I disagree with T. Boone Pickens’s assessment of President Obama’s energy policy. I don’t think it’s “Kill the Pipelines”:
News that acclaimed American author Harper Lee has a follow-up book to “To Kill a Mockingbird†triggered an energy-focused parallel thought in my mind as it relates to President Obama. His views on the Trans-Alaska pipeline and the Keystone pipeline are nothing more than: “To Kill the Pipelines.â€
Should the president make this view a reality, America’s energy security will be dangerously undermined, and the prospects of a prolonged downturn in gasoline prices that benefit consumers to the tune of $720 per year will be in serious jeopardy.
I think it’s actually simpler than that. I think that either a) he believes that producing less energy would be good for America and the world or b) he thinks that solar, wind, etc. can replace coal, oil, and gas for energy production and that would be good for America and the world.
I think that either of those are obviously ill-conceived. More and cheaper energy makes all sorts of things possible that would not otherwise be possible and in an economy in which growth is either slow or declining that’s vital. And if the president believes b) he’s been misinformed. The only present viable alternative to coal, oil, and gas is nuclear.
What about option (c): that it has nothing to do with Obama’s beliefs but simply his personal political interests which lie in support for alternative energy production industries? Not much else about Obama has proven to be about any other principle besides self interest so I don’t see any reason to assume that his energy policy would be different.
d) We already have an energy boom. His supporters are against Keystone, which mostly helps Canada anyway, There is no urgency on Keystone for him. The oil is getting out by train anyway. What Pickens, and all of the XL advocates fail to note, is that the industry has been canceling plans for pipelines that do not need federal approval.
http://bakkenshale.com/pipeline-midstream-news/koch-cancels-proposed-bakken-pipeline-dakota-express-pipeline/
Crude oil pipelines have increased by 15% since 2009, so it is clearly not an attempt to kill all pipelines.
http://www.aopl.org/pipeline-basics/about-pipelines/
Being ever the optimist, I observe that at least he’s e) not Naomi Klein – noted deep thinker.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/11/fossil-fuels-divestment-activist-plans-to-seize-the-assets-of-energy-companies/
I suppose it’s too much to ask, though, that the power plants of the Ivy’s all be converted to wind power and all those students – and Ms Wolf – take their chances during these winter blizzards with their LL Bean parkas and wool socks under their Birckenstocks during lectures. Now THAT’s entertainment.
I’ll go with (c) also. Unless someone can explain how building an intra-state pipeline across the U.S. is relevantly different from building an interstate pipeline from Canada, it’s clearly a sop to the environmentalists.
I would interpret Steve’s (d) as Obama believes energy should require a planned economy. Pickens and Obama should have dinner.
It is relevantly different in that US companies have cancelled their plans to build pipelines from the same area. They, apparently, don’t see them as necessary or financially feasible. Canada does see it as necessary. I would go look to see if the Canadian government is subsidizing XL.