WASHINGTON, DC, February 25, 2009 (ENS) – In his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, President Barack Obama earned repeated standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans. He focused on three issues – clean energy, health care and education – and an overarching fourth issue – economic recovery.

“The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank,” said the President. “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”

President Barack Obama addresses his first joint session of Congress. Behind him are Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. (Photo courtesy The White House)

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely,” he said, “to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down.”

Obama expressed his gratitude to the members of Congress who passed the $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which he signed into law on February 17.

“Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs,” Obama reiterated. “More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.”

Those who receive funds from the recovery stimulus package must account for their expenditures, said Obama, adding, “This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.”

Obama met with groups of governors and mayors during the past week and told them that they will be held accountable “for every dollar they spend.”

Vice President Joe Biden, left, and President Barack Obama meet with the nation’s governors at the White House. February 23, 2009. (Photo by Pete Souza courtesy The White House)

He has asked Vice President Joe Biden to lead a “tough, unprecedented oversight effort,” because, he told Congress, “Nobody messes with Joe.”

In addition, as chairman of the new Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board, the President has appointed Earl Devaney, who has served as Inspector General of the Department of the Interior since 1999. In that position, he exposed the Abramoff scandals and a culture of corruption among Bush officials and appointees.

“I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud,” said Obama. “And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.”

President Obama said he will send his first budget to Congress next week.

“Even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education,” he said. “It begins with energy.”

“We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient,” the President said. “We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.”

“Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either,” Obama declared. “It is time for America to lead again.”

Dedicated in May 2008, Iberdrola’s Dillon wind farm in Palm Springs generates power for Southern California Edison customers. (Photo by Iberdrola Renewables courtesy NREL)

“Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years,” he said. “We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history – an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology,” he said, referring to the $3 billion in the stimulus bill for the National Science Foundation.

“We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills,” Obama said.

“But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” he said.

“So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America,” said President Obama.

With Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate, the President is likely to get the kind of climate change legislation he asked for.

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said after the joint session, “President Obama has it exactly right: we must ‘transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change.’ To accomplish those goals, the President has called on us to send him legislation that establishes a market-based cap on carbon emissions. We will work in partnership with the President, and we will answer his call.”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (Photo courtesy Republican National Committee)

The Republican response to the President’s speech came from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who criticized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending,” he said. “It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring.’ Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.”

“To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down,” Jindal said. “All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump – and unless we act now, those prices will return.

“To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation…increase energy efficiency…increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels…increase our use of nuclear power – and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home,” said Jindal, who governs a state with a current budget surplus due to royalties from oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.

Jindal has announced that he will decline stimulus money targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first governor to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

Many environmentalists were pleased with the President’s speech. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “In this speech, President Obama presented a bold, ambitious vision to restore America’s economy and move us to a new clean energy future driven by a cap on carbon pollution.

“For the first time in history, a sitting U.S. president called on Congress to pass legislation to limit carbon pollution that will build a sustainable economic recovery by repowering America with clean energy. Investments from a carbon cap can cut our dependence on oil, make us more energy efficient and produce jobs at home,” Beinecke said.

“This represents a new era in America’s approach to energy that will break our reliance on dirty fossil fuels and push us to develop new technologies,” she said. “This is the leadership America needs to transform our energy system, protect our planet and meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

The problem with historic moments such as this is that they are so awe-inspiring, so humbling, that it’s easy to be confused by the jubilation that should come with such events. Any outburst of elation or feelings of personal satisfaction that the contest went your side’s way feel almost out of place. Showboating in the end zone or hanging on the rim after a gorilla slam dunk is fine for pro sports, but choosing our leaders, whose decisions will touch all of our lives, should be a more solemn process. Shouldn’t it? In his concession speech last night, John McCain was gracious in defeat, finally displaying a sense of honor and unity that would have served his campaign well. In Chicago’s Grant Park, a sober-faced President-elect Obama was magnanimous in victory and sought to downplay the divisions between Democrats and Republicans. He acknowledged that we need each other and called for all Americans to abandon the petty partisanship that keeps us from unifying behind a common purpose.

He’s right, of course. Now is not the time to gloat over exit polls and popular vote numbers. Focusing on Republican losses in down-ticket contests would be unseemly. Pointing out how badly some people got this election wrong and itotally bet on the wrong horse? Right out. It would be immature to let out a Ric Flair “WOOOOOOOOO!!!!” while moonwalking over a room-sized electoral map.

And yet………

……oh, #@&% it, who am I kidding?

Barack Obama smoked John McCain like a Marlboro Red. Speaking of which; Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada all went from red to blue, and we may see North Carolina go as well. As good as Obama ran his campaign, McCain ran his into the ground. Sarah Palin, while far from the only thing that cost McCain the election, was the clincher for many people. Independents and moderates, for example, favored Obama over McCain. Obama won among men, women, and people under 65. He won Hispanic voters, Asian voters, African-American voters (in record numbers) and did better with white voters than any Democrat in 30 years. More people voted for Obama than any candidate in history, beating out George W. Bush’s 2004 performance by a million or so. Was there voter suppression? Probably, but here’s the thing about getting record turnout in an election – if it’s not close, they can’t steal it. And it wasn’t close. Democrats increased their margins in both houses of congress. Kicking Liddy Dole out of the Senate and making Joe Lieberman completely irrelevant was just icing on the cake.

Hey Karl, how’s that “permanent Republican majority” workin’ out for ya’? Maybe not so good? Maybe you got that one wrong? Maybe you and W and Cheney and McCain and Palin and the rest of your self-marginalized party should’ve thought about the long term effects of not just your election tactics, but your governing policies too. Maybe 50%+1 isn’t such a good idea after all. Welcome to irrelevancy, population: You.

There. I feel better now that I’ve gotten that out of my system. Now we can move on towards unifying this country and…..

….hang on, one more…

……bring an end to this partisan bickering. For the good of America.

– Michael Turner

As is sadly the case in politics, philosophy and generally any intellectual sphere of human activity, there is a tendency to think of things in extremes. Today we are considering the two widely divergent positions of Democrats and Republicans when it comes to what to do about the high price of oil. Are these extreme positions really considering basic proven facts about oil in America?

Can this rig survive a direct hit from a
hurricane?

Some politicians (typically Democrats) think there should be no oil drilling in currently protected areas. Democrats take this position because they a) feel that the additional oil supply will not affect its price, b) the ecosystems in this area of the world are too crucial and endangered to allow corporate access, and c) investing in alternative energy technologies holds greater potential for shifting America away from a dependence on foreign oil importation.

Other politicians (mostly Republicans) believe that all the protected areas should be opened up for oil prospectors. Republicans argue that oil drilling is needed because a) new oil rigs equal more jobs and a positive economic impact, b) technology advances in mining and resource extraction have improved environmental safety standards to the point where environmental damage is unlikely at best, and c) new domestic oil resources would lower the price of gas.

The positions above have basically been in place for the last thirty years, but the debate during that time has not been as ferocious as it has been in recent months. Why the sudden public spotlight? The answer probably lies in the fact that gasoline prices are exorbitant in an election year. Since the debate about how to lower these prices currently focuses on creating more domestically produced energy (specifically oil) in America, one must consider where to find all the raw materials for this fuel industry.

Drilling In Frozen Alaskan Land

If all of these supposed “oil reserves” exist and are ready to be drilled, and their exploitation can benefit Americans by lowering the price of fuel, then why weren’t oil companies getting to this oil 10 or 20 years ago? The answer is in the relatively small amount of oil and the difficulty and expense in extracting it. Recent statistics indicate that approximately 3% of the world’s oil reserves can be found in American territories. This number includes some areas that are already being drilled now. The remaining reserves in the continental shelf, in Alaska, and in oil shale [en.wikipedia.org], are all locations that require a more expensive process of extraction. Sucking oil out of shale is expensive. Drilling through frozen earth in inhospitable arctic environments is expensive. Maintaining oil drilling platforms in the ocean is expensive when you consider the costs of environmental safety standards and insurance (you may remember the Exxon Valdez accident, but what about the Piper Alpha oil rig[/rl]? Or the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kielland_(Platform)]Alexander Kielland [news.bbc.co.uk]?).

These reserves were not profitable to extract when oil was priced at $40-$60 per barrel. The profit potential only exists now because the price of oil is so high. If the price of oil dropped again to historical levels (and it is dropping at the time of this writing), drilling the three aforementioned sources of oil would become progressively less profitable.

Some spots where oil companies could suck oil out of porous rock

Therefore, why would these for-profit businesses push so hard to drill these resources if they believed doing so would lower the price of oil? Are we to believe that oil companies would sabotage their profits simply out of charity? It’s possible that the oil companies know that drilling these resources will not affect the price of oil much (as stated in the official report from the Department of Energy), and that they will continue to be profitable given rising world demand. It is important to seek a solution for the high energy prices in America, because the prices do squeeze people out of their livelihoods and force other people to choose between housing and food. Nonetheless, the current tragedy of high oil prices would only become more pronounced if Americans sacrificed delicate protected habitats for a solution which does not end up lowering the price of oil enough to make a real economic difference.

Thanks for coming to THE GREEN Blog and we hope that you discuss the ideas presented in this post or add your own revisions. If you want to check out another post about an alternative to gas guzzling cars, check out the DIY Green: Electric Vehicles Post [www.sundancechannel.com].

Energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies seem to take center stage quite often in Washington, yet nothing substantial ever seems to happen. Senate Democrats proposed a package of energy bills but were consistently opposed by most Senate Republicans.

The first provision proposed to force electric utilities to generate 15% of their power from wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources by 2020. A valid problem to this provision was raised by senators from the Southeast who noted that their states do not have renewable resources to meet the standard.

Another interesting provision involves a a $14 billion tax package that will increase subsidies and incentives for renewable energy businesses. The idea is to pay for this package by cutting out the oil industry tax breaks. Naturally the oil industry dislikes this suggestion and has suggested in the past that this would only result in them having to raise gas prices throughout the country to compensate. This scenario would be tough for many people and many businesses that rely on transportation and shipping. Even though the transition might be challenging, there would be a sunny side waiting for the whole country at the end of the tunnel. Ultimately, the high price of using fossil fuels would mean an increased demand for alternative products like the electric, hydrogen and hybrid cars. This would spur businesses, both new and older existing fossil fuel automakers to create and market new lines of vehicles to meet this “renewable demand”. Also, the cats out in Washington need to realize that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, a fact I am sure most people reading this can appreciate.

Another notable provision brought up was fuel economy, which proposed raiding standards for cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. This provision is still uncertain in a storm of partisan debate between Democrats and Republicans, so who knows what will happen. In thinking about this issue, at first it seems great to say that fuel economy will be improved by 2020, but a little voice seems to keep whispering, “Isn’t this business as usual and just another way to stall for more time. It seems more helpful to set smaller and more short term goals for the auto industry rather than putting the question off for 13 years. How about increasing the fuel economy by 2 mpg every year?

Another interesting article out there in the net can be found on Grist, where Kerry has been reported to be blogging [gristmill.grist.org] on the energy debate going on in Washington.