President Obama muddies-up the energy mix

What else can the man do except accept defeat? He is the leader of the free world, but not even the President of the United States was able to clarify an energy policy in this country that makes rational sense.  The state of our union is collapsing all around us.  We are collapsing as nation primarily because of an energy policy that is bankrupting our current generation and robbing future generations of prosperity. 

We all ought to realize that the energy industry moguls are more powerful than the President.  Sure, clean energy is not going to save us by itself; clean energy is only one part of developing a sustainable economic policy that provides prosperity while allowing the natural environment to replenish itself and support life.  The only thing really that President Obama can do right now in terms of re-energizing the energy debate is try to draw some of the stubborn Republicans back into talks on the problem.  In that respect, SOTU was a success; in every other aspect, President Obama simply cloudied the energy issue beyond comprehension.

The overall theme of SOTU was that America needed to get a clean energy economy up and running soon in order to compete with other nations, particularly China, in the future.  His ideas were focused on developing the technology industry, of which clean energy is just one aspect.  He also touted high speed rail and increased wi-fi availability as part of his Sputnik analogy.

Obama was able to drum up some excitement through his advocacy for clean energy, but also in the same breath confused millions of Americans on the definition of what constitutes clean energy.  Obviously, the idea that he presented whereby oil industry subsidies would get cut and funneled into the clean energy industry is exciting for non-fossil fuel supporters.  This is not the first time that this idea has gotten kicked around though, but it is the first time it was thrust into the mainstream through such a high profile venue; perhaps this time they will actually do something about it.  Obama also mentioned that he wanted to see 80% of our country's energy mix coming from clean energy sources by 2035.  This is a noble aim, but once again, numbers and figures were picked that were so far out into the future and displaced from reality that conceiving the pathway there for most Americans is unrealistic.  Government policy will obviously need to shift in order to get us headed in that direction; but President Obama also clarified what he meant by clean energy sources, saying that clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear fit under the clean energy umbrella.

That had to be exciting for Republicans to hear, as well as horrendously confusing for most Americans to digest.  Obama's clarification leaves most Americans to believe that strip-mining for coal and fracking the hell out of the place is part of a clean energy economy.  They are also left with the clear impression that creating nuclear waste in the hopes of discovering some way to reuse the radioactive material other than burying it somewhere in the desert is a rational decision that we should make in order to move us toward a sustainable society.

While President Obama did go out of his way to placate Republican ideals and redefine the meaning of clean energy, there was a gaping whole in the speech, namely, the reason why we ought to undertake a Sputnik-like endeavor at this point in our history.  Of course, he gave the topical reasons for doing so, because China is doing it and if we want to be competitive and continue to do great things like China is doing we better jump the clean energy bandwagon before it leaves us behind.  But there is something missing from this line of reasoning.  Why is China doing it; why is China rushing toward a clean energy future; why is there a global market for clean energy technology that is developing momentum?

These questions were not answered by President Obama.  Most environmentalists watched SOTU waiting, hoping for some reference to the decline of natural environments across the globe, the increased frequency of natural disasters, or some explanation of where this administration stands now on climate change, knowing full well that none was coming simply because Republicans did not want to hear it.  Obama kept his promise to Republicans and did not mention any of that; he left it out; he left climate change and environmental collapse out of the description of the state of the union at this point in our country's history.  He simply told us that China was now our new enemy, and we ought to begin fighting them by competing with them to develop a better clean energy economy than them.  If we just redefine coal, natural gas, and nuclear power to be clean energy sources, then we are well on our way to winning the clean energy race against China.

President Obama focused on innovation and competitiveness as the the reason for undertaking his Sputnik project, but he left the catalyst for taking action out of the explanation.  There was a reason for the space race in the 1960s, namely, a battle of ideals with the Soviet Union in order to determine which nation was superior to the other.  China is not the Soviet Union.  China holds a significant portion of U.S. debt.  Goods made in China are the bedrock of the American economy.  Americans have not been taught to hate China the way that they were taught to despise the Russians in the Cold War. 

A clean energy race is not going to suddenly inspire coal companies to accept regulations; a competition with China is not going to get oil companies to quit lobbying against environmental safeguards; clean energy does not make natural gas frackers adhere to the Clean Water Act.  Clean energy is not better than fossil fuels, it is just cleaner.  President Obama needed to spell out reasons why we have to develop CLEAN energy.

Competing with China in a clean energy race seems like a fun game to play; it’s got cool technology, a formidable foe, and the possibility of decreasing unemployment; but why do we need to win the clean energy race in order to get those things.  Let’s just say we lose the clean energy race to China.  Clean energy technology would still end up being developed and would be significantly less expensive than if it were made here in America.  Sure, we could put people back to work in a clean energy economy, but we could also send them back to work in coal mines, fracking sites, and nuclear facilities across the country.  Why are we investing in clean energy and not furthering our fossil fuel infrastructure?  That question was not answered in any way by President Obama.

We are already severely outmatched; the Chinese government is already leaps-and-bounds ahead of the U.S. in terms of enacting policy favorable to the development of clean energy.  Perhaps what President Obama has realized is the fact that America’s best hope to develop a clean energy economy is for the business community to do it all on their own with no government support.  The best we can hope for in a match with China without a comprehensive energy policy is second place, not necessarily the kind of inspiration necessary to embark on a build-out the scale of what is needed to replace the entrenched fossil fuels industry.

What was left out of Obama's speech was the reason why China is already outpacing America exponentially in the clean energy race.  What was left out was reason why Americans should be willing to sacrifice on many levels in order to create a cleaner future than the present one powered by fossil fuels.  What was left out was the true state of our union and a connection to the climate and environmental realities that we see unfolding across the globe.

The President of the United States was afraid to use the word climate change last night because of the fear of turning off Republicans to energy reform.  He didn't use the word environment because he was afraid that the word might conjure up a reference to the EPA and their enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries.  Instead Obama told us that we needed to step up and innovate fast or risk losing the future to China.

The simple truth of the matter is that China has accepted the science of climate change unilaterally as a nation.  The government and the people of China are all fully onboard with implementing policies that try to develop cleaner methods of creating energy for transportation and electricity.  There is no debate in China over climate change; they see it as a means to power their ascendance toward becoming a world superpower.  In fact, it is the science and the reality of climate change that has inspired China to undertake the energy transformation to which America is now playing catch-up.

By leaving out the environmental degradation, species extinction, and ecosystem collapse that we are witnessing on the scale that they are happening globally, Obama's Call-to-Arms fell flat.  By trying to draw in Republicans into the energy reform dialogue by defining natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy as clean on par with solar and wind energy, Obama left those who have been (long before he took office) and still are fighting for a clean energy economy scratching their heads.  No matter how much you clean it, coal does not get clean; even though the industry denies it, groundwater sources are being contaminated by natural gas fracking chemicals; where in the hell are we going to store all of the additional radioactive waste from a nuclear build-out?  From the sounds of it, it would appear that President Obama has given up on energy reform; he simply tried to redefine the energy/climate/environment/policy nexus as a race of innovation.  These problems are much larger than our respective economies can handle on their own; these problems take cooperation to solve, not competition.

There simply was no reason President Obama gave as to why we would want to compete with China in a clean energy race.  Why clean energy?  Why not try to compete with them in making plastic crap to sell at Wal-Mart?  That would put people back to work; it might even get us to drill for more domestic oil (more jobs) so that we could make more plastic.  We could compete with China in a multitude of industries; why clean energy?

There was a connection that was missing in President Obama's speech.  The words that he was too afraid to say in front of Republicans, climate change and environment, have meanings.  They are the reason why we would embark on a clean energy race that will span decades.  We, as a nation, would be willing to make personal sacrifices in order to restore our environment and climate to stable conditions.

Americans joined in the space race with the Soviet Union because they wanted to defeat communism, we wanted to show that our society was more capable of producing greatness than theirs.  Similarly, Americans will be more willing to join in a clean energy race with China if we are doing it to stave off calamitous climate change or preserve life on Earth.  The days of proving superiority over another nation simply because they are communist died with the fall of the Soviet Union.  The spread of social media over the past decade has made competition such as Obama is describing much more personal.  The fight he is alluding to through his Sputnik challenge is one that is taken on jointly for a common cause, one we take on together in order to ensure our own survival as a species. 

Instead of taking on Republicans over the divisions separating Americans, President Obama tried to export our domestic divisions to China.  He gave up; he punted yet again.  Regardless of his numerous failures in SOTU, he did succeed in muddying the energy mix in America even further than it was.  All of the rhetoric uttered in SOTU was just that, words; no action, just words, a lot of hot air pushing our balloon further up into the air where it is carried by the wind to a land that does not resemble the place from where it was launched.  SOTU was a good cheerleading exercise.  Boehner looked happy, and why not; he and his party’s efforts have paid off.  Where the Obama Administration stands on the energy debate is now as unclear as where they stand on climate change and the environment.

Read more @ EarthPulseDaily or Examiner.com

RELATED ARTICLES:
Obama's SOTU: Centrism or Cleverly-Disguised Battle Calls?; ATLANTIC
Climate change: Barack Obama less interested than Bush, analysis reveals; GUARDIAN
Politics: The State of the Union Is All About Energy—Not Climate; TIME
Clean energy won’t save the world!; OURFINITEWORLD
Obama’s State of the Union energy proposals are ... thrilling? bipartisan? misleading?; GRIST
Obama Swaps Cap-and-Trade for a Clean-Energy Goal; TECHNOLOGYREVIEW
Obama's Clean Energy Standard: How Clean Is It?; HUFFPOST
The Top 10 Things to Do to Compete with China; SCIENCEPROGRESS