even prefer to engage in a "pre-emptive strike," by requiring new hires to attend anti-union seminars before they even begin their first day of work. In Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich describes part of an eight-hour orientation that all future Wal-Mart employees are required to attend:
The theme of covert tensions, overcome by right thinking and positive attitude, continues in the twelve-minute video entitled You've Picked a Great Place to Work. Here, various associates testify to the "essential feeling of family for which Wal-Mart is so well known," leading up to the conclusion that we don't need a union. Once, long ago, unions had a place in American society, but they "no longer have much to offer workers, which is why people are leaving them by the droves." But, we are warned that "unions have been targeting Wal-Mart for years." Why? For the dues money of course.
Even after employees have suffered through any anti-union messages they're required to view on the job, they must then face innumerable hurtles when they decide to form a union - hurtles that range from an employer that retains disproportionate control over the livelihood of its employees, to threats, intimidation, and outright termination. Every year, 23,000 Americans are fired for trying to form a union. And, once a majority of employees have signed cards favoring unions, employers, under the guise of "democracy," can force elections on the matter, and hold the unionization process up in red tape for years, if not decades. At that point, the nature of the game simply becomes to wear the union organizers down, until they or their supporters have left. Much of this activity falls into a legal gray area. Even when it is clearly illegal, anti-union government appointees at the top, combined with inadequate fines, make it hard for the law to mean anything.
What makes conservative arguments on unions all the more hallow is the fact that, despite the active campaign against unions by employers, support for unionizing has actually increased. As noted by the Conference on Civil Rights, the percentage of non-managerial workers who favor forming a union has gone from 44% in the 1990s, to 58% today. At the same time, however, only 7.4% of private sector workers are actually unionized, as compared to 11.3% in the 90s. If conservative assertions on unions are true, why, then, has the unionization rate continued to decline, even while support for unions has measurably increased?
The truth, it seems, lies with the fact that unions are in decline because it's difficult for employees to form them. It's difficult for them to overcome the high priced anti-union consultants that employers hire, and the subtle – and not so subtle – intimidation that they face. It's difficult for even the most committed employee to put up with said intimidation for years on end, as the unionization process is drawn out. And, as the situation with D.G. Yuengling shows, it can even be difficult for a workforce to stay unionized in the face of local intimidation and community pressure. People need their jobs, which gives their employers an inordinate amount of influence over their lives. If faced with the decision between keeping their sole source of income versus fighting to keep their union, many people – especially in a small community, where they can be subject to community pressure – are going to go for the former.
The Teamsters have been trying to fight back in the Yuengling case, by urging a boycott of the brewery's products. Whether or not that boycott will be successful remains to be seen. However, according to Yuengling, the boycott has "fallen flat."
I hope the Teamsters continue to fight in this case. I will not be surprised if they're unsuccessful, as the boycott seems to have gained very little attention from the media, and, as it can be very difficult to overcome the fears that someone might have of losing their position in the world.
At the end of the day, however, I can't fault the Teamsters for trying. Make no mistake: Regardless of whether Yuengling has taken steps to decrease its standards for its workers now, they will do that, someday, if their workers continue to go without representation.
The pressures facing unions today may be seemingly insurmountable, but there is no doubt in my mind that the world was better off when more workers had the voice that unions provided them. We need to return to that world. We need to return to that world by electing better politicians. We need to return to that world by enacting sensible unionization policies, such as the Employee Free Choice Act. And, we need to return to that world by drawing a line in the sand, by saying that no worker intimidation, anywhere, anytime, is acceptable.
That line has been drawn, today, in a small town in Pennsylvania. Remember that, the next time you go out to buy beer.
Todd Says:
Sun, 06/03/2007 - 11:20pm
We showed the documentary "Battle of Local 5668" at this year's May Day event. This new documentary by tells the harrowing story of workers locked out of their jobs at Ravenswood Aluminum Plant in West Virginia. It is shameful. People are not a commodity. Bless the unions that have to remind greedy stockholders of this every hour of every day.
Great blog.

DOI’s “Use It or Lose It” report: Politics trumps common sense


March 30, 2011 | Posted by Ken Cohen
The Department of Interior’s so-called “use it or lose it” report was delivered to the White House yesterday. Rather than being an unbiased analysis of the status of oil and natural gas leases in the United States, the report sadly perpetuates the misguided charge that the oil and gas industry is not developing its existing leases.
For the record, ExxonMobil is actively producing or working 93 percent of its federal leases. Of the remaining 7 percent that are currently inactive, the majority of those leases expires this year and will be returned to the U.S. government.
Back to the report. It claims that “more than two-thirds of offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico and more than half of onshore leases on federal lands remain “idle.”
A sensational charge – until you read the fine print.  To support the claim that the leases are “idle,” the DOI defies common sense to define “inactive leases” as follows:
“Inactive leases,” or leased areas that are not producing nor currently covered by an approved exploration or development plan. These areas may be subject to certain ancillary activities such as geophysical and geotechnical analysis, including seismic and other types of surveys.
Did they just call a seismic survey – one of the most fundamental activities of finding oil and natural gas – ancillary? Meaning it’s not essential, secondary in nature, or extra activity?
Yes, they did. And that proves my point. You don’t have to be an industry expert to know that seismic surveys – along with a whole host of other activities – are among the most essential activities in oil and gas exploration, and anything but a sign of “inactivity.”
It is hard to escape the conclusion that this study, along with the “use it or lose it” legislation, is a thinly veiled political ploy – not only for the discrepancy that I just pointed out, but also because there’s already a “use it or lose it” law on the books.  Politicians who don’t want to open up access to U.S. energy resources also don’t want to be blamed for high gas prices – so trying to convince Americans that oil companies are sitting on precious oil resources is their strategy. We’ve seen this before, and we’re seeing it again now.
If you read my post on this topic on March 17, then you know this is not a rational argument. Oil companies have a financial responsibility to make investments that produce a return for shareholders. Spending millions of dollars to obtain a lease, and many millions more to study it – and then not producing it if it contains economic amounts of oil and gas supplies – would be a waste of shareholder money.
But even if we set aside the fact that “use it or lose it” is redundant and doesn’t make economic sense – we can’t ignore the fact that this report misrepresents what is considered “activity” in oil and gas exploration.
The timeline from acquiring a lease to actually producing oil or gas takes years. Just because you have a lease doesn’t mean it has oil or gas on it. And even if it does have oil and gas on it, it doesn’t mean production can start right away. Companies spend millions of dollars finding out if the resource is there, and many hundreds of millions more – and several more years – to build the infrastructure to produce it and get it to consumers IF it exists.
So what exactly do we do? Here’s just a short list of all the activities that take place on a lease before it’s producing – and many of these would be considered “inactive” by the DOI’s definition:
  • Mapping and surveys
  • Surface and subsurface geological/geophysical examinations
  • Investigations and studies (including acquisition, reprocessing, and interpretation from seismic, gravity, or magnetic surveys)
  • Obtaining and analyzing well data via trading, purchasing and/or drilling of well (including wildcat and appraisal wells)
  • Land activities such as negotiating farmouts, joint ventures, acreage trades
  • Regulatory activities such as permitting, evaluation of archaeological and biological suitability for well locations
And we do much more. But the fact is that you can’t change geology – sometimes the oil just isn’t there. The DOI claimed in the study that since March 2009, it has offered 90 million acres of offshore oil and gas leases, but that only 5 million were actually leased. That statistic says nothing about the “activity” levels of oil and gas companies – it only says that the government is not leasing land that’s worth exploring.
In fact, the U.S. government has continually prohibited access to the majority of America’s offshore acreage, as well as significant onshore acreage as well. That’s a decision that has implications for the U.S. economy and energy security. One recent study found that opening up federal lands that Congress has kept off-limits for decades could generate $1.7 trillion in government revenue over the life of the resource, create 160,000 jobs by 2030, and increase U.S. oil output by as much as 2 million barrels a day in 2030. Yet for the most part, access to U.S. resources is often denied.
Read more in my previous blog post on this subject, “Let’s lose the ‘use it or lose it’ rhetoric.” Or, take a look at the typical timeline for onshore and offshore leases, as provided in these fact sheets from the American Petroleum Institute.