• Comment (6)

Obama Ignores Green Jobs in Speech

September 9, 2011 RSS Feed Print

In his State of the Union address in January—his last high-profile joint session address to Congress—President Obama mentioned the word "energy" nine different times. In last night's jobs speech, also before both congressional chambers, the word didn't leave his mouth. That begs the question: Is Obama done with his green jobs push? And also, what's the president losing by not focusing on the energy sector at all?

According to ClimateWire, rather than pushing his green agenda aside completely, Obama might just want to tackle one political hurdle at a time, and jobs is the obstacle du jour. The contentious issue of energy, with strong advocates on both Team Drill, Baby, Drill and Team Save the Planet, would have added even more barriers to a jobs plan that already seems like a tough sell in Congress.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on gas prices.]

Asked if Obama should have included clean energy, Democratic Sen. John Kerry agreed with this theory. "No, I think the president did the things he feels the Congress can pass," he said, according to ClimateWire. "And he's looking to get things on the table that don't really create traditional, gridlocked ideological struggle."

[Read: Obama's Green Jobs Agenda Already Proven to Be Ineffective.]

Also, by not even touching energy in his speech—apart from a dig at tax loopholes for oil companies—he seemed to do enough to win at least mild approval from environmentalists on the left. After all, doing nothing about energy is a stark contrast with Republicans, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose jobs plans push for less environmental regulations and greater expediency for oil and gas drilling and coal production. "President Obama has presented a real plan to get Americans back to work—unlike Republican leaders in Congress whose so-called jobs agenda would destroy our environmental and health safeguards," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement. "The next step is to build on the president's plans by fully embracing clean energy jobs."

[See a slideshow of 10 wasteful stimulus projects.]

Not to mention, there's that whole ordeal over the solar company Solyndra, whose recent bankruptcy after receiving federal loan guarantees through the Recovery Act has stuck a wrench in any future argument for clean energy stimulus.

But, there's a chance that Obama's apparent political concerns might cost him, or at the very least, it could cost America jobs. Republicans and industry advocates have consistently spouted the jobs potential in the energy sector, on which the president might be missing out. "The president missed an opportunity to pick the low-hanging fruit of job creation," said American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard in a statement. "Allowing the responsible development of more of America's vast domestic oil and natural gas resources could generate more than one million new jobs in just seven years, with thousands of shovel-ready jobs that could be created almost immediately."

Tags:
employment,
energy,
energy policy and climate change,
economic stimulus

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Why impose thousands of clumsy and circumlocutory regulations like smog regs, greenhouse gas regs and CAFÉ standards on businesses to control carbon emissions or fuel efficiency when a single, simple-to-calculate, simple-to-administer, revenue-generating carbon tax can get the job done?

The best mechanism to control smog, greenhouse gases and to increase efficiency is a simple, single-rate CARBON TAX. But the climate change crowd has bungled the sales job.

These rhetorical questions are the key to enacting a material carbon tax in the USA:

1) If the solution to too much CO2 in the air is to use less fossil fuels, why is NOT the solution to too much federal debt to use less government?

2) If the optimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (current=389 ppm) because that is the maximum concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere under which life as we know it can continue, why is 18% of GDP (current =25% GDP) NOT the optimal size of the federal government since that is the size that most likely yields maximum economic growth?

Think about it. Progressives and Conservatives are actually making the same apocalyptic argument albeit on different issues. They both make good arguments for action. But the public is yawningly uninterested in AGW and unwilling to make the hard choices on America’s fiscal problems. Buying off the opposition is the American way so why not use the system we have to get the outcome you want. And that’s what Let’s Make A Deal—The Plan is all about: getting the outcome you want.

It’s time for progressives concerned about rising temperatures and conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns-there is no other way. This means trading, among other things, a carbon tax for a balanced budget amendment and a more limited government. This plan is outlined at http://letsmakeadeal-thebook.com

LMAD BUYS OFF Liberals with much more than just a $600 billion carbon tax. It also adds fully-funded Healthcare for every American, a public option health insurance entity, and the implementation of tax schemes frequently advocated by Liberals such as a “sugar” tax and a value-added tax. The LMAD plan even grants overnight amnesty of 10 million illegal aliens.

LMAD buys off Conservatives with much more than a balanced budget and limited government ; it permanently ends future illegal immigration, adds tort reform and completely replaces all taxes on production, labor, saving and investment with the new carbon tax, the value-added tax and the sugar tax. The LMAD plan even removes the burden of healthcare expenses from corporate balance sheets by ending our reliance on employer-provided health insurance.

Wahla! Energy efficiency, green jobs, cleaner air WITHOUT costly government regs or Obama-instituted crony capitalism

Plan Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com

Or just Google "LMADster" for more info.

LMADster of GA 4:21PM September 16, 2011

White House do not attention unemployment.

White House do not attention energy,knowledge,peoples.

----------

About:My theory I am can be responsible.

Seek published condition.

1, Have evidence to overthrow the Big Bang theory.

2,New theory of tides.

3,Wave power technology.

4,Tides power technology.

5,Pendulum time automatic adjust structure.

6,Wind power Inverter excellent system.

Hydropower technology is my invention.

If do not require ,please reply:do not require.

----------

White House do not reply.

This is peoples's energy in 50%.

I am can prosecute He,I am for to U.S. peoples.

taishan 5:03AM September 13, 2011

My wind power excellent system,is peoples's energy in 50%.must attention.

Wan Zhong Li 11:28PM September 12, 2011

On Energy

Perspectives from all sides of the burning energy issues of the day. Follow it on Twitter @USNewsOnEnergy

advertisement

Economic Intelligence

The Inequality Conundrum

Voters see inequality as a big problem, but they don’t want government to do much about it.

Latest Videos

advertisement